The Instigator
FlameofPrometheus
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Marauder
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Morality is determined by the individual

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/23/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,730 times Debate No: 24403
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

FlameofPrometheus

Pro

This is perhaps the greatest argument that faces man kind. ( In my opinion)
This topic is open for anyone to debate but they must have a concept of what morality is.
Morality- A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct - free dictionary.com
Individual (noun) - single human considered apart from a society or community free dictionary.com

Resolved:Morality Is determined by the individual.

This definition has to be accepted so both sides may debate the topic fairly
Round 1 acceptance
Round 2-4 arguments

The con may present any idea of were morality comes from but it is the point of the Pro (me) case to prove that morality comes from the individual.

Rules:
1.)No semantics ( It would be interesting to see someone try but it is not a voting argument so it would be wasted space)

2.) One cannot set fire to the rain, it is metaphysically impossible

3.) This is not a humorous debate, but it would help to have a dry sense of humor

4.) The effect of forfeiting means all seven points go to the remaining individual

5.) Since this is a philosophic debate the burden of proof is logic. Sources help but are not a deciding factor (I hate to put this but after its philosophy not politics)

6.) I hope that trolling is considered misconduct.

7.) Accepting this debate the contentder understands all rules and definitions
Marauder

Con

I accapt and look foward to this debate
Debate Round No. 1
FlameofPrometheus

Pro

Since the last time i debated this topic the person didn' t leave a reply and forfeited I m going to re use the old case.
Also I didn't intend this debate to turn into a factual one (Were someone can prove the resolution wrong or right based on a fact. The resolution gives equal leighway to both sides I hope
Now to my case
Morality.
Morality is determined by the individual.
Definitions :
Axiom – a self-evident truth that requires no proof -dictionary.com
STATEMENT 1
"Humans are conscious of their actions."
EXPLAINATION:
The above statement is an "axiom" or a self evident truth. [1]
The reason it is self evident is because to negate the statement requires an action.
Not only an action, but a conscious action.

Since thinking is a conscious action and so is negation.

Thus one cannot negate STATEMENT 1 without being irrational.
Now STATEMENT 1 does not win me the round automatically since that would ruin the premise of this debate.
Argument from STATEMENT 1
Since humans are conscious of their actions (under average conditions,) humans have choice.
Since individuals have choice, they can choose what ideas to accept, or not.
These ideas could be anything, belief in gravity, belief in Christianity, belief in existence, belief in Atheism ect.
Also other ideas individuals could accept are particular morals or moral systems.
Since individuals may choose to accept certain morals and moral systems morality is dictated by each separate individual for themselves.
OBJECTION 1
A common objection of the argument I have presented is that morality is determined by society. Such morals include, that it is immoral to kill another person. I myself believe murder to be immoral but murderers still kill. Soldiers also kill. And some people believe the death penalty is moral so thus apparently society does not dictate a singular standard of morality for everyone to abide by since people have different interpretations of morality.
Society does enforce its morality, but people still object to society's morals. A person may choose to follow the laws and morals of society of his own free will and there is nothing wrong with that. Although people still break laws, so one comes to the conclusion that people do not accept those laws as moral.
OBJECTION 2
Religion dictates morality.
A common objection to my argument is that "God" chooses what right or wrong and that mortals should adhere to his moral system.
First even if a God dictated such it is proven man has free will so thus an individual would choose whether to accept this God's moral system.
Secondly, if one believes in this God's moral system that's their choice. It does not mean that your morality is what we judge all morality by.
I myself believe in certain morals, that's my morality and through my eyes certain things are immoral.
But the resolution states "Morality is determined by the individual."
Even though I have my own morality, that's my decision and mine alone.
SUMMARY:
Because humans have free will, we choose what to accept. Humans accept certain morals and reject other ones. Because of this morality is determined by the individuals. In my case I provided 2 "Objections" to try and counter any future arguments the con may have and also to better illustrate my point.

[1] http://aynrandlexicon.com......
Marauder

Con


I thank you for your prompt response and hope this will be an enjoyable and intelligent debate.



To sum up the base of your whole argument against either objection I would have to put it this way “not everybody listens to the standards of morality ergo it comes from themselves , they determine it”


This is called the fallacy of the hasty conclusion.


