dinsdalep13 wrote:If woot does review the blog posts, perhaps they see nothing wrong with a little free speech here and there, especially when introduced through an entertaining and humorous blog. Just because one employee has the opinion that stoners should argue their case better doesn't mean the whole company condones getting high. What about the people that don't have the chance to review blog posts, and don't agree with what's being said? Or should every woot employee have to review a blog post before it's allowed to go live?

How would you have felt if this blog post had been about politicians, and their ability to obfuscate the simplest of points? Would you stand up and say "I'm now going to boycott woot because I disagree?" What if it'd been about Dr. Seuss, and they don't like his rhyming nonsense, and you do? Would that have made you stop buying from woot? Here's another example which might hit close to home for you...What if the post had been about their dislike of grammar Need more history channel.'s, and them berating and insulting people on forums. Would that make you rage quit woot as well?

I didn't mean for that post to end up so long, I'm just trying to understand what makes you tick.

I am curious if they posted something about kiddie "p0rn" would you stop? How far does it have to go for you?

How about they laughed and made jokes about "r@pe". Is that funny?

Also I am not angry at all. I am standing up for what I think is right. Just because I do not condone or agree with something does not mean I am "RAGE" quitting. There is right and wrong in this world. Its about time people start standing for what is good. You want to glorify drugs so be it, I will not.

crowsnest wrote:I read no threats, all that was said is that if YOU would like they would remove your account for you. Doesnt sound like a threat to me. I'm never buying anything from W00T again, now that sounds like a threat.

No that is a promise.

avoidthelloyd wrote:Straw man argument. This blog isn't taking a stance either way on marijuana legalization, and no one is saying "pot will make the world a better place." Advocates are arguing that they should have the right to decide if they want to use it, just like we trust adults to do with alcohol today.

Maybe you don't realize this, but the "crime" part goes away when it's legalized. Marijuana is not habit-forming. Yes it can be abused, just like alcohol or the fat and sugar you Americans love so much. So can paint; should that be illegal too just because some enterprising loser somewhere will find a way to abuse it?

So how do you know the intent of the author?

Let me repeat myself, I didn't promise I was not coming back to the blog to comment. I promised I do not plan to buy anything from Woot!

Just because it was legal does not make it right. Can you show me some proof of that claim or is that something you heard? I would love to know where you received this information.

Not a straw man attack according to how I perceive the problem.

The crime part never goes away. Geez look at alcohol and the crimes associated with it.

bluemonq wrote:To start off, I don't smoke pot, it smells like cheap, terrible Chinese incense that I had to use whenever I went to temple as a kid. As far as I'm concerned though, as long as you aren't smoking it next to my laundry or in my car, I don't really care.

I believe the actual issue was what you specifically found to be objectively immoral. Is it smoking pot? How do you feel about people who smoke tobacco? People who drink? If you are against all of them, thank you for being consistent. If you support one but not the other, please explain why.

I fail to see how Woot is promoting something illegal. Does it say "go have a joint!" somewhere in the post, perhaps secretly encoded and can read only with a secret decoder ring, which was sold in a sale I missed? Does the author advocate overthrowing the government so that all may toke freely? Does the author provide code phrases such that dispensaries will toss free bags of marijuana at your face?

As for your objective morality and your outside force or greater power, the Bible was once used to PROVE that all good Christians had the DUTY to bring the poor heathen Africans out of their ignorance and poverty to become slaves for said good Christians. So how do you know YOUR outside force is objectively correct?

Which scripture verse is that? It tells people to go to Africa and take slaves for good Christians? Never read that before but I would love to see it.

WesPorter wrote:It is a blog post on their only storefront to ALL customers. If you don't think this was reviewed by their marketing department or approved by someone in management then shame on woot!

But we know what you expressed is not correct this was not done by a lone ranger.

You are making so many assumptions, not just about what Woot! thinks, but everyone who has posted an opinion.

"If you don't think this was reviewed" then "shame on Woot!" Why would what I think Woot! did or didn't do reflect as shame on Woot!?

"We know what you expressed is not correct." Who is "we"? And where is your proof? Could you be mistaking your own opinion as an "obvious fact"?

