Logicboy03:




Shut up


Were you not hailing the vatican when they said that atheists will go to hell (in order to clarify the popes message?)

striktlymi: Hallo guy,



Age 10? By whose rules or standards? I bet not God's...in God's time table a grown-up man of 50 can still be excused because of an inability to reason as he should...

There are a number of factors to put into consideration when deciding who has sin and who hasn't...the most important factor is sincerity of heart...

striktlymi:
I will answer the question only if you would answer one of mine: what justifies life in prison?

striktlymi:


Olodo!!!

If you are having a hard time understanding a simple post why not just say so?

Logicboy03:



Is it right for sincere atheists to go to hell?

Logicboy03:
Don not answer my question with a question (I know your escape tactics)

striktlymi:

Now he asks the question...

My belief about this matter is no secret and it has been ratified by the Pope...I have said before and I say again that no sincere Atheist who does right in line with the principles of right conscience will merit hell...

striktlymi: Olodo, if I don't want to answer a question, I simply say so...if I use a question to attempt an answer, it is basically to help put the matter in proper perspective.

Uyi Iredia:

There are sincere atheists. Maybe they shouldn't go to hell.

Uyi Iredia:
You say that I'm not using God's'standards but you aren't using God's'standards to say a 50 year old can be excused for inability to reason.

Uyi Iredia:
I think it should only be recommended (not justified) in cases where the crime involves a repeated pattern of brutal killings and/or torture. I think such people are unlikely to be reformed. For them, (unwarranted) killing is a habit.

Uyi Iredia:
Why did I say it can't be justified ? Because of my thoughts on morality. I quickly found out that things people use to justify morals are things already presumed good.

Uyi Iredia:
I googled justification for life imprisonment. The justification in a certain legal article I surfed was that a crime demands retribution. But the crime and the retibution have already been arbitrated as bad or good already.

Uyi Iredia:
So that's hardly an excuse. Consider this, if Rigby's wife kills Adebolajo for her husband's murder (a retribution) she would be prosecuted. That'll be double-standard (which is also presumably bad) yet retribution was implied to be good in the case of life imprisonment.

Uyi Iredia:
I think this finding a justification for the morality (or not) suffers from assuming the precedent. To circumvent this I note one need intelligence to be able to arbitrate what's moral or not. Put simply, you decide what's moral. This is why babies or little kids (or mentally impaired people) are simply not considered as moral agents (i.e wilfully doing good or evil)

striktlymi:

Now he asks the question...

My belief about this matter is no secret and it has been ratified by the Pope...I have said before and I say again that no sincere Atheist who does right in line with the principles of right conscience will merit hell...



Olodo, if I don't want to answer a question, I simply say so...if I use a question to attempt an answer, it is basically to help put the matter in proper perspective.

Logicboy03:



So wait, good atheists avoid hell? That is the summary of your post?


Say it clearly!

striktlymi:

I assume I am addressing adults...

Logicboy03:


OLODO....dats all

striktlymi:

It is my belief that sincere Atheist have the same opportunity of making heaven as any other Christian. The only catch is that the individual needs to be truly sincere and does what is 'right'.

striktlymi: What exactly do you think is God's standards as regards the 50 year old who has the reasoning ability of a child?

striktlymi: If I understand the above then you are saying that no one should go to jail unless the individual exhibits a trend in the wrong committed?

Now let me get some clarity here; are you saying that if someone has 3 kids and some killer comes to sniff the life out of one of them, the parent should remain calm until the individual kills the second and maybe the third before a jail term is recommended for the offender?

striktlymi: Hmmm...interesting thought. I believe you know that morality has to do with the principles of right conduct...I agree that a lot of what we consider to be morally okay have a lot to do with what we believe to be good but what else can one use as a basis?

striktlymi:
Now, for me, I believe that when we are talking about societal morals as against private morals, we should be looking at matching the benefits of these morals with their associated costs, especially when it comes to using these morals as a basis for the enactment of laws.

striktlymi:
Well Uyi, I don't think with the modern parliaments we have, it would be that easy to just pick anything we adjudge to be good as part of the laws governing a society...I agree that law making can be very subjective but considering that before any law is enacted there has to be some level of debates, consultations, lobbying, various levels of readings etc it still will not be easy to just bring in whatever we feel like.

striktlymi:
I don't think that can be taken as double standards because it is obvious that she broke the law just like the man who allegedly murdered her husband...again, how are we even sure that the man is guilty of the crime without a trial?

striktlymi:
If everyone is permitted to take laws into their hands then we will be left with anarchy...take the killing of the Aluu 4, in Port-harcourt as an example...we will have a situation where people carry out extrajudicial killings for no justifiable reason.

striktlymi:
Well the general feel of your post is quite interesting but not practicable in the world we find ourselves imo...leaving people to determine what is moral to them and take same as law would not tell well of a civilized society...

striktlymi: I am of the opinion that the present state, though not perfect, is better off because here people come together to determine what should constitute societal morals, from which the bases of equity, justice and fairness are determined.

striktlymi:

It is my belief that sincere Atheist have the same opportunity of making heaven as any other Christian. The only catch is that the individual needs to be truly sincere and does what is 'right'.

striktlymi: What exactly do you think is God's standards as regards the 50 year old who has the reasoning ability of a child?

striktlymi: If I understand the above then you are saying that no one should go to jail unless the individual exhibits a trend in the wrong committed?