Objection 1: facts are not dependant on us


Consider this analogy.


I say our blood is made up of thousands of tiny living cells.


You disagree and say they are made up of grape juice.


We cant come to agreement on this issue so ergo our blood is determined by the individual. Yours blood is made up of grapes and mine is of cells.


Facts, when they are facts, because they are facts, are not dependant on our successful analysis of them. If they were than they would not be facts they would be unreal illusions. If morality is determined by being whatever they heck you want it to mean for you at your current whimsy of what you feel like it should be then it is not a system based on any real thing. It is an illusion thus you do not as an individual truly determine morality because A: you cant determine a non-existent thing, its like saying I rule the physics of digimon land. (I don’t cause that place doesn’t actually exist for me to determine anything about it). B: your ‘system’ is arguable determined by your situation because it is that situation that factors into why you call what’s right “right” and what’s wrong “wrong”. “I will go to jail if I don’t lie so lying is ‘okay’ right now”.



Objection 2: we don’t follow our own individual systems


Your make your case as if its meaningful to discredit a system as being true objective morality because another person is not following it in there actions. This is completely bunk logic when you point this out while ignoring that even within the individual, they do not follow there own acclaimed system of morality. Because I lie or steal little things sometimes does that mean I have a different system of morals than the traditional Christian one where those things are considered immoral? No, In fact that traditional system is the system I will tell you I go by so to point out my actions contrary to it is meaningless. Your own position this debate at the very least admitted that “I determine my morality” so when I say lying is bad it really is for me according to you and yet I lie. Why? Its not because of any change in system I just lack the discipline to follow through with what is right always. Brushing my teeth each morning is wise and healthy and good but I don’t do it.



I could on, but I think that’s the core of what Id like to start with. Don’t want to overload you with too much info to digest, this should be enough points to focus on for now, there are plenty of rounds to add more if needed.


I await my opponents response.
Debate Round No. 2
FlameofPrometheus

Pro

The First subject I would like to address is that my esteemed opponent claims that I have a fallacy within my argument. Then I will move on to illogical processes within his own.

The fallacy he claims that I have displayed is the fallacy of hasty conclusion.
"Use relevant but insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion about a particular person, place, thing, etc." [1]
"Hasty generalization is a logical fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence — essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables" [2]

Now my opponent claims this is where my fallacy lies:

"To sum up the base of your whole argument against either objection I would have to put it this way "not everybody listens to the standards of morality ergo it comes from themselves, they determine it"" CR2

I believe this to be a straw man argument [3]

"A straw man is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position." [3]

So in summary my opponent has missed interpreted my argument. I never stated anywhere that individuals do not adhere to the same moral system thus morality is not the same instead this is what I have stated:

"Since individuals may choose to accept certain morals and moral systems, morality is dictated by each separate individual for themselves."

Because we have free will, we may choose. Because we have choice we may choose ideas. Because we can choose ideas we can choose different ideas or perceptions of morality.

I never stated that there is a constant standard of morality and individuals are not adhering to it.

I HAVE NOT REACHED THE FALLACY OF HASTY CONCLUSION since I have not looked over any evidence. My opponent offered no evidence or new variable so the fallacy of hasty conclusion drops.
Revealing that my opponent has only misinterpreted my argument and wishes to persuade you the same.

"Objection 1: facts are not dependant on us" CR2

I concur facts are objective.

Objective-not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: dictionary.com

Meaning that regardless of what one believes existence exists. Regardless of your perception or feelings.

Thus this makes reality and fact objective (Or not reliant upon us)

HOWEVER Morality does not pertain to existence.

MORALITY is not a fact. ( What I mean by this is that other than morality existing there are no facts about it. All idea based off are just perceptions.)
Since
1. For morality to be fact it would have to be constant or a single morality agreed on by everyone that would be un refuted.
2. Morality is a part of philosophy (I believe this is evident in this round since philosophy has a habit of trying to determine morality)

"The philosopher...is committed what is left when we have taken away what has been defiantly established ... He is the Lord of Uncleared ground,-"[4] the whole quote is in the comments.

