Koheesti has brought up the fact that some people will back wrongdoing because of, I suppose, loyalty. His example was "my country"....but it could just as well be "my son", or "my dad", or anything that people are prone to feel loyalty to.

I have asked myself this before as it is an interesting philosophical question: If my son committed a hienous murder, would I hide him from the law? Would I defend him to the bitter end? Would I mortgage my house to pay for his defence or escape?

Shoot it out with authorities trying to apprehend him?

I'm not sure. I love him dearly, but are there higher principles at stake?

I think there are higher principles at stake. The "greater good" maybe?

I have some more thoughts on this, but would like to hear from those interested in tossing around ideas.

If I had a son and he commited murder and was in fact guilty I'd turn him in or shoot him myself. Unless maybe the other person had it coming.

If I had a son and he commited murder and was in fact guilty I'd turn him in or shoot him myself. Unless maybe the other person had it coming.

Lets assume the victim was innocent, and the murder was uncalled for and heinous and in fact your son/my son was guilty.

I'm not sure I would shoot him myself....actually, I'm sure I wouldn't.....but I would turn him in.

I think people back wrongdoing in many cases because they are either too insecure or too intellectually dishonest to question and examine the validity of their own beliefs.

If I had a son and he commited murder and was in fact guilty I'd turn him in or shoot him myself. Unless maybe the other person had it coming.

The world is not black or white and many times there are extenuating circumstances - like koheesti's example - that have to be considered.

If I had a son and he commited murder and was in fact guilty I'd turn him in or shoot him myself. Unless maybe the other person had it coming.

The world is not black or white and many times there are extenuating circumstances - like koheesti's example - that have to be considered.

You are right. But that is not what the thread is about.

This is all hypothetical, and so we are not talking about specifics, just the premise that "right or wrong, I will support my son/cousin/spiritual leader/political leader/country/xxxxx".

Without specifics, that is an impossible question to answer.

I think people back wrongdoing in many cases because they are either too insecure or too intellectually dishonest to question and examine the validity of their own beliefs.

sums it up nicely

My brother in law's son who was a cop and the result of a extramarital relationship had by my brother in law's wife who was a slut to put it as nice as I can; came home on early one New Years eve and found his new wife of a couple of months on the couch naked and having sex with a hired hand from their ranch.

The kid, my brother in law's son, pulled out his service revolver and shot both of them dead with two shots. He was a good shot and it was a .357 magnum pistol.

Had I been the judge I would have let him walk. Or if blood money could have been paid I would have chipped in to help him pay it. He was a good kid and I had watched him grow up under difficult circumstances with his mother sleeping with every Tom, Dick and Harry that wandered into the small Texas town. His father (who later died of cancer), my brother in law always forgiving his wife in hopes of holding the family together and raised the boy as well as he could even knowing he was not his.

He got ten years and they let him out after 5 or 6 and the family accepted him back into the fold afterwards.

My second wife's husband was a murderer, he shot a Mexican man who reneged on a deal to buy stolen farm equipment from him. He was a commander of the Arkansas State Police. He would confiscate stolen tractors and combines and ship them across the border to Mexico for sale. I had an affair with his wife (later to be my wife), before she divorced him. I carried a gun at the time and would have shot him if I saw him. He would have also shot me because I was messing with his wife. I felt justified because he had abused my soon to be wife. But we never ran into one another so nothing ever happened.

My wife's father had shot and killed a man who robbed his father in a rigged poker game that lost the family a couple of thousand acres of farm land.

After he shot the man, he moved to another state for 40 years before he came back home. No one ever prosecuted and the family never got the land back.

Seems like a lot of violence. The situations I have recounted took place in the Arkansas, Texas, Missouri area. Momma don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys.

If I knew my son was guilty I would turn him it to the law. But I would also hire him a good lawyer.

Having lived with a troubled young man (son of my 2nd wife) that did me a lot of personal harm I forgave him because of his circumstances. But, I never let him in my home again. I just cut all ties with him. Despite his amazing talent as an artist he is still a welfare bum at the age of 37.

If I knew my son was guilty I would turn him it to the law. But I would also hire him a good lawyer.

Having lived with a troubled young man (son of my 2nd wife) that did me a lot of personal harm I forgave him because of his circumstances. But, I never let him in my home again. I just cut all ties with him. Despite his amazing talent as an artist he is still a welfare bum at the age of 37.

If you have forgiven him, why ban him from your home and cut all ties with him? Sounds like you haven't.

It can be difficult with your partner's kids, if they are troubled.

My second wife had a son (still has, I expect) and before we were married everyone who knew us asked if I was prepared to take on the son as well, because the mother could see no wrong in him. He was around twelve at the time.

I thought I could do so. He was a bit of a problem at the start, but not too bad. Then he stole his Mum's car at age about 14 - didn't see him for about three days. He soon fell in with a gang of thieves around the area where we lived (or his mum lived - I was abroad most of the time). Got arrested a few times, I knew the local police and got him off various charges. Then he stole my cameras (Nikon / Canon / Minolta) and a bike I used. Reported that and gave the police an idea of where the items could be found. They raided a local lock-up garage, found some of my kit and an awful lot of other gear. Again the boy was let-off, as the police had the rest of the gang in custody.

The kid went to the US for a time, to be with his dad in Albuquerque, but his father sent him back, 'cos he was incorrigible. I was abroad again and his mum wanted to go back to Poland to see if that would settle him down. We were divorced, I gave her a generous settlement (well, the judge did, I had offered less than half what the damage finished up as), and he got involved in a Russian gang in Warsaw.

That's the last I heard of him.

Supported, to my mind, above and beyond the call of duty, and all wasted. Without him around I would probably still be married to his mum, as she was a very nice woman, apart from a complete blind spot where this idiot was concerned.

Still, life goes on.

I think people back wrongdoing in many cases because they are either too insecure or too intellectually dishonest to question and examine the validity of their own beliefs.

Belief. A hardwired condition.

I think people back wrongdoing in many cases because they are either too insecure or too intellectually dishonest to question and examine the validity of their own beliefs.

Belief. A hardwired condition.

Is it?

If you are referring to the so-called "god gene", you may be right, however, not everyone has that gene and those that don't certainly have beliefs.

I suppose the difference is (and what you're referring to) that some believers (religious or otherwise) will not take evidence at face value. I suggest that the mule-headed blind faith believers have the gene, and those that believe something but can change their mind about it later, don't.

So, I suppose you're right, belief is hardwired, but only in those of a certain genetic arrangement.

I'm almost dumbfounded! I just watched a Louis Theroux doco titled "America's Most Hated Family". It was all about the Phelps family and the Westboro Church (cf godhatesamerica.com).

If there was an argument for genetic disposition to unreasoning belief, that family stands out as living testimony.

I find it very hard to fathom how some moderately intelligent people, not isolated from society (all the children go to or went through public schools) can be so....so.....blinkered.

I find it almost unbelievable.....crazy even. They are as one-eyed and misguided as the most radical suicide bombers.

I'm beyond words.

At least suicide bombers seem to have an actual real-life gripe against somebody. The Phelps base all their hatred on the words of Grandpa Phelps alone.

I've seen that too Harc.

What a bizarre family. I think you underestimate them by calling them "moderately" intelligent. most of the family work in law.

What struck me most was just how much one of the girls was flirting with Louis (I forget her name). That girl was oozing sexuality and excuse for sounding chauvinist, but she clearly was "gagging for it".

I have a daughter myself and I think I am rather protective about her, but I would never, ever deny her her right to her own sexuality like that girl's mother did.

And Louis Theroux.... I'm a huge fan.

It can be difficult with your partner's kids, if they are troubled.

My second wife had a son (still has, I expect) and before we were married everyone who knew us asked if I was prepared to take on the son as well, because the mother could see no wrong in him. He was around twelve at the time.

