ianrobo1 Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Of course today's morals can be used to judge the past. Otherwise have we progressed. Some might say that colonialisation brought third world countries out of their feudal cultures. Whether or not that argument is correct, surely that is using your own current moral position to say ridiculous things such as The British Empire is the greatest thing that ever happened to the worldOf course if you believe that we have no jurisdiction over the way people lived their lives in days gone, then such an argument would be a falseood. yes Gringo we can judge the past and we can say what is right or wrong by today's standards however should descions be reversed or charges brought on today's morals and laws see for example we enacted a law to bring Nazi criminals to trial but what they did was illegal at the time anyway from what what I know shotting of so called cowards was legal at the time was it not ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 yes Gringo we can judge the past and we can say what is right or wrong by today's standards however should descions be reversed or charges brought on today's morals and laws see for example we enacted a law to bring Nazi criminals to trial but what they did was illegal at the time anyway from what what I know shotting of so called cowards was legal at the time was it not ? Why does being legal make something moral, though, Ian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 from what what I know shotting of so called cowards was legal at the time was it not ?And is anyone proposing the proesuction of those people responsible for the shootings? I don't think so. They are calling for all those who suffered under a completely shitly managed war to be remembered for their suffering and what they gave up, ie their lives. If we were to be prosecuting people it would be the politicians and war mongerers who led to the face off, not those who were instructed to oversee a morally corrupt code of conduct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 It must be said that Michelsen does have a rather authoriitarian (nanny state) streak as long as it doesn't apply to his own values. I'd agree with you on that Tony I'll have to answer that one, as I don't think it's a fair comment. Norway has the some of the most strict alcohol legislation in the world. And as I definitely think it's a good idea to restrict alcohol consumption I thoroughly support that, even if it means I have to pay five quid for a pint of lager in the pub. So while I don't think it's immoral to drink ale, I have no problem with the government trying to reduce the overall consumption through taxes and restrictions. If you have any other examples of this, please tell and I'll be happy to answer them. Again, I don't think that comment is fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 I said when it doesn't apply to your own valuies, so as you drink that would obviously not be the implied reference. But it's going a little bit OT so we'll leave it there if you wish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 to say ridiculous things ok I'll conceed that one (remind me not to post when drunk again ) but at the risk of going OT .. Doubtless Britain did many bad things during its stewardship of the world. It is my belief, however, that it did more good than harm..much as people look back at the Roman Empire as a golden age , the british Empire should be viewed in a the same light Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 I said when it doesn't apply to your own valuies, so as you drink that would obviously not be the implied reference. Then what are you saying, Gringo? I read it as, as long it doesn't affect me and the things I like to do, I'm in favour of authoritarianism and that I come across as somewhat hypcritical. Now, I maybe all paranoid and of course it is getting late so I may have misunderstood completely, but please explain anyway (And, yes, it is OT, so if you'd explain per PM that would be very kind of you). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 I'll have to answer that one, as I don't think it's a fair comment. i believe it was intended in jest ..a bit of leg pulling and not intended to offend ?? apologies if my bit did though ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 No offense taken, Tony, don't worry Now, back on topic guys, shall we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts