I guess if you dont like the term ‘family morals’, use another term. Whichever term we use, there are still statistics to be faced up to.

Secondly, I have absolutely no idea why you’re so keen to take me to task on my views on divorce in the second portion of your reply to me because at no point have I mentioned divorce, its effect on those involved, or indeed any of my friends (not least since, to the best of my knowledge, none of them has been divorced); nor have I attempted to defend it, let alone gone out of my way to do so.

What makes you think that the worst acts are the criminal ones? For example, it is criminal to steal a car (or even a watch) but not to steal a husband. But which is actually worse?

Joe-
‘Family morals’ is a neutral term, referring to what is best / beneficial practice in family and marital matters. It doesn’t presuppose any conclusion: for conclusions, we must look to any relevant statistics.
I agree that ‘natural’ is a weasel word. But the fact that people use it at all, and understand one another when they are using it, proves that it can’t be made to mean whatever one wants it to mean.

Not only are some divorces (Im not at present talking about your friend’s) therefore a lot worse than criminal acts; they are also the number two stress-causer behind bereavement.

Of all the things to go out of one’s way to defend, this is a strange one.

What I suspect is there is some correlation between the things you defend and the things that just so happen to be fashionable in AD 2005 Britain. But I may be wrong.

The UK in AD 2005 is no more or less ‘real’ than any other society at any other date.

No it isn’t something to be shrugged off. But neither is it a reason to roundly condemn your son to one of his best friends, as if he is some kind of criminal or something. They got divorced by mutual agreement by the way. He didn’t go off with anyone else or anything.

Sheesh, these church people… They should get real…

Joe-
You are still missing the point

[...]

this isnt a competition about who missed the most points…

Magnificent.

3% is not as bad a mark in an exam as 1%, but that’s irrelevant, since they are both bad marks.

Not if the pass mark is 2%. And here, I think we come to one of the many problems with the assertions which you appear to feel constitute arguments – definition. You bandy about terms like “family morals” and “natural” as if they had some at least agreed-upon, if not intrinsic, definition. They don’t.

In the Dictionary of Philosophy ed. Paul Edwards (1967), article on ‘Vagueness’, ‘reliion’ is chosen as a classic example of a vague word. I agree. It’s almost impossible to define.

Christ has nothing to do with religion. He has everything to do with reality.

Im sorry about your friend’s mum. Im glad that she did not minimise what a bad thing divorce is (it causes more stress than anything apart from bereavement). But why didnt she have a more positive outlook and focus on the future?

I dont know whether involvement in such films is better or worse than murder / rape / theft – it’s surely less bad than murder or rape. But that’s not relevant, since they are all bad. 3% is not as bad a mark in an exam as 1%, but that’s irrelevant, since they are both bad marks.

It’s symptomatic of how far you have bought into modern western standards as some kind of universal norm that you can just shrug off things like divorce. Divorce is not just an everyday thing that one can shrug off – not in every society it isnt. There are some societies where it is, but that is an indication of some sickness in the society.

I would stand by them too.

One of the most shameful things I heard regarding religion, was my friend’s mother, (a strict and committed Christian churchgoer) about her son. “Oh Shaun our XXXXX has been a real dissapointment to us you know…”

Do you know what he did ?
Not murder. Not rape. Not theft.

He got divorced.

Nuff said.

Stuff religion. I know what it does to people. It’s WORSE than any drug, or any porn.

Joe-
I am simply citing a newspaper critic who said he was uncomfortable with the way Kubrick’s eye lingered over certain scenes. I imagine he had a point, & as a TV critic had decent reasons behind his point.
But this isnt a competition about who missed the most points. Just by saying I have also missed a point (and Im sure I miss thousands, as we all do) isnt an answer. Becasue the game we are playing is not called tit-for-tat, it is called the quest for truth.