I thought I could do so. He was a bit of a problem at the start, but not too bad. Then he stole his Mum's car at age about 14 - didn't see him for about three days. He soon fell in with a gang of thieves around the area where we lived (or his mum lived - I was abroad most of the time). Got arrested a few times, I knew the local police and got him off various charges. Then he stole my cameras (Nikon / Canon / Minolta) and a bike I used. Reported that and gave the police an idea of where the items could be found. They raided a local lock-up garage, found some of my kit and an awful lot of other gear. Again the boy was let-off, as the police had the rest of the gang in custody.

The kid went to the US for a time, to be with his dad in Albuquerque, but his father sent him back, 'cos he was incorrigible. I was abroad again and his mum wanted to go back to Poland to see if that would settle him down. We were divorced, I gave her a generous settlement (well, the judge did, I had offered less than half what the damage finished up as), and he got involved in a Russian gang in Warsaw.

That's the last I heard of him.

Supported, to my mind, above and beyond the call of duty, and all wasted.

Apart from the fact that you were, by your own admission, almost completely absent from his life.

Right Or Wrong, I Back My Xxxxxx - Condone or condemn

to be on the safe side use "condom"

I'm almost dumbfounded! I just watched a Louis Theroux doco titled "America's Most Hated Family". It was all about the Phelps family and the Westboro Church (cf godhatesamerica.com).

If there was an argument for genetic disposition to unreasoning belief, that family stands out as living testimony.

I find it very hard to fathom how some moderately intelligent people, not isolated from society (all the children go to or went through public schools) can be so....so.....blinkered.

I find it almost unbelievable.....crazy even. They are as one-eyed and misguided as the most radical suicide bombers.

I'm beyond words.

At least suicide bombers seem to have an actual real-life gripe against somebody. The Phelps base all their hatred on the words of Grandpa Phelps alone.

How does that gel with your belief there is no right or wrong in the world?

Personally, I'm ashamed that no one has driven a truck over the damned Phelps family while they are on the side of the road protesting a funeral. Whoever does will be a national hero. Probably wouldn't even get convicted by a jury. If they did end up in prison, they would even be a hero there the Phelps are despised so much.

I'm almost dumbfounded! I just watched a Louis Theroux doco titled "America's Most Hated Family". It was all about the Phelps family and the Westboro Church (cf godhatesamerica.com).

If there was an argument for genetic disposition to unreasoning belief, that family stands out as living testimony.

I find it very hard to fathom how some moderately intelligent people, not isolated from society (all the children go to or went through public schools) can be so....so.....blinkered.

I find it almost unbelievable.....crazy even. They are as one-eyed and misguided as the most radical suicide bombers.

I'm beyond words.

At least suicide bombers seem to have an actual real-life gripe against somebody. The Phelps base all their hatred on the words of Grandpa Phelps alone.

How does that gel with your belief there is no right or wrong in the world?

Personally, I'm ashamed that no one has driven a truck over the damned Phelps family while they are on the side of the road protesting a funeral. Whoever does will be a national hero. Probably wouldn't even get convicted by a jury. If they did end up in prison, they would even be a hero there the Phelps are despised so much.

I don't hold the belief that there is no right or wrong in the world and I have never claimed that belief.....this shows your confusion and misunderstanding....or your attempt to spin and twist my words.

I claim that there is no universal right or wrong. The Phelps are a good example of that. One small group having very diverse thoughts from the majority on what is right and what is wrong.

Get it now?

Right Or Wrong, I Back My Xxxxxx - Condone or condemn

to be on the safe side use "condom"

Some prefer to live on the wilder side - right or wrong.

Personally, I'm ashamed that no one has driven a truck over the damned Phelps family while they are on the side of the road protesting a funeral.

I would attend their funeral with a sign that says "Good riddance to bad rubbish".

I think people back wrongdoing in many cases because they are either too insecure or too intellectually dishonest to question and examine the validity of their own beliefs.

Belief. A hardwired condition.

I don't think it is. I don't see many things the same way now as I used to see them, and I'm perfectly willing to accept that I may come to abandon my current beliefs. You got to let go of the ego though.

I'm almost dumbfounded! I just watched a Louis Theroux doco titled "America's Most Hated Family". It was all about the Phelps family and the Westboro Church (cf godhatesamerica.com).

