mererdog

It seems a fairly even split between people who leave because they think the rules are too restrictive and people who leave because they don't think the rules are restrictive enough. As many complain "too mean" as "too boring"...

The thing to remember about the ULC is that there are no membership standards, so a cross-section of ULC ministers is not going to be very different than any random selection of people. You might like a few a whole lot, most will probably make no real impression on you, and a few will definitely rub you the wrong way. It is going to sometimes be tempting to throw the baby out with the bathwater by avoiding everyone to avoid the few. Personally, I think patience and tolerance are virtues worth nurturing in myself, so I put effort into trying to give others the benefit of the doubt when they might mean no harm- or to forgive them when they are clearly just being mean. In both the digital and non-digital world, that has led to friendships with people who had been downright hostile to me when we first met.... Your results will vary.

Well, that's just gross...

Now that you agreed, I'm starting to second guess...

Yes. Principle never is, though... Grammar jokes is awesome.

Much like the way a nine year old is too young to be held accountable for contracts they sign, but not for crimes they commit. When you get down to it, it's really just a matter of ignoring principle when principle is inconvenient...

You made a claim. The claim is extraordinary. Where is the extraordinary evidence you have said that such a claim needs?

Yep. If I claimed that animals don't exist and said it was obvious because I have never seen a unicorn...

Note that not believing 2+2=4 has no bearing on its status as objective truth. Neither does not understanding it, not liking it, nor assuming their must be exceptions to it. Note also that proving that 1+2=4 is objectively wrong does not prevent 2+2=4 from being objectively right.

I suspect that you not only cannot prove your claims, but that you can't even provide any supporting evidence for them that is not fallacious. Which rather begs the question "Why so certain?"

If morals are not objective, its no different than saying that red is prettier than blue. It doesn't really matter, because its all in your head.

Right. It's just a way of talking about a complex collection of instincts and emotional reactions using simplified terms. Similar to "libido". Asking whether your conscience agrees is a simplified way of asking whether you would feel guilty or ashamed acting a certain way, and whether you would be angry or indignant if someone else did. Not what you think as a matter of conscious analysis, but what you believe as a matter of reflex and instinct.

Thoreau disagreed. I tend to agree with him.

My conscience says otherwise. Yours?

Of course. Moral courage is a fairly rare thing. Heroes wouldn't get any attention if they were commonplace....

When laws are unjust, it is immoral to follow them. Where society is unjust, to be moral requires defying its standards. To not examine whether your society and its laws are just is to be ignorant of the morality of your own actions.

As I said, I can't find data to answer that. Since drunk driving is both a crime and socially unacceptable behavior, people who do it have incentive to hide it. Also, "drunk" is ill-defined, so someone who never drives drunk according to their standards may always drive drunk according to yours. It makes it difficult to put together hard data. Still, even if a higher percentage of drunks get in accidents, the causality remains a bit hinky. Did the alchohol make them bad drivers, or are bad drivers just more likely to drive drunk? Someone who engages in one type of antisocial behavior usually engages in others. So I would guess that most people who drive drunk probably aren't exactly defensive drivers when sober.

And many drunk drivers do not. And many sober drivers do. Which rather suggests that being drunk is neither a necessary cause, nor a sufficient cause, for bad driving.

Does it, though? I knew a guy, some twenty years ago, who drove drunk on a daily basis. In the year and a half I knew him he never got in a wreck. I can't find any data to help determine whether he was just extremely lucky, but anecdotal evidence would seem to suggest that public perception of the relative risks have become overinflated.

Only if we lack the basic humility that allows us to accept that we might be wrong.

Not really. For me, acting morally is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

So, I just looked up the statistics. Most traffic fatalities are not alchohol-related. So you are more likely to be killed by a sober driver than a drunk driver.

The same is true of a sober driver. We all know we are capable of mistakes. We all know that mistakes behind the wheel can be fatal. To decide to drive is to decide to risk killing someone.

Our brains don't like us to focus on any one thing for very long. It makes it easy for predators to sneak up on us. You say you give your whole attention, but do you? You don't listen to the radio? You don't talk to your passengers? You don't read billboards? You never think about what you want to have for lunch or what you need to pick up at the store? You don't get annoyed by an itch? Because I can guarantee that everyone else on the road with you does almost all those things on a regular basis. An interesting bit of legal weirdness- in most states, someone who is drunk will be considered too mentally incapacitated to consent to sex, but not too mentally incapacitated to be held responsible for the decision to drive...

I am responsible for whatever consequences arise from my actions, whether or not I forsaw them. If I caused it, I own it. That said, while drunk driving is more risky than sober driving, sober drivers take lives every day. If I were to call drunk driving immoral, I would feel compelled to say that all driving is immoral. After all, you know you might kill someone. It only takes a split-second of inattention, a slightly too-slow reaction, or an ill-timed sneeze. But you've gotta get to work, right? So you weigh the risk against the reward, cross your fingers, and roll the dice. Know what I mean?