This has been said before, but I'll go ahead and repeat it. Woot!'s blogs are meant to be humorous. Whether you find them to be is up to you. And if you vehemently disagree with drug use, then go ahead and express that. But if you expect people to hear you out, it helps a lot if you listen objectively.

Absconder wrote:You are making so many assumptions, not just about what Woot! thinks, but everyone who has posted an opinion.

"If you don't think this was reviewed" then "shame on Woot!" Why would what I think Woot! did or didn't do reflect as shame on Woot!?

"We know what you expressed is not correct." Who is "we"? And where is your proof? Could you be mistaking your own opinion as an "obvious fact"?

This has been said before, but I'll go ahead and repeat it. Woot!'s blogs are meant to be humorous. Whether you find them to be is up to you. And if you vehemently disagree with drug use, then go ahead and express that. But if you expect people to hear you out, it helps a lot if you listen objectively.

Could you be mistaken on your assumptions about what I have written and my opinions?

WesPorter wrote:Could you be mistaken on your assumptions about what I have written and my opinions?

opinions are like Zaphod Beeblebroxs, everyone has one and they all stink!

crowsnest wrote:opinions are like Zaphod Beeblebroxs, everyone has one and they all stink!

I would agree with "YOUR" opinion. Funny.

Please stop feeding the WesPorter troll.

WesPorter wrote:I am curious if they posted something about kiddie "p0rn" would you stop? How far does it have to go for you?

Depends on what they posted. It'd have to be pretty bad to make me hate the company so much I'd stop buying from them. Especially after following them for years.

WesPorter wrote:
How about they laughed and made jokes about "r@pe". Is that funny?

There are some pretty funny "r@pe" jokes...

WesPorter wrote:
Also I am not angry at all. I am standing up for what I think is right. Just because I do not condone or agree with something does not mean I am "RAGE" quitting. There is right and wrong in this world. Its about time people start standing for what is good.

Given the way you've been posting, it sure seems like you've rage quit buying items from woot. Does this mean you'll keep buying, you just wanted to give the image that you wouldn't buy any more?

WesPorter wrote:You want to glorify drugs so be it, I will not.

You assume I want to glorify drugs, in this case marijuana. You assume wrong. Do you not condone Tylenol, since it's a drug? What about aspirin? Epinephrine? How far are you going to go to get away from drugs? Have you cut out your adrenal glands yet? If not, you should. Say no to drugs, man.

WesPorter wrote:I would love to know all the great things that have come out the drinking of alcohol or pot use verses the detriment of society. Crime, addiction, abuse, etc...

Generally, just about all entertainment can thank mind-alterting substances. Drugs help many people get in touch with their creative side. There are likely very few musicians who did not themselves consume drugs, work with people who consumed drugs, or were inspired by the work of people who consumed drugs.

People use drugs and alcohol to relax. Could they do without? Sure, but if they can use these substances responsibly, why shouldn't they? It increases their quality of life in their opinion without affecting anyone else. Why should they be stopped? I fail to understand any kind of moral argument that supports prohibition for everyone based on the bad actions of a few.

Most of the crime happens because these substances are illegal. Being illegal makes their use more difficult, everything has to be done in secret, it is much more risky, and that drives the price up. With the price higher, more people that want it can't afford it and resort to crime to get it. Once they are in the system, it is much harder to be a productive member of society with a criminal record, often creating career criminals. Legalizing this takes away almost all of it. Again, the easy real-world example is American alcohol prohibition.

Don't get me wrong. You shouldn't be able to drive high. A company is completely within their rights to test you to make sure you're not high at work. I'm even okay with taxing it and making it not for sale to minors.

I don't personally drink or smoke (anything), most but not all of my friends drink, and a few smoke, but we're all in agreement on marijuana legalization. I really am interested in understanding your view, as it seems foreign to me and I have no similar point of reference.

WesPorter wrote:
Second, the simple reason is I rather choose what is right than what is wrong. There is objective morality in this world and I choose to follow it.

Just because you think it is okay does not make it okay. Just because the masses think it is okay does not make it right. Am I in the minority? Probably, but then again the way I live my life is in the minority.

