Board logo

標題: Please define: 道德 [打印本頁]
作者: daimo    時間: 2009-8-4 14:34     標題: Please define: 道德

I just want to start the discussion and see what people's definition of 道德 is (or what the 道德 bottom line is); you LIKE IT OR NOT .. I'll not comment.
作者: B仔    時間: 2009-8-4 14:38

道德 = double standard
作者: fibbi    時間: 2009-8-4 14:38

道德 can be defined in many ways wor...I mean...in terms of relationship? in terms of general behaviour? in terms of those "young model" (leng mo?)?
To me, buy something in costco and refund it after using a while, but not because that item is defective,  is already 不道德
作者: MoiRhapsody    時間: 2009-8-4 14:49

道可道，非常道；名可名，非常名。
聖人常無心，以百姓心為心。善者吾善之，不善者吾亦善之，德善。信者吾信之，不信者吾亦信之，德信。
作者: shutterbug    時間: 2009-8-4 14:55

It's a set of standards...but who sets the standards?  Everybody will have a different opinion.

I want to raise another question for discussion...do you think better/higher moral standards yeilds better society and place to live in?
作者: MoiRhapsody    時間: 2009-8-4 14:59

5# shutterbug


這個當然，
只是小蟲不喜被光照，
當小蟲越來越多的時候，
光就會被討厭呀~~~
作者: Littleprince    時間: 2009-8-4 15:15

禮義廉恥﹐國之四維。
作者: BiscottiGelato    時間: 2009-8-4 16:10

It's a set of standards...but who sets the standards?  Everybody will have a different opinion.

I want to raise another question for discussion...do you think better/higher moral standards yeilds bet ...
shutterbug 發表於 2009-8-4 14:55


higher moral standard? what's high and what's low? LOL who'se gonna call what's 'high' and what's 'low'? Majority? which majority? which country? which culture?...

very difficult question to ask... not to mention answer.....
作者: eatbanana    時間: 2009-8-4 19:14

道德已死
作者: 阿邊個邊個    時間: 2009-8-4 19:46

老子 said this in Chapter 2 of 道德經:
天下皆知美之為美，斯惡已。皆知善之為善，斯不善已。故有無相生，難易相成，長短相較，高下相傾盈，音聲相和，前後相隨。是以聖人處無為之事，行不言之教；萬物作焉而不辭，生而不有。為而不恃，功成而弗居。夫唯弗居，是以不去。
作者: rs1985    時間: 2009-8-4 20:23

lol
i dun think is about that anymore
is really about how people should act at least normally
like if you kick a begger in the face for nothing, that's wrong for sure
if you kill someone, than that's wrong
is basically common sense i guess
作者: soli    時間: 2009-8-4 22:23

簡單o甘講﹐ “己所不欲﹐ 勿施於人”
作者: BiscottiGelato    時間: 2009-8-5 09:05

道德已死
eatbanana 發表於 2009-8-4 19:14

Agreed. 道德 is just a concept, there is no hard and fast rule, it's an abstract concept that it's almost impossible to use to judge another person. Judging another person purely based on some so called 道德觀 will only result in certain bias.

(The following is not pointing to any one specific. The 'you' is non-subjetive)

Instead of judging other with 道德 this, 道德 that, spend more time and worry about yourself instead. Assess yourself how you are doing and how you are contributing, or taking away from society and whether your own behavior is acceptable to yourself. When looking at others, maybe try and sit in their shoe and think from their end. If you really think someone else is wrongly hurting someone else's interest, then don't criticise other by holding this holy 道德 hostage. It's merely your opinion, own up to it.

Just a bunch of BS because I'm lazy at work LOL~
作者: Littleprince    時間: 2009-8-5 09:46

樓上沒有說錯﹐只是﹐有幾多人願意真誠看待自己﹖多數律人以嚴﹐律己以寬﹐雙重標準。。。

最近看那套電視劇﹐看著大少奶那個衰仔 (蔣必文) 衰到貼地亞媽大少奶都仍然保著他﹐他自己也覺得自己一點都沒犯錯﹐殺了人都沒錯﹐錯的是其他人。。。可想而知﹐在各人自己心目中自己都是完美的﹐但若人人都覺得殺人放火都唔係咩大事﹐呢個世界咪大亂囉。。。道德﹐可以說是 NOTHING﹐但也可以說是 "我們安身立命﹐做人處世的支點﹔國家甚至世界紀律的基礎"。

以上也是工作無聊時候的 BS﹐唔同意的也可以反對架 (只是我不一定會回應咋) ~~~
作者: Littleprince    時間: 2009-8-5 09:52

道德 = double standard
B仔 發表於 2009-8-4 15:38

雙重標準本身已是“不道德”
作者: puZZle    時間: 2009-8-5 11:18

If moral is itself "double standard"
then we can say there is no moral since moral should be a single standard, how can it be "double" or "multiple" at the same time?