The above statement only proves that philosophy is only to answered un-answered questions. Or questions that do not have an answer so far.
Later on in the book the author states that once an answer has been found that question and answer is thrown into a particular science (Other than philosophy.)

So since Philosophy is meant for questions without immediate answers and morality is within Philosophy. morality does not have an immediate answer, so it is not a fact.
However morality exists so there is not a set standard of morality meaning individuals decide for themselves on what morality is.

Even if one does not buy this logic Morality is an Idea that holds no link to the physical existence so it is a "Literal idea" meaning people can have different interpretations of this idea and only be wrong in the eyes of someone with a different perception of said idea.

"Consider this analogy.

I say our blood is made up of thousands of tiny living cells.

You disagree and say they are made up of grape juice.

We cant come to agreement on this issue so ergo our blood is determined by the individual. Yours blood is made up of grapes and mine is of cells." CR2

This analogy is another "strawman" argument because he is trying to persuade you that I have no perception of reality and truth. The analogy he presents can be tested and has an absolute truth when Morality cannot be tested and is not absolute (Other than it exists)

my rebuttal regardless:
He is assuming that morality is constant and can be "factually tested"
Morality cannot.
Morality is an idea and conjectures based of ideas are "THEORIES"
Theories are supposed answers that have no proof. (When they attain proof they are laws)
So thus Morality has no facts about it (Other than the fact it exists)

"If they were than they would not be facts they would be unreal illusions"

Again he is confusing that morality and facts. Morality is not constant it is up to perception.

"It is an illusion thus you do not as an individual truly determine morality because A: you cant determine a non-existent thing, .. B: your ‘system' is arguable determined by your situation because it is that situation that factors into why you call what's right "right" and what's wrong "wrong". "I will go to jail if I don't lie so lying is ‘okay' right now"."

A. Morality exists my opponent has to accept this, since, to figure out if its determined by individual it must exist first.

Also he earlier implies that people may take morality and make it mean anything according to this debate it has to be a system of right or wrong

B. No.
I myself have pre thought about what morals I accept. I will not break those regardless of my situation.
Hindus will never eat meat. That is their morality
Also by stating situation dictates morality you are negating free will which I have proven is self evident.

"Objection 2: We don't follow our own individual systems"
I never said "we do not follow our own systems" but my opponent apparently accepts this
Actions speak louder than words.
If people find their own life as moral then they will live. And do actions to achieve "Life" such as eating and self defense.
So since there are 7 billion people living they must value life and are not changing their morality in this subject.
But since we have free will we may decide on suicide In which one decides their life is not moral thus that moral choice is determined by the individual.

IF WE do not follow our system that means we are changing it by choice and since choice exists. Morality is determined by the individual.

"Your own position this debate at the very least admitted that "I determine my morality"� so when I say lying is bad it really is for me according to you and yet I lie."

Con may lie in certain conditions. That is Cons morality. Con chose that. I may think that evil or wrong because of my morality.
But regardless we are individuals and we both made choices in morality so we determined morality in our own individual ways.
"Its not because of any change in system I just lack the discipline to follow through with what is right always."

So con finds it "right" to not always go through moral deliberation. Since con acts this way he find it "Right" or correct since otherwise why else would he act this way. And since morality is a system of right and wrong he finds it moral to not go through deliberation. And he still chose that.

All of my arguments stem from free will and his objections have done nothing to brake this link.

[1] http://online.santarosa.edu...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] Introduction to philosophy by George Stuart Fullerton pg 9
Marauder

Con

Not sure why, but my teacher instincts lead me to want to start this round off by addressing my opponents challenge that “literal ideas” cannot be tested like literal physical facts can.

Actually you can test ideas in philosophy, its called the Socratic Method, or even variations of it can be used to test the truth of anyone’s given “morality”. I when debating another search for the base things that uphold what it is you believe that I disagree with until I find a link that I too believe also. Then using what we both agree on I use logic to point out the inconsistencies with your main position we started out debating. That’s a way to test a philosophy or idea or perception on morality if it is truth or not. You can also do this on your own beliefs by self checking how your many beliefs match up when you think about them together and what logical is consistent with each other. For example I examine my belief that life should be protected when thinking about abortion, but logical see I’m not for protecting in the case of the death penalty. So I must re-examine the reason for the exemption with abortion for I do want it protected and find its actually “innocent life should be protected” that I believe in.