Wes

Look, this all started because you claim to follow "Objective Morality".
You still have yet to explain to us unwashed masses what this means.
I, for one, sincerely want to understand what this philosophical position of yours is all about, including why it makes you superior to us morally questionable folks.

WesPorter wrote:Could you be mistaken on your assumptions about what I have written and my opinions?

I gave examples of why I believe you made assumptions. All you did was repeat my accusation to you in the form of a question to me. Pretty weak, really. Your ears are still closed.

WesPorter wrote:I am curious if they posted something about kiddie "p0rn" would you stop? How far does it have to go for you?

How about they laughed and made jokes about "r@pe". Is that funny?

Also I am not angry at all. I am standing up for what I think is right. Just because I do not condone or agree with something does not mean I am "RAGE" quitting. There is right and wrong in this world. Its about time people start standing for what is good. You want to glorify drugs so be it, I will not.

Hahaha! I missed this one earlier. So, in your opinion, making jokes about stoners being incapable of legalizing pot because they aren't taken seriously is leading up to or comparable to kiddie "pr0n" and "r@pe" jokes? Or do you mean that in your black and white world, those three subjects are equally unacceptable?

And your argument about "there's right and wrong in this world"... Right and wrong are subjective. Stand up for what is in your opinion "good", but you'd probably get further if you had a more humble manner.

WesPorter wrote:Which scripture verse is that? It tells people to go to Africa and take slaves for good Christians? Never read that before but I would love to see it.

Here's another example of you avoiding direct questions that you support your accusations that Woot! is promoting drug use.

He didn't say there was a scripture in the Bible that explicitly said that. He said the Bible was used to prove that Christians had the obligation to do it. He was stating an example of how people can prove their less than objective opinions. Their logic was flawed, but at least they were able to convince people in their day. So far you're not doing that.

Wanna know how to silence a troll? Ignore it.

DennisG2010 wrote:Look, this all started because you claim to follow "Objective Morality".
You still have yet to explain to us unwashed masses what this means.
I, for one, sincerely want to understand what this philosophical position of yours is all about, including why it makes you superior to us morally questionable folks.

Objective morality is simple. It states that there is something outside of us that determines what is right and wrong.

For example torturing and r@ping young babies is wrong. There is never a time when this is right. R@pe is wrong, there is never a time when it is okay to r@pe someone.

If you take your paycheck to the bank and it says $5,000 dollars on it and the bank says I don't agree we will give you $4,000 because that is our truth then it is wrong.

If someone goes to Africa and captures a human being and forces them to be a slave that is wrong.

We call this objective morality. But where do these truths come from? If there is objective morality than there must be a moral law giver.

However, if morality is subjective meaning society, culture, people make up what is right and wrong then all of the above are fine because it is based on personal preferences or cultural preferences. Morality is based on the subjects opinions it may or may not be right for that individual.

I hope this helps. So with that being said these are not the rules I make up, this is not my morality it is given outside of what I think is right or wrong. It is not me who makes the rules. I am not the one who says what is right and wrong but the one who created you gets that privilege.

Why do you think people want to smoke pot, why do you think people lie, why do people have adulterous affairs, why do people murder, why do people do bad things?

By the way I do not think I am superior to anyone it is really the very opposite. I realize I am a very bad person when I hold myself up to the Moral Law givers standards. I have broken every single one of them too many times to count. I am in serious trouble. All I have to do is look at one aspect of my life, how many lies have I told? I have broken them all. Man I need someone to save me.

Absconder wrote:Here's another example of you avoiding direct questions that you support your accusations that Woot! is promoting drug use.

He didn't say there was a scripture in the Bible that explicitly said that. He said the Bible was used to prove that Christians had the obligation to do it. He was stating an example of how people can prove their less than objective opinions. Their logic was flawed, but at least they were able to convince people in their day. So far you're not doing that.

Again, he said the bible was used to justify that behavior. I asked show me. He made a claim I am asking show me.

Here is my evidence so let me show you.

Here is the title

Want to Legalize It? Then Stop Trying So Hard to Legalize It.