A truth needs to be absolute, not relative. If it is relative, then where, when, on whom is it the truth?

....Say, there is no God who sets an absolute moral standard, and that we are just some molecules that some how evolved to what we are right now (by natural selection & survival of the fittest), then there following is "right"

Raping is "right" since you are just spreading your genetic material as vast as u can
so is polygamy and adultery

Killing is "right" in the sense that you are eliminating competitors to survive and pass on your genes

Stealing, robbing etc is "right" since you are only getting the resources you need to survive and, again, pass on your genes

....and the list goes on...

and of course, I do NOT believe in the above
作者: puZZle    時間: 2009-8-5 11:21

What is more, we need to carefully judge whether we are biased on the standard of moral because we ourselves have done something that might go against certain standards

just my 2 cents
作者: shutterbug    時間: 2009-8-5 11:26

簡單o甘講﹐ “己所不欲﹐ 勿施於人”
soli 發表於 2009-8-4 23:23

but your likes/dislikes are not the same as mine...someone could like what you dislike...
作者: siumaibb    時間: 2009-8-5 13:02

社會普遍應為"正確"，就係合符道德表準
作者: puZZle    時間: 2009-8-5 13:22

本帖最後由 puZZle 於 2009-8-5 14:23 編輯
社會普遍應為"正確"，就係合符道德表準
siumaibb 發表於 2009-8-5 14:02


but we wouldn't think killing in cannibal societies as "right" right?

Also, how can we ever know what every single person think without doing a poll that involves every single person in a certain society?
作者: BiscottiGelato    時間: 2009-8-5 13:49

That's why i say moral is not a standard, it's just a concept.

You can say a certain action is 'immoral', but you have to realize it's not that the action didn't abide the moral standard. It's just that for you, it's immoral. A mere opinion and you founded it based on the concept of moral. Someone else can disagree with you.

if you say a big group of people thinks a certain action is moral/immoral, then that's just culture.

but all in all, moral is just a concept, which really are opinions formulated by 1 or more people for a certain timeframe. These opinion can change through time, from person to person or culture to culture. There's no standard.

Rather than figuring out how to criticize other people, might as well sit in someone else's shoe and learn from it. And if one do feel itchy criticising another person, try to realize that it's one's own opinion, instead of holding 'moral' as the big flag and become ignorant.

Just what I think moral is. I better check wiki and see how the consesus defines it LOL
作者: siumaibb    時間: 2009-8-5 13:58

In cannibal societies, eating human is consider right, no eating human is consider not right. So, 道德 changes in different eras and in different locations.

People in each society will define 道德 naturally, if you do something in the public, people 怒啤you, 咒罵you or 打鑊you then it is not 道德, but if you do something in the public but nobody say anything, then it is 道德.

Justice system also help define 道德 and the media also help defines 道德 too...media broadcast stuffs and the public will choose to accept or reject them, whatever the most being accepted, it is the most 道德.
作者: Littleprince    時間: 2009-8-5 14:13

but your likes/dislikes are not the same as mine...someone could like what you dislike...
shutterbug 發表於 2009-8-5 12:26

你沒有錯﹐可是 SOLI 也沒有﹐只是觀點與角度。。。

你的likes/dislikes 可能只係喜歡飲可樂定七喜﹐但係﹐社會唔會贊成有人“喜好”殺人﹐或者當好多人都贊成殺人係好的﹐就立法當成是對的事。。。可見還是有普遍的所謂﹐己所不欲﹐勿施於人。。。正如你不想被殺﹐所以也不會贊成殺戮合法化。

這雖然有點極端﹐但係一般的確是如此﹐人人都唔想交通意外發生﹐所以自己會遵守﹐也希望他人一起遵守交通守則﹐我們不想有賊 BREAK IN﹐可是﹐若你的小孩先去 BREAK IN別人的家﹐可能你就會覺得 BREAK IN 最好合法化了。。。最矛盾的是﹐我相信連自己做賊的﹐也不太希望自己的家比人BREAK IN吧﹖哈哈。。我唔係賊﹐所以答唔到。