If there was an argument for genetic disposition to unreasoning belief, that family stands out as living testimony.

I find it very hard to fathom how some moderately intelligent people, not isolated from society (all the children go to or went through public schools) can be so....so.....blinkered.

I find it almost unbelievable.....crazy even. They are as one-eyed and misguided as the most radical suicide bombers.

I'm beyond words.

At least suicide bombers seem to have an actual real-life gripe against somebody. The Phelps base all their hatred on the words of Grandpa Phelps alone.

here's some amusing reading for you:

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/

I think you underestimate them by calling them "moderately" intelligent. most of the family work in law.

Hmmmm....granted some lawyers are certainly intelligent, but I don't think a law degree neccessarily denotes great intelligence. I can think of one lawyer who shows only average to moderate intelligence.

here's some amusing reading for you:

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/

That has GOT to be a parody site, SURELY!!!!????

I read the "Christian Girls Guide To Spring Breaj Abstinance"..... It HAS to be a ridiculing disingenuous joke!

"During Spring Break, the number one priority for unsaved boys (especially lustful colored and avaricious Jewish ones) is to take home the trophy .....the sweet, warm blood of a virgin.........that prize is attained by spilling the sacred hymen blood of a lily-white Christian girl."

"As members of the inferior sex, Christian girls are more easily swayed toward the lures of Satan and anything drunk out of a pineapple. A young lady might have made a commitment to save herself for Jesus and abstain from the filthy, repulsive act from which the beauty of life springs, but it is often times more difficult for them to understand which parts of their body are off limits to the superior sex. "

"Of course, Christian females have a hard time understanding the different parts of the slimy abyss between their legs -- in part, because they have been forbidden to look. Most Christian ladies don't even realize they have six holes (the number of the beast) through which the devil tries to enter. There is only one however, that upon entry, will destroy an angelic little girlie’s virginity and turn her into a debauched, fornicating Devil’s slut who must be drop-kicked out the back door of our church and sent to the Landover Baptist Home for Wayward Girls and Pastors' Comfort Retreat."

That last sentence in the last example really gives it away as a joke. Send the naughty girls to the pastors for their comfort.

Someone spends alot of time creating this rubbish.

"

I think you underestimate them by calling them "moderately" intelligent. most of the family work in law.

Hmmmm....granted some lawyers are certainly intelligent, but I don't think a law degree neccessarily denotes great intelligence. I can think of one lawyer who shows only average to moderate intelligence.

Possibly, but one has to consider the fact that he is FAR more intelligent than anyone taking a swipe at him in this thread.

I think you underestimate them by calling them "moderately" intelligent. most of the family work in law.

Hmmmm....granted some lawyers are certainly intelligent, but I don't think a law degree neccessarily denotes great intelligence. I can think of one lawyer who shows only average to moderate intelligence.

Possibly, but one has to consider the fact that he is FAR more intelligent than anyone taking a swipe at him in this thread.

?? To whom are you referring? You seem to have someone that we all know in mind....and whoever it is, you seem to also concede that his only redemeeming factor is that he is smarter than me....assuming I was referring to the same moderately intelligent person that you are.

I think you underestimate them by calling them "moderately" intelligent. most of the family work in law.

Hmmmm....granted some lawyers are certainly intelligent, but I don't think a law degree neccessarily denotes great intelligence. I can think of one lawyer who shows only average to moderate intelligence.

Possibly, but one has to consider the fact that he is FAR more intelligent than anyone taking a swipe at him in this thread.

Yet, than we might have to decipher what is considered intelligence. One could be formally educated with a scholarly presence about themselves but clearly haven't any decent and clear intuitive and instinctive connections, certainly they deductive reasonings have been muddled and fabricated from convention. This isn't always intelligence.

The employment of increasingly sesquipedalian terminology, with recondite, esoteric, and arcane diction, often Latinate in origin, conduces to a form of communication that impresses its auditors or apprehenders as pompous, self-congratulatory, flatulent, and bloviated.