Help me understand what that means.

Then in the second paragraph with the crossed out words the author is trying to be smart by writing one thing and implying he does smoke pot.

I would say the whole article "pretends" not to take sides but we know full well that they are unless you just want to deny the simple facts.

Seriously just come out and say you have no problem with the article promoting pot. I would have more respect then trying to hide behind the foolery.

Absconder wrote:Hahaha! I missed this one earlier. So, in your opinion, making jokes about stoners being incapable of legalizing pot because they aren't taken seriously is leading up to or comparable to kiddie "pr0n" and "r@pe" jokes? Or do you mean that in your black and white world, those three subjects are equally unacceptable?

And your argument about "there's right and wrong in this world"... Right and wrong are subjective. Stand up for what is in your opinion "good", but you'd probably get further if you had a more humble manner.

My apologies if I do not come across humble.

icrf wrote:Generally, just about all entertainment can thank mind-alterting substances. Drugs help many people get in touch with their creative side. There are likely very few musicians who did not themselves consume drugs, work with people who consumed drugs, or were inspired by the work of people who consumed drugs.

People use drugs and alcohol to relax. Could they do without? Sure, but if they can use these substances responsibly, why shouldn't they? It increases their quality of life in their opinion without affecting anyone else. Why should they be stopped? I fail to understand any kind of moral argument that supports prohibition for everyone based on the bad actions of a few.

Most of the crime happens because these substances are illegal. Being illegal makes their use more difficult, everything has to be done in secret, it is much more risky, and that drives the price up. With the price higher, more people that want it can't afford it and resort to crime to get it. Once they are in the system, it is much harder to be a productive member of society with a criminal record, often creating career criminals. Legalizing this takes away almost all of it. Again, the easy real-world example is American alcohol prohibition.

Don't get me wrong. You shouldn't be able to drive high. A company is completely within their rights to test you to make sure you're not high at work. I'm even okay with taxing it and making it not for sale to minors.

I don't personally drink or smoke (anything), most but not all of my friends drink, and a few smoke, but we're all in agreement on marijuana legalization. I really am interested in understanding your view, as it seems foreign to me and I have no similar point of reference.

I don't want to sound discouraging but that is about the lamest attempt to explain all the good things abused substances have done for society.

But lets say you are right. That one benefit does not outweigh all the destruction illegal substances and alcohol have caused people.

How about this amazing concept. What if no one did drugs can you imagine how crime would drop, how much less spousal abuse there would be, how many kids might not be neglected by their parents, how many less robberies?

Funny how we hold the lowest of human standards. Instead of what doing what is right we decide to shoot for the bottom of the barrel. We are pathetic.

WesPorter wrote:I don't want to sound discouraging but that is about the lamest attempt to explain all the good things abused substances have done for society.

But lets say you are right. That one benefit does not outweigh all the destruction illegal substances and alcohol have caused people.

How about this amazing concept. What if no one did drugs can you imagine how crime would drop, how much less spousal abuse there would be, how many kids might not be neglected by their parents, how many less robberies?

Funny how we hold the lowest of human standards. Instead of what doing what is right we decide to shoot for the bottom of the barrel. We are pathetic.

Ok... I've read this entire thread. Wes... you are one of the most SUBJECTIVELY Moral people I have ever found on the internets.

You even explained in your definition how subjective morality is the application of good and bad labels based on cultural or societal influences... So you are laying down your subjective morals from your 'Moral Law Giver.'

What I think is pathetic is the presumption that we need to influence each others' lives with our own views. I know you didn't technically start this little flame war beyond posting a blatantly juicy piece of flame bait in the FIRST position of the blog's comments, but you certainly deserved it the minute you took to your holy podium of 'Objective Morality.' It's almost "lol"-worthy to assume morality could ever be objective. Practices, taboos and morals will always ebb and flow with the rise and fall of each civilization and its technologies.

WesPorter wrote:I don't want to sound discouraging but that is about the lamest attempt to explain all the good things abused substances have done for society.

But lets say you are right. That one benefit does not outweigh all the destruction illegal substances and alcohol have caused people.