當然﹐呢個社會好多人還是持有雙重標準的﹐所以人人做好自己就對了。
作者: soli    時間: 2009-8-5 19:39

but your likes/dislikes are not the same as mine...someone could like what you dislike...
shutterbug 發表於 2009-8-5 12:26

“己所不欲﹐ 勿施於人” 只係表面﹐背後要有“理解”和“互相尊重”黎支持﹐ 先至唔會變成“己所欲﹐施於人”
我喜歡但你不喜歡的事﹐常常有。只要我知道你不喜歡﹐並尊重你既選擇而無強行施於你身上﹐其實一D問題都無。

咩同性戀﹐靚模﹐食人族全部都可以apply。
你基你事﹐唔好搞我就得。LOL
作者: mcjohnjohn    時間: 2009-8-5 19:59

“己所不欲﹐ 勿施於人” 只係表面﹐背後要有“理解”和“互相尊重”黎支持﹐ 先至唔會變成“己所欲﹐施於人”
我喜歡但你不喜歡的事﹐常常有。只要我知道你不喜歡﹐並尊重你既選擇而無強行施於你身上﹐其實一D ...
soli 發表於 2009-8-6 11:39

咁如果有人鍾意食人, 仲要好殘忍咁鍾意一忽忽肉咁切去黎食, 但係佢又唔係食你woh, 咁樣O唔OK?
作者: soli    時間: 2009-8-5 20:51

被切o個個唔介意(要真係唔介意)﹐無逼你睇既話﹐關你鬼事。
以前日本鐘意玩切腹﹐咪又係o甘。

呢個世界仲有好多被虐待狂﹐鐘意玩SM啦﹐唔通你又要去管?
作者: mcjohnjohn    時間: 2009-8-5 21:29

被切o個個唔介意(要真係唔介意)﹐無逼你睇既話﹐關你鬼事。
以前日本鐘意玩切腹﹐咪又係o甘。

呢個世界仲有好多被虐待狂﹐鐘意玩SM啦﹐唔通你又要去管? ...
soli 發表於 2009-8-6 12:51

咁食人族食左另一個食人族既人, 咁係唔係合乎道德?
作者: puZZle    時間: 2009-8-5 22:15

Also, IF moral is only a concept and that it varies from culture to culture, then how should WE act if we happen to land in a cannibal society?
作者: soli    時間: 2009-8-5 22:18

咁食人族食左另一個食人族既人, 咁係唔係合乎道德?
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2009-8-5 22:29

合乎道德﹐ 就好似你食牛肉o甘。
又有人話食狗肉唔道德﹐但中國人食狗肉食左幾千年。
作者: soli    時間: 2009-8-5 22:20

Also, IF moral is only a concept and that it varies from culture to culture, then how should WE act if we happen to land in a cannibal society?
puZZle 發表於 2009-8-5 23:15

尊重人地既文化習俗﹐但唔需要跟住去食。
亦希望食人族人理解及尊重你既文化﹐唔去食你﹐因為你唔想俾人食。LOL
作者: mcjohnjohn    時間: 2009-8-5 22:27

合乎道德﹐ 就好似你食牛肉o甘。
又有人話食狗肉唔道德﹐但中國人食狗肉食左幾千年。
soli 發表於 2009-8-6 14:18

如果我食牛肉係合乎道德 (果隻牛係唔想比人食既), 咁牛食人肉O唔OK? (果個人係唔想比隻牛食既)
作者: Littleprince    時間: 2009-8-5 22:28

作者: mcjohnjohn    時間: 2009-8-5 22:28

尊重人地既文化習俗﹐但唔需要跟住去食。
亦希望食人族人理解及尊重你既文化﹐唔去食你﹐因為你唔想俾人食。LOL
soli 發表於 2009-8-6 14:20

咁如果食人族唔尊重你既文化, 咁點算?...
作者: chocobun    時間: 2009-8-6 00:54

咁如果食人族唔尊重你既文化, 咁點算?...
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2009-8-5 23:28

that's why there is governemnt and policy and authority in each city/ country
作者: soli    時間: 2009-8-6 05:40

如果我食牛肉係合乎道德 (果隻牛係唔想比人食既), 咁牛食人肉O唔OK? (果個人係唔想比隻牛食既)
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2009-8-5 23:27

道德只係規範人﹐牛食唔食人跟本同道德無關。
無人會去諗鯊魚老虎獅子食人道唔道德既﹐因為動物是依本能行事。
牛既本能係唔會食人﹐如果牛食人最多叫違反本能﹐
作者: sheep    時間: 2009-8-6 07:18

道德只係規範人﹐牛食唔食人跟本同道德無關。
無人會去諗鯊魚老虎獅子食人道唔道德既﹐因為動物是依本能行事。
牛既本能係唔會食人﹐如果牛食人最多叫違反本能﹐ ...
soli 發表於 2009-8-6 06:40

你同佢講咁多?
嘥氣啦
作者: shutterbug    時間: 2009-8-6 08:48

“己所不欲﹐ 勿施於人” 只係表面﹐背後要有“理解”和“互相尊重”黎支持﹐ 先至唔會變成“己所欲﹐施於人”
我喜歡但你不喜歡的事﹐常常有。只要我知道你不喜歡﹐並尊重你既選擇而無強行施於你身上﹐其實一D ...
soli 發表於 2009-8-5 20:39

Yes, it's not my business that one is gay but we're talking about moral, not acceptance.   e.g. Someone could commit suicide but is it the "right" thing to do?

Since human moral standards vary so much, we cannot rely on it.  We should look for a standard that's "given" to humans not created by humans.
作者: soli    時間: 2009-8-6 09:47

本帖最後由 soli 於 2009-8-6 10:56 編輯
Yes, it's not my business that one is gay but we're talking about moral, not acceptance.   e.g. Someone could commit suicide but is it the "right" thing to do?

Since human moral standards vary so mu ...
shutterbug 發表於 2009-8-6 09:48

人地要自殺﹐當然他自己覺得是對的﹐ 你可以說不對﹐但你不是他﹐你不應該將自己個套強加於別人身上﹐你地耶教唔係成日話咩自由意志咩? 如果他自殺沒影響到別人﹐ 關你鬼事。

別玩扭曲了﹐moral standard 沒有不同﹐一樣是“己所不欲﹐勿施於人”﹐ 食人族不去吃你﹐亦是因為“己所不欲﹐勿施於人”﹐他們也想其他人理解和尊重自己的文化。他們吃自己的人沒有違反“己所不欲﹐勿施於人”。如果他們自己不想被吃﹐但就吃人﹐這樣就係唔道德﹐係錯既。
孔子講呢句野出黎時﹐耶穌個阿爺都未出世﹐ 你save 啦~
作者: chunsh    時間: 2009-8-6 10:00

Yes, it's not my business that one is gay but we're talking about moral, not acceptance.   e.g. Someone could commit suicide but is it the "right" thing to do?

Since human moral standards vary so mu ...
shutterbug 發表於 2009-8-6 09:48

who can tell which standards are "given" to human but not "created" by human? only human can tell
作者: shutterbug    時間: 2009-8-6 10:28

本帖最後由 shutterbug 於 2009-8-6 11:32 編輯
人地要自殺﹐當然他自己覺得是對的﹐ 你可以說不對﹐但你不是他﹐你不應該將自己個套強加於別人身上﹐你地耶教唔係成日話咩自由意志咩? 如果他自殺沒影響到別人﹐ 關你鬼事。

別玩扭曲了﹐moral standard 沒有不同 ...
soli 發表於 2009-8-6 10:47

we're talking about a "standard" not and act/guide...if you can't differentiate the two and want to keep thinking they're the same thing, I can't stop you...but you're making yourself sound like a fool.

from wiki:
Perhaps his most famous teaching was the Golden Rule stated in the negative form, often called the silver rule:

子貢問曰、有一言、而可以終身行之者乎。子曰、其恕乎、己所 不欲、勿施於人。
Adept Kung asked: "Is there any one word that could guide a person throughout life?"
The Master replied: "How about 'shu' [reciprocity]: never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself?"

Analects XV.24, tr. David Hinton

Confucius is only a human...he can set the standard?  Moreover, he said this as a guide for living a life, not moral standards.  Please don't drag in Christianity
作者: shutterbug    時間: 2009-8-6 10:28

who can tell which standards are "given" to human but not "created" by human? only human can tell
chunsh 發表於 2009-8-6 11:00

if you're an atheist I don't think you'll ever find the answer to this
作者: Littleprince    時間: 2009-8-6 10:29

所以我唔喜歡回應 SORRY 同蠢殊 的話﹐因為不知的東西太多了
作者: chunsh    時間: 2009-8-6 10:34

if you're an atheist I don't think you'll ever find the answer to this
shutterbug 發表於 2009-8-6 11:28

I am not atheist. Definitely not
I believe that the "moral standard given to human" that you talking about is from your god. This would leading back to the religious matters (which is fully expected as moral and religion are closely related) ---- who can prove what Bible said is 100% truely from God but haven't being modified by some one in the history? the Bible can prove.

Story
Police: who can prove you are innocent from this murder
Suspect: I can
Police: how? and why?
Suspect: Just because I said so
作者: shutterbug    時間: 2009-8-6 10:35

所以我唔喜歡回應 SORRY 同蠢殊 的話﹐因為不知的東西太多了
Littleprince 發表於 2009-8-6 11:29

SORRY 同蠢殊....LOL  good names!!!
作者: CWong    時間: 2009-8-6 10:47

本帖最後由 CWong 於 2009-8-6 10:49 編輯

我仲以为妳講緊蕃薯仔添！
作者: Littleprince    時間: 2009-8-6 11:09

我仲以为妳講緊蕃薯仔添！
CWong 發表於 2009-8-6 11:47

番薯蠢殊﹐出自同黍﹐殊途同歸﹐都係薯

係呢﹐最近發現有處正的日本野﹐第日 E 地址比你﹐唔可以響呢度講﹐費事第日去到要等位呀
作者: fibbi    時間: 2009-8-6 11:16

做乜鬼講講下又講咗去GOD個到架，唔通你哋細個 o個時個個都讀教會學校？
作者: shutterbug    時間: 2009-8-6 11:36

番薯蠢殊﹐出自同黍﹐殊途同歸﹐都係薯

係呢﹐最近發現有處正的日本野﹐第日 E 地址比你﹐唔可以響呢度講﹐費事第日去到要等位呀
Littleprince 發表於 2009-8-6 12:09

LP, PM me too...haha
作者: shutterbug    時間: 2009-8-6 11:41

I am not atheist. Definitely not
I believe that the "moral standard given to human" that you talking about is from your god. This would leading back to the religious matters (which is fully expected  ...
chunsh 發表於 2009-8-6 11:34

It's not neccessarily my god or your god...if you're not an atheist then what's the MS from your religion?

Actually by comparing different MS, we can find the "ultimate" MS ourselves more or less.  The goal is to find the ultimate MS that will benefit mankind but without a slightest chance of harm.  If that's the ideal situation and people like to be good beings, then we should all follow this "ultimate" MS?
作者: shutterbug    時間: 2009-8-6 11:42

做乜鬼講講下又講咗去GOD個到架，唔通你哋細個 o個時個個都讀教會學校？

fibbi 發表於 2009-8-6 12:16

well, you can think of it this way...if people can't find the answer from science then they would look elsewhere
作者: soli    時間: 2009-8-6 11:45

we're talking about a "standard" not and act/guide...if you can't differentiate the two and want to keep thinking they're the same thing, I can't stop you...but you're making yourself sound like a fool.

請回答道德標準的作用。
認為吃人不道德﹐那認該怎辦?
真係﹐都唔知係邊個sound like a fool~ lol
作者: chunsh    時間: 2009-8-6 11:49

做乜鬼講講下又講咗去GOD個到架，唔通你哋細個 o個時個個都讀教會學校？

fibbi 發表於 2009-8-6 12:16

don't you agree that moral standard and religion are closely related to each other?
作者: Littleprince    時間: 2009-8-6 11:56

MJJ 現在正睡得很熟地在打呼
作者: puZZle    時間: 2009-8-6 11:57

don't you agree that moral standard and religion are closely related to each other?
chunsh 發表於 2009-8-6 12:49


you can say that

without some kind of god acting as an "outsider"
humans would only have Subjective Moral Standards
instead of a god's Objective Moral Standard

If it is subjective, there are variances, changes, and conflicts
ultimately, there is no morals (no absolute morals because no one can say what is right and what is wrong)

So if we are talking about objective moral standard, then it gotta relate to some higher being
作者: shutterbug    時間: 2009-8-6 15:25

請回答道德標準的作用。
認為吃人不道德﹐那認該怎辦?
真係﹐都唔知係邊個sound like a fool~ lol
soli 發表於 2009-8-6 12:45

請回答道德標準的作用。
this is a stupid question, if you don't know, look it up in a dictionary what is its meaning then you'll know what it is for

認為吃人不道德﹐那認該怎辦?
another stupid question, if I know the solution right now, I'll be famous
作者: fibbi    時間: 2009-8-6 15:37

52# chunsh


It's related, but not that close wor.
How moral stand developed within one person is based on the environment that one grow up with, even the person studies in catholic/christian school, the moral standard won't solely come from the religious la right? For me who is just typical grow up in HK, my moral standard comes from family influences, Chinese culture, but just a little bit from religious lor. e.g. We learn "lo but sup wai" (don't take things not belong to you from the street), we learn "gay sor but yook, mud see yu yun", those are part of Chinese culture la.
作者: soli    時間: 2009-8-6 15:38

你答唔出咪算囉﹐ 哈哈

Actually by comparing different MS, we can find the "ultimate" MS ourselves more or less.  The goal is to find the ultimate MS that will benefit mankind but without a slightest chance of harm.  If that's the ideal situation and people like to be good beings, then we should all follow this "ultimate" MS?

其實呢個topic 幾年前都討論過﹐當時SB唔認為universally right/wrong 可以存在﹐仲搞笑到搬D work ethic 出黎。 幾年過去﹐SB 竟然尋求"ultimate" MS﹐時間真係可以令人改變。
作者: shutterbug    時間: 2009-8-6 15:44

本帖最後由 shutterbug 於 2009-8-6 16:54 編輯
你答唔出咪算囉﹐ 哈哈


其實呢個topic 幾年前都討論過﹐當時SB唔認為universally right/wrong 可以存在﹐仲搞笑到搬D work ethic 出黎。 幾年過去﹐SB 竟然尋求"ultimate" MS﹐時間真係可以令人改變。 ...
soli 發表於 2009-8-6 16:38

I really don't know what you're talking about...what is universally right/wrong?  I believe there's right and wrong, but what's "universally"?

I don't think my views have changed...you probably misunderstood me...like you always did...or it was someone else  LOL...

too bad old posts are gone otherwise I can dig it up
作者: soli    時間: 2009-8-6 16:20

unversally right/wrong 中文即係絕對的對與錯﹐適用于任何地方任何人物任何事情。
作者: mcjohnjohn    時間: 2009-8-6 17:47

MJJ 現在正睡得很熟地在打呼
Littleprince 發表於 2009-8-7 03:56

... 咁都比你識穿左... 估唔到大家o係小弟瞓到流哂口水既期間出左咁多個posts~
well, 我已經答唔到嘴, 因為我都唔知而家講緊d 乜, 費時答得太無厘頭又比羊舔.
作者: sheep    時間: 2009-8-7 07:18

... 咁都比你識穿左... 估唔到大家o係小弟瞓到流哂口水既期間出左咁多個posts~
well, 我已經答唔到嘴, 因為我都唔知而家講緊d 乜, 費時答得太無厘頭又比羊舔. ...
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2009-8-6 18:47

唔知就睇完就算啦
撘咩嘴
又拉埋我果叠
你真係唔俾人屌過唔舒服
作者: shutterbug    時間: 2009-8-7 07:24

unversally right/wrong 中文即係絕對的對與錯﹐適用于任何地方任何人物任何事情。
soli 發表於 2009-8-6 17:20

right is right, wrong is wrong, it applies to all situations so why do we need to add the word "universal"?
作者: soli    時間: 2009-8-7 09:31

可能我真係認錯人了﹐ 再講都徙氣。
作者: chunsh    時間: 2009-8-7 12:26

right is right, wrong is wrong, it applies to all situations so why do we need to add the word "universal"?
shutterbug 發表於 2009-8-7 08:24


in the past, "the earth is flat" is right, "burning the people who practice witchcraft or suspected to practice witchcraft" is right.
Are you saying that those are still right today?
作者: Littleprince    時間: 2009-8-7 13:11

作者: Littleprince    時間: 2009-8-7 13:15

唔知就睇完就算啦
撘咩嘴
又拉埋我果叠
你真係唔俾人屌過唔舒服
sheep 發表於 2009-8-7 08:18

Guess MJJ loves you
作者: sheep    時間: 2009-8-7 13:45

本帖最後由 sheep 於 2009-8-7 14:50 編輯
Guess MJJ loves you
Littleprince 發表於 2009-8-7 14:15

Someone that you love to hate
作者: shutterbug    時間: 2009-8-7 13:55

in the past, "the earth is flat" is right, "burning the people who practice witchcraft or suspected to practice witchcraft" is right.
Are you saying that those are still right today?
chunsh 發表於 2009-8-7 13:26

accepted by many people isn't sufficient for it to be right

you'll find more examples of these down the road...



歡迎光臨 溫哥華老友記討論區 (http://www.loyaukee.com/forum/) Powered by Discuz! 7.2