Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That's right. A moral system that is individually determined is doomed to failure. Even a cultural moral system determined by a specific culture is also doomed to fail as a moral system. Because it's subjective and determined individually. There is no such thing within that realm as an objective system.
'Identical (i.e., monozygotic, or MZ) twins share 100 percent of their genes...'
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
True. but I have to say...so what? It then becomes tricky determining morality. Has anyone said this is a simple process all the time? It can be. But not always. But harm needs to have been done to even consider any moral question.
You said a woman was shot to death. I think we both agree that's harmful. But, I find it astonishing that I have to ask this, but can you confirm that you do agree? We can then take it from there.
You aren't making any sense. The people who shot her know it's harmful. They actually wanted to harm her. I know it's harmful. She's dead for heaven's sake. You know it's harmful. Everybody knows that when you shoot someone that it's harmful.
I forgot to mention this. You said that we both agree it's abhorrent. That you disagree with them.
But you can't consider moral questions when the harm is not acknowledged. Not acknowledging the harm is a moral question in itself. Modern secular society considers a lot of what we allow today as not being harmful yet many think it is harmful. *It seems whoever is in power gets to decide what is harmful of not.
If it can be determined objectively that no harm is done then its not a moral issue. Though as I said determining objectively whether harm has been done is another story. What you think means no harm someone may think is harm.
But not that harmful. It's very minor to them. Who are you to say otherwise? Just cause she's dead doesn't mean it's a big deal to them. That country doesn't looked at it as very harmful. Kind of a minor thing. Who are you to say otherwise?
You suggested it could be difficult knowing that harm has been done. Not acknowledging it. I agreed. Please don't redefine the subject of the discussion.
Then it is plainly and obviously necessary to determine if it has or has not been done.
Yes, often it is subjective. So I said quite a few posts ago that if there is disagreement on whether it has been done then we ask the person who says they've been harmed. I might say something to one person who will take it with a pinch of salt. But the same thing said to someone else might distress them considerably.
Being shot to death is 'not that harmful'...
It wasn't a question that I was asking. I was quoting you and pointing out the sheer hypocrisy that allows you the right to make the decision but questions mine.
Well I don't know if this makes any difference to the conversation but it is interesting. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding somewhere along the line of what one person is talking about.'Identical (i.e., monozygotic, or MZ) twins share 100 percent of their genes...'
Twin Study Design - PMC
By studying human pairs of twins, researchers can learn the relative contributions of genetic and environmental factors to the development of alcoholism. Identical (i.e., monozygotic, or MZ) twins share 100 percent of their genes, whereas fraternal ...
You should have used fraternal twins. Would have made the exercise more interesting.
Yet you still won't answer the question. It's not hypocritical at all. I asked the question and keep asking it, but you won't answer it. I think that says quite a bit about the issue. One wants to make a claim and then won't back it up. When you claim to be the one who can say what is right and wrong, moral and immoral then you should be able to back that up and tell us why you are the one to do so. Yet you haven't. Therefore we are free to utterly reject those claims.
There are dna mutations in everybody. That's a given. Even in identical twins. Even in something that's been cloned. It drives evolution. But to all intents and purposes identical twins have identical genetic makeup. It's why they are called identical twins.Well I don't know if this makes any difference to the conversation but it is interesting. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding somewhere along the line of what one person is talking about.
Identical twins don't share 100% of their DNA
Identical twins form from the same egg and get the same genetic material from their parents — but that doesn't mean they're genetically identical by the time they're born.www.livescience.com
They start with identical genes, because each is formed from a single fertilised egg that splits into two embryos. But from that moment onwards, their DNA begins diverging. The DNA replication mechanism introduces about one new mutation for every 100 million base pairs copied, per generation.
There are around three billion base pairs in the human genome, so you would expect between 10 and 100 new mutations per person that occur early enough in embryonic development to be present in most cells in the body.
Yes I am the one who decides. But so do you. Anyone with any connection with the matter at hand decides. In the case that you mentioned, we both decide that killing someone isn't warranted simply to appease family honour. Their sense of honour doesn't equate to the taking of a life. I guess they might argue. Tough. We've made our decision. I've made mine. And you've made yours. And if you think that you have the right to do so then please don't question mine.
Nope. Identical twins work perfectly.