How about this amazing concept. What if no one did drugs can you imagine how crime would drop, how much less spousal abuse there would be, how many kids might not be neglected by their parents, how many less robberies?

Funny how we hold the lowest of human standards. Instead of what doing what is right we decide to shoot for the bottom of the barrel. We are pathetic.

Are you a member of the Westboro Baptist Chruch?

I'm pretty impressed with the way Wes has been able to avoid mentioning GOD or HIS WORD, when it's what he's been talking about this whole time.

I wonder why. I guess he's smart enough to know that invoking an imaginary, mythical overlord would hurt his credibility.

Wes - here's how I see it. There is both objective and subjective morality.

Some things are black & white - clearly right or wrong. Others are more of a gray area and open to debate.

One problem I have with your stance is that you seem to believe that, when it comes to intoxicating substances, use = abuse.

It is possible to use these substances responsibly and suffer no ill effects.
To say that because they cause some people to do harm to themselves and others, then it's wrong for anyone to use them is misguided.
After all, one could say that many, many people over the centuries have abused the bible to do harm to others, and therefore to advocate it's use is objectively wrong.
In fact, this is where I stand - but I realize that this is my subjective opinion.

You said, "It is not me who makes the rules. I am not the one who says what is right and wrong but the one who created you gets that privilege."

I have to agree with you there. My parents, who created me, did a great job of teaching me how to figure out for myself what is right and wrong.

One of the things I've come to learn in recent years is that religion is wrong, and in fact immoral. (Sorry to generalize, I'm sure there are exceptions - I suppose I should have said Theism and/or Deism, and not "religion".)
Christians, in particular, tend to be the least Christ-like people so few actually practice what they preach.

I don't believe the bible is God's word - I don't believe in God. While I believe Jesus may have been a real person, I don't believe in his divinity or the stories in the Gospels.
That being said, I agree with what he is purported to have taught.
The lessons credited to him are the basic, objective morals, and everyone should aspire to live by them. In practice, however, things become more subjective.

Wes - I can only presume that you are an indoctrinated Christian - maybe I'm wrong and your philosophy exists outside of religious doctrine, but if so, who is the "moral law giver"?

If I presume correctly, then you have been brain-washed and mislead by charlatans and should really reexamine your beliefs and try to learn to think for yourself.

Anyway, I'll stop there - sorry Wooters - this is a huge subject, one that I'm passionate about, and one that probably doesn't belong here.

DennisG2010 wrote:I'm pretty impressed with the way Wes has been able to avoid mentioning GOD or HIS WORD, when it's what he's been talking about this whole time.

I wonder why. I guess he's smart enough to know that invoking an imaginary, mythical overlord would hurt his credibility.

Wes - here's how I see it. There is both objective and subjective morality.

Some things are black & white - clearly right or wrong. Others are more of a gray area and open to debate.

One problem I have with your stance is that you seem to believe that, when it comes to intoxicating substances, use = abuse.

It is possible to use these substances responsibly and suffer no ill effects.
To say that because they cause some people to do harm to themselves and others, then it's wrong for anyone to use them is misguided.
After all, one could say that many, many people over the centuries have abused the bible to do harm to others, and therefore to advocate it's use is objectively wrong.
In fact, this is where I stand - but I realize that this is my subjective opinion.

You said, "It is not me who makes the rules. I am not the one who says what is right and wrong but the one who created you gets that privilege."

I have to agree with you there. My parents, who created me, did a great job of teaching me how to figure out for myself what is right and wrong.

One of the things I've come to learn in recent years is that religion is wrong, and in fact immoral. (Sorry to generalize, I'm sure there are exceptions - I suppose I should have said Theism and/or Deism, and not "religion".)
Christians, in particular, tend to be the least Christ-like people so few actually practice what they preach.

I don't believe the bible is God's word - I don't believe in God. While I believe Jesus may have been a real person, I don't believe in his divinity or the stories in the Gospels.
That being said, I agree with what he is purported to have taught.
The lessons credited to him are the basic, objective morals, and everyone should aspire to live by them. In practice, however, things become more subjective.