So unless you plan to not only propose that its not just morality that determined by the individual but logic as well, then the notion that ideas cannot be tested like any other real existent fact is debunked.

Moving on…..

For the record, yes I am personally defending that morality exist just so there’s no confusion. It exists, its objective and its determined by the all perfect divine creator. When I make arguments under the bullet ‘A’ last round about it being an illusion that was under the hypothetical ‘if’ it were not like an objective fact ‘then’ it would just be an illusion.

To your response to ‘B’ “No. I have pre-thought out the morals I accept. I will not brake them regardless of the situation…..”

Your either lying or deluded. And I could probably prove this Socratic method style if we had the rounds for me to question your on your system of morals you pre-thought out, and then for some honest answers on your actions relevant to your views. Pretty much everyone when questioned will say lying is wrong, and stealing. And then they will admit they have lied and even taken little things.

By all means I commend you for setting it as a goal to not brake your accepted morals in all situations but it’s the kind of lofty goal your not equipped to honestly say you can/do succeed at doing. If you could you’d be the second person ever to live to do so. The first was Jesus and he was god incarnate.

Talking about free choice a little deeper for a second, lets return to your response to my lying example….

“"I determine my morality" so when I say lying is bad it really is for me according to you and yet I lie."
“Con may lie in certain conditions. That is Cons morality. Con chose that. I may think that evil or wrong because of my morality.”

"Its not because of any change in system I just lack the discipline to follow through with what is right always."
“So con finds it "right" to not always go through moral deliberation. Since con acts this way he find it "Right" or correct since otherwise why else would he act this way.”

You way too quickly brush over this. Go ahead and answer the question “why else would he act this way?”. I gave the why else to you, but you didn’t get it so I will try again to explain because this is a cardinally important point to this debate.

When you ask that just what do you mean by “free”. As in “free from what?”. Some facts to consider when answering that…

A) Intoxicated people are not considered to be of sound mind in any courtroom

B) There are drugs used by rapist sometimes to do what is called “date rape”. The sex that occurs after the date kind of seems consensual but the women under the drugs are not of sound mind either and its “rape” in every since.

C) When angered chemicals like adrenaline affect judgment in the brain leaving ones choices often to be limited to “fight or flight”

D) Mood can affect choices as well

I could go on and list other examples of choices being affected by chemical and environmental like stuff but I think you get the pitcher. To simplify referring to them all I will call them animal instincts or substances that manipulate the animal instincts. They exist within all of us and can often corrupt our actions apart from the choices we would make in sounder minds. Without Christ’s Saving grace we are ultimately enslaved to those animal instincts and desirers with our choices and actions.

Its key to understand the nature of our choices and our animal instincts effects on them to understand your wrong when you say “Con choose that, I may think that choice evil…” I don’t choose anything when I brake from my morality, and neither do you. Choosing involves thinking under a sound mind, and to be a free choice and free thoughts to think to make the choice they have to un-altered by the chemicals that control our animal impulses. This does not happen for any of us 100% of the time. It does some of the time, but not all the time. No one is perfect.

You cannot just proclaim for me that I find it “right” to not always “undergo moral deliberation”. That’s just not true, your jumping to conclusions again. I do find it “right” to “undergo moral deliberation” at all times. Lack of discipline and success at following through with that belief does not change that.

Not while I have every right to take an authoritative to tone to state that about what MY morals values are, what about for yours? After all you seem to have personally been testifying that in the event you ever act in a contrary way to your regular moral values then in that instance your morals are literally different in that time. It seems to be the only defense to the charge that you don’t always obey your morals. And since you have the Gaul to tell me that is what happens concerning MY seeming moral inconsistencies so it must be your explanation for YOURS

If that’s how you say your morality that you have works than you have NOTHING. For thought to considered a rational and intelligent in the sense that an animal is not intelligent and a human is, it has to be above the whims of at least your own emotions if your going to call thought produced about morality a free one.

And because you have NOTHING, then you have no morality to be considered as being determined by you, or your free will, your free choice. Now a system of morals that comes from god and is recorded in the bible, this is above me and its above you. It remains the same no matter what our current whimsy is. Lying is bad even when we ourselves lie. Hate is bad of me even when I’m hating certain horrible people. These moral truths came from the only one who can be trusted to have the knowledge of what is morals for his judgment is uncorrupted by any animal instincts because God is not affected by the natural world, and his knowledge is not corrupted by ignorance of any details to any circumstances as well.

So to summarize the highlights of this rounds….

1) Ideas like morality can be tested

2) The above holds true as long as logic is held as self-evident that it’s the same for all

3) I only argued morality as not existing as a consequence to “if” it were not objective

4) I’d be willing to prove you are not moral by your own moral standards.

5) I don’t think anyone believes you have never done anything bad in your life. All people have

6) Animal instincts corrupts and enslaves our choices so the “free-ness” of your choices are not self-evident

7) It’s possible for me to be bad and brake my morals. It does not become good just because I broke them

8) You do not have ANYTHING if (7) is not true for you thus you determine no morality for yourself.

9) The all perfect supernatural God can be the only legit source of what morality is.

I await my opponent’s response.

Debate Round No. 3
FlameofPrometheus

Pro




We Accept:





That MORALITY exists,



(However we are trying to come to a conclusion on what determines

it.)







That logic EXISTS and is self evident.



However just because we both believe in logic does not make my

opponent true.




my oppoenet and I differ on the existence of free will.



I will mostly refer to my opponents summary and address important

arguments.








"1)Ideas like morality can be tested"



It is apparent that there are logical methods used to test

morality. BUT this does not refute my argument since in my argument I focus that
one will not come to a point where the Theories of MORALITY become a fact.








When two people use the Socratic Method they will argue because

the two argue it will only strengthen each person’s point more. In the words of

Dale Carnegie (Famous writer on the subject on how to influence people)








"Arguements establish nothing other that each other's belief

in their point"




So what it the purpose of arguments? to sway an audience to your

belief.




In summary when two people use the socratic method they normally

will not come to a consensus except for premises the will not come to a solid

"FACT" between the two.








So yes Morality and literal ideas may be tested but they cannot be

"factually tested" as in one may come to a point were there is a

consensual agreement of a fact that could be logically be held and not be

defeated. For something to be a fact it must be accepted by nearly everybody
and

be indisputably the case.








ALSO MY argument still stands since my opponent DROPPED that MORALITY is a

PART of PHILOSPHY thus proving there cannot be a concrete fact about morality.




Any further statements other than summaries should be considered a

new argument and be thrown since it would be impossible to refute these new

arguments








"2)The above holds true as long as logic is
held as self-evident that it’s the
same for all" CR3




I have said nothing against being tested, it is factually tested

were it becomes an indisputable fact through testing.




Logic is self evident if it is correct. Flowing straight from

axioms to premise and to correct conjectures.




"3)I only

argued morality as not
existing as a consequence to “if” it were not

objective"




CR3 Alrighty then it is agreed morality exists I am sorry for any

slip ups on my behalf






"4)I’d be willing to prove you are not
moral by your own

moral standards."




4 things.



1. You asked what is my belief here it is : "Objectivism"




2. Make another debate topic Christianity
vs objectivism
to further solve this part of the debate




3. What Con is actually trying to do is the logical fallacy of Ad homienm (is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it- Wikipeida)



He is trying to defeat me and sway you by proving I am not moral

to myself and trying to use that for his position.




4.People don’t change their ideas whimsy like- no one normally
goes

from republican to democrat in a day its possible but it takes a lot to shape a

persons belief. It is a proven fact people have the ability to choose ideas




(Round 2 statement and logic has gone unrefuted)







"Pretty much everyone when

questioned will say lying
is wrong, and stealing. And then they will admit they

have lied and even taken
little things." CR3








Now this is the Fallacy

of hasty generalization
since my opponent
has looked over the

fact that the group questioned could believe lying and stealing is moral and

there are people who find it moral to steal and lie.







What if the group questioned were members of the CIA they would find it moral
to steal and lie since they are protecting their country. So not very one is
going to say that. Also with all the different philosophical codes (Nihilism,
utilitarianism ect.) it is possible that the action may or may not be moral to
people in the group based on their philosophy.