Wes - I can only presume that you are an indoctrinated Christian - maybe I'm wrong and your philosophy exists outside of religious doctrine, but if so, who is the "moral law giver"?

If I presume correctly, then you have been brain-washed and mislead by charlatans and should really reexamine your beliefs and try to learn to think for yourself.

Anyway, I'll stop there - sorry Wooters - this is a huge subject, one that I'm passionate about, and one that probably doesn't belong here.

Well here is where the conversation turns instead of talking about the issue you lambast me with ad hominem attacks.

You think I have been brainwashed? Sorry that is not the case I have spent many years contemplating these topics and ideas.

Back to our main point. You say you believe in objective morality. Where did it come from? If you truly believe it then it came from something outside of ourselves. Who is it, where did it come from?

Straw Man, religion is not wrong because the followers fail. It needs to be wrong or right on the core tenants of the religion.

crowsnest wrote:Are you a member of the Westboro Baptist Chruch?

Crowsnest

Thank you for your continued thoughtful articulate responses.

And the answer is no.

WesPorter wrote:Well here is where the conversation turns instead of talking about the issue you lambast me with ad hominem attacks.

You think I have been brainwashed? Sorry that is not the case I have spent many years contemplating these topics and ideas.

Back to our main point. You say you believe in objective morality. Where did it come from? If you truly believe it then it came from something outside of ourselves. Who is it, where did it come from?

Straw Man, religion is not wrong because the followers fail. It needs to be wrong or right on the core tenants of the religion.

I don't think calling you brainwashed was an ad hominem. Were you referring to something else I said?

And if you want to start talking logical fallacies, I think your position is chock full of 'em.

There's really just one thing I want to hear you say.
Who is the moral lawgiver? Where does objective morality come from? Who dictates what is truly, objectively right and wrong?

You've really been quite evasive and cryptic.
Stop toying with us and, as I've asked before, enlighten us.

DennisG2010 wrote:I don't think calling you brainwashed was an ad hominem. Were you referring to something else I said?

And if you want to start talking logical fallacies, I think your position is chock full of 'em.

There's really just one thing I want to hear you say.
Who is the moral lawgiver? Where does objective morality come from? Who dictates what is truly, objectively right and wrong?

You've really been quite evasive and cryptic.
Stop toying with us and, as I've asked before, enlighten us.

Go read Genesis 1:1. It pretty much sums it all up.

Now that you are informed who this Moral Law Giver is and what I have been talking about is grounded in Him.

Explain to me where does your objective morality come from? You say you believe in it but let's hear your explanation of it.

But I am sure instead of talking about the merits of your beliefs you will choose to continue to tell me what an id10t I am and how I have been brainwashed. At least my ideas are consistent.

They are logically correct.

Does it say "go have a joint!" somewhere in the post, perhaps secretly encoded and can read only with a secret decoder ring, which was sold in a sale I missed?


Dang, I need to get me one of those rings! All this time I've spent reading the blogs, to think there are hidden meanings that I have missed.

WesPorter wrote:Go read Genesis 1:1. It pretty much sums it all up.

Now that you are informed who this Moral Law Giver is and what I have been talking about is grounded in Him.

Explain to me where does your objective morality come from? You say you believe in it but let's hear your explanation of it.

But I am sure instead of talking about the merits of your beliefs you will choose to continue to tell me what an id10t I am and how I have been brainwashed. At least my ideas are consistent.

They are logically correct.

Your ideas are not logically correct. There is not such thing as objective morality. Read Genesis again. You'll find that lying, cheating, stealing, and murder are big part of it.

Now, go pick up any history book, or even a newspaper these days and you'll find than many cultures and groups of people feel that they are actually morally obligated to sometimes kill, etc. for their beliefs, and for their society. Therefore if there was this universal "right" and "wrong," it's not the same one their God made up.

Also, I've read the bible before...Where's it make any comment about convincing stoners, in the non-literal sense, to present their arguments better? Where does it mention weed at all, and the evil dangers of it?

dinsdalep13 wrote:Your ideas are not logically correct. There is not such thing as objective morality. Read Genesis again. You'll find that lying, cheating, stealing, and murder are big part of it.

Now, go pick up any history book, or even a newspaper these days and you'll find than many cultures and groups of people feel that they are actually morally obligated to sometimes kill, etc. for their beliefs, and for their society. Therefore if there was this universal "right" and "wrong," it's not the same one their God made up.

Also, I've the read the bible before...Where's it make any comment about convincing stoners, in the non-literal sense, to present their arguments better? Where does it mention weed at all, and the evil dangers of it?

LOL really and your opinion about this is right?

Why should I listen to you when according to your world view there is no right and wrong. My point is just as good as yours. Live by your world view you are smuggling objective morality all through your comment.

WesPorter wrote:Go read Genesis 1:1. It pretty much sums it all up

Genesis 1:29-30

And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so.

Yep that pretty much sums it ALL up!

crowsnest wrote:Genesis 1:29-30

And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so.

Yep that pretty much sums it ALL up!

So now you believe in the Bible?

Eat it up all you can.

WesPorter wrote:LOL really and your opinion about this is right?

Why should I listen to you when according to your world view there is no right and wrong. My point is just as good as yours. Live by your world view you are smuggling objective morality all through your comment.

You should listen to me because religion is faith based, not logical. And my point was that each society has it's own set of morals, therefore, there's no "objective" moral standard to hold anyone to. Obligatory 'lol'.

WesPorter wrote:So now you believe in the Bible?

Eat it up all you can.

I never said that I did not believe in the Bible......Is that more of you "OBJECTIVE MORALITY"?

WesPorter wrote:Go read Genesis 1:1. It pretty much sums it all up.

I'm going to do as you suggested, in fact I've just Googled "Genesis 1:1", I've found the website bible.cc.

But now, before I can read Genesis 1:1, I find myself in a quandary;
What version do I read?
The New International Version (©1984)
The New Living Translation (©2007)
The English Standard Version (©2001)
The New American Standard Bible (©1995)
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
King James Bible
American King James Version
American Standard Version
Bible in Basic English
Douay-Rheims Bible
Darby Bible Translation
English Revised Version
Webster's Bible Translation
World English Bible
or
Young's Literal Translation

These are all offered on bible.cc, and I don't know which one is the true word of God.
Although, "GOD'S WORD®" seems pretty convincing, what with the all-caps and the registered trademark and all.

Then again, this all (even before I've started reading) raises quite a few more questions.
How can there be so many versions and even "revisions" of the word of God?
I would've thought something like that would be, both literally and figuratively, set in stone.

And another thing, how can the word of God be trademarked and even protected under copyright?
Who holds the rights? Should be God Himself, no?
If I violate the copyright will I be damned to an eternity in Hell?

Anyway, feel free to ignore my confusion (for the moment) and just tell me which version of Genesis 1:1 is the one that was dictated by God.
I really do want to read it, just want to make sure I read the right one.

Thanks.

Oh, and BTW, I haven't called you an id10t. And my opinion that you have been brainwashed is just as valid as your opinions of myself and the rest of us here.

WesPorter wrote:LOL really and your opinion about this is right?

Why should I listen to you when according to your world view there is no right and wrong. My point is just as good as yours. Live by your world view you are smuggling objective morality all through your comment.

No, it apparently means that you are right, because you get your morals from outside yourself, although earlier you said "You think I have been brainwashed? Sorry that is not the case I have spent many years contemplating these topics and ideas." So, they're not from an outside source, but years of contemplation.

Either way, you keep vacillating your responses and they don't add up. You are _not_ consistent. You say why should you listen to someone who believes there is no objective morality, because in that point of view you could be just as right as anyone. You could also be just as wrong, which proves my earlier point that you lack humility.

Then your point seems to be that there is only one right answer, you are objective, and have considered such thing for years, so you know the only right morality. Has it occurred to you that others here have considered such things for years? Has it occurred to you that they attempted to be (or claim to have been) objective in their consideration? Has it occurred to you that such a person could disagree with your assessment? Has it occurred to you that your opinion, and anyone else's, is irrelevant in the scheme of things?

"smuggling objective morality"? What does that MEAN?