"5)I don’t think anyone

believes you have never
done anything bad in your life. All people have"

CR3



Alright he mentions bad in reference to his morality. Again its a
proven fact that people have their own perceptions of morality. Just start
reading existing philosophies: Utilitarianism Nihilism ect.



"6)Animal instincts corrupts and enslaves
our choices so the “free-ness” of your choices are not self-evident"CR3


1. Humans don't have instincts, for evidence look here:

http://aynrandlexicon.com...

2.On the subject of date rape you have only proven that at one time the endo
crincines in ones brain can be off balance. This rarely ever happens and only
happens to this scale under intoxication of some substance. So unless your
implying that every human is under the date rape drug right now this doesn’t
defeat free will.

Also I will use one of my un-refuted points
right here.

“All humans are conscious of their actions”PR2

First this has gone undefeated

second to be conscious of one’s actions one must
first be conscious.

This attack establishes nothing against my case
or the resolution.

3. Adrenaline does not affect the brains
choices.

Evidence here: http://www.wisegeek.com...

Adrenihaline is a chemical that our brain
developed and can be imitated.

The article never states that this actually
alters the brain’s sense of choice. It just raises awareness by initiating
certain bodily functions.

Any after affects is the individuals own
perception and is subject to what they think.

Also were not all pumping adrenaline through our
bodies so even if this argument falls we still have freewill not in times of
stress.

4. According to “virtue ethics” when a value is
gained or taken away your body replies with an emotion. An example would be
that someone values their life and another pulls a gun on him. The first person
feels “fear” So his mood is fearful. So according to virtue ethics we derive
emotions from what we value or our morality. We are free to choose which values
we accept thus our “mood” Is determined by our values and our values are
determined by our morality. Thus creating free will since both values and
morality are determined by the individual.

5. To have logic one must have free will.

Since we have both accepted logic. We both must believe
we are using logic. Logic is thinking about which answer is correct so we decide based on the evidence
what is correct. Since we decide
we have choice and choice
equals freewill

7 and 8
let me restate some things.
In my world good and bad are determined by the individual. That means that if they say it’s bad to break their morals and they do. Then sub consciously they have changed their mind or the circumstance are different. Like I said "I will never kill." If someone tries to kill me and I have a gun I will kill him since I value my life. This does not mean I have changed my mind it just means an unforseen circumstance has come to view. I valued my life before the soemone tried to take it away I just had to have a moral comprimise since my life is important to me.

"9)The all perfect supernatural God can be the only legit
source of what
morality is." CR3

My opponent dropped my second contention in round 2 in that it states that
it is up to the individual to accept a god's morality. I don’t accept this
god's morality thus morality is determined by the individual. Also just because it is your morality does not make it a standard

SINCE MY OPPOENET NEVER REFUTED contention 2 and instead talked about how we don’t follow morality ourselves this point is defeated.
God does not determine morality we do by free will.

My opponent has dropped any attempt to say that society influence morality so that cannot be brought up within the next round.
And since statement 1 was never refuted it proves that well have free choice and the ability to choose morality.


I have addressed all arguments line by line and left my opponent with no case to stand on

Marauder

Con

I am so sorry, things have gotten so busy in my life I have not had time to prepare an argument this round. Im going to have to leave this debate with the arguments posted so far.

again I'm very sorry, I intend to make sure this does not happen again in the future.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by FlameofPrometheus 5 years ago
FlameofPrometheus
The philospher is the man to whom is commited what is left when we have taken away what has been definatly established or is undergoing investigation according to approved scientific methods. He is the Lord of Uncleared Ground,- and may wander through it in hiscomplassless iressponsible way< never feeling that he is lost, for he never had any definate bearings to lose.
qutoe from introduction to philosphy
Posted by FlameofPrometheus 5 years ago
FlameofPrometheus
Oh! that was a joke about an adelle song.
She suppsosdly can set fire to the rain
It was a lame and terribel joke.
It has nothing to do with morality :P
Posted by Marauder 5 years ago
Marauder
hey what do you mean by "cant set fire to the rain"? what does that have to do with this topic?
No votes have been placed for this debate.