Ok, Wes - so, yeah, I figured out that every one of those versions of the bible says pretty much the same thing in chapter 1, verse 1.

So my next, and most likely last question for you is...

When did this happen? When was the beginning? When did God create the heavens and the earth?

If your answer is anywhere in the 6,000-10,000 year range, then we have nothing further to discuss; you and I can never come to an understanding of each other.

If your answer is in the billions of years, then there might be hope for us, but I think I'm done here in any case.

I suspect your idea of what is true and real and logical is just not compatible with mine.

DennisG2010 wrote:Ok, Wes - so, yeah, I figured out that every one of those versions of the bible says pretty much the same thing in chapter 1, verse 1.

So my next, and most likely last question for you is...

When did this happen? When was the beginning? When did God create the heavens and the earth?

If your answer is anywhere in the 6,000-10,000 year range, then we have nothing further to discuss; you and I can never come to an understanding of each other.

Are you shocked that all those versions say the same thing? You seem so surprised. Here is the real funny thing. All those versions you listed same the same thing.

If your answer is in the billions of years, then there might be hope for us, but I think I'm done here in any case.

I suspect your idea of what is true and real and logical is just not compatible with mine.

Fair enough Dennis, it does not matter when the earth and heavens were created. It is obvious it was created by a designer.

It is more important to know who the creator is and what he wants. Whether it was billions of years ago or 10,000 years ago are inconsequential.

Funny that you found all the versions say the same thing. You know what all those versions say the same thing. Look them up verse by verse and you will see. Are you surprised?

If your objective morality is based on the bible, is there a section of the bible that deals with drugs? I'm not expecting any kind of direct "thou shalt not toke" commandment or anything, but surely this strong opinion must come from somewhere. There's that one line about sodomy that is bandied about as God's condemnation of homosexuals.

In the end, I think it comes down to what Dennis explicitly said that we all keep dancing around: drug use does not imply drug abuse.

WesPorter wrote:Fair enough Dennis, it does not matter when the earth and heavens were created. It is obvious it was created by a designer.

It is more important to know who the creator is and what he wants. Whether it was billions of years ago or 10,000 years ago are inconsequential.

Funny that you found all the versions say the same thing. You know what all those versions say the same thing. Look them up verse by verse and you will see. Are you surprised?

Sorry Wes, I don't believe our universe was created by any intelligent designer.
I find it to be fairly obvious that there is no Creator, no "Intelligent Design".

I believe in the laws of science and nature.
I don't believe in the supernatural in any form.

I believe that the core messages of religious texts - the golden rule, e.g. - are good rules to live by. But those texts are the words of men, and as such are fallible and corruptible.

I've never studied philosophy or the bible, but I'm a thoughtful person - contemplative, just as you said you are.
I know the difference between right and wrong, and I care about doing right rather than wrong.

I believe some aspects of morality are objective, by which I mean absolute, and those are self-evident to any thoughtful person.
Other aspects of morality are subjective, and the issue of right/wrong, good/bad is a matter of circumstance and perspective.

If "Objective Morality" simply means "God spells it all out in the bible, and makes it black and white exactly what is right and wrong - in any situation", well then I don't believe in it.

I don't believe we necessarily have to respect each others beliefs (by we I'm speaking of humanity, not just you and I), but we do have to respect each other.

There's no harm in explaining to others what one believes, why one believes, even respectfully disagreeing with others beliefs, but I believe proselytizing is disrespectful, insulting and immoral.

I believe your response to this blog post was overly reactive and rash, so people responded in kind. Then, your response to their responses was patronizing and insulting - so they continued to respond in kind.
Sometimes the golden rule is the hardest one to follow.

Your objective morality should have lead you to turn the other cheek.
And I believe that the spirit of "turning one's cheek" doesn't include turning up one's nose - which is the attitude you have conveyed since your initial post.

I hope you are able to find peace with your God and your beliefs, and also with your fellow man, some of whom may be perfectly capable of finding peace without them.

And above all, I hope you are able to find a deal-a-day site with great bargains, fun promotions and an irreverent sense of humor, that also meets your objective moral standards.
Good luck with that.