Now let me get some clarity here; are you saying that if someone has 3 kids and some killer comes to sniff the life out of one of them, the parent should remain calm until the individual kills the second and maybe the third before a jail term is recommended for the offender?

striktlymi: Hmmm...interesting thought. I believe you know that morality has to do with the principles of right conduct...I agree that a lot of what we consider to be morally okay have a lot to do with what we believe to be good but what else can one use as a basis?

striktlymi:
Now, for me, I believe that when we are talking about societal morals as against private morals, we should be looking at matching the benefits of these morals with their associated costs, especially when it comes to using these morals as a basis for the enactment of laws.

striktlymi:
Well Uyi, I don't think with the modern parliaments we have, it would be that easy to just pick anything we adjudge to be good as part of the laws governing a society...I agree that law making can be very subjective but considering that before any law is enacted there has to be some level of debates, consultations, lobbying, various levels of readings etc it still will not be easy to just bring in whatever we feel like.

striktlymi:
I don't think that can be taken as double standards because it is obvious that she broke the law just like the man who allegedly murdered her husband...again, how are we even sure that the man is guilty of the crime without a trial?

striktlymi:
If everyone is permitted to take laws into their hands then we will be left with anarchy...take the killing of the Aluu 4, in Port-harcourt as an example...we will have a situation where people carry out extrajudicial killings for no justifiable reason.

striktlymi:
Well the general feel of your post is quite interesting but not practicable in the world we find ourselves imo...leaving people to determine what is moral to them and take same as law would not tell well of a civilized society...

striktlymi: I am of the opinion that the present state, though not perfect, is better off because here people come together to determine what should constitute societal morals, from which the bases of equity, justice and fairness are determined.

Uyi Iredia:

Okay. But as a Christian I didn't have this belief. Just saying.

Uyi Iredia:
I don't know. Perhaps you can help me out, say a Bible verse that I overlooked. Because the Bible, as far as I know, is specific on sins that warrant hell. It doesn't state the age limit.

Uyi Iredia:
No. I'm saying humans should be imprisoned for life (in a first instance trial) for serial killing. A jail term should be recommended for a first-time murder (in the example you state) but I don't think it should be for life. Reason: I think such a person is possibly open to reform.

Uyi Iredia:
Nothing. Save for ability to discern good and evil (intelligence is required for this - a baby can't be said to know good or bad because it isn't intelligent enough) We decide it's good. Consider the the creation in Genesis. God didn't adduce reasons as to why what He made was good, He simply called it good.

Uyi Iredia:
That's what democracy does. Under autocratic oligarchies and in some olden-day kingdoms it was easier to enact laws spuriously.

Uyi Iredia:
See the point. Arbitration. We have a crystal clear video of a man slaughtered and his assailants rationalizing the crime and you ask that question. The double stanndard is this: The law only is the acceptable means of making retributions to crime and not citizens themselves. Think of this double-standard as a cost for law. The way government infringes on your right to property by demanding tax as cost for providing public services.

Uyi Iredia:
I'm not suggesting anarchy. I'm simply saying that morality is based on choices we make (due to our intelligence) In the subsequent posts you mentioned laws. These are arbitrated (i.e decided upon) by convention in the legislature, the judiciary then applies the law to a particular case (this is also arbitrary, it isn't hard and fast). Consider George Mbah's alleged reporting of a coup plot attracting life imprisonment and the same attracting a death sentence on Diya's person.

Uyi Iredia:
Agreed. Just note the important thing. Intelligence. Animals don't define morals or laws the way humans do, they lack the prerequisite intelligence.

striktlymi:

Okay!

striktlymi: Luke 18:16
King James Version (KJV)
16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

striktlymi: Like how long should the jail term be?

striktlymi: Don't you think that leaving individuals to determine what should constitute public morals would be a 'one way ticket to anarchy'? What then would stop a Bokoharam member from amputating the hand of a Christian in broad daylight?

striktlymi: Yea! Present day democracies is meant to be an improvement on what we had in the past.

striktlymi: What lead us to this point really is your post about some lady taken the law into her hands...well the bold suggests that you have changed that position.

striktlymi: Are morals really based on the choices we make?

When I talk about laws, I am not saying that it is where morality originates...far from it. I am only saying that whatever a community wants to be regarded as part of public morals should have an objective way of determining it, e.g the laws of the land.

striktlymi: True! Intelligence play a major role.

Uyi Iredia:



Okay. Any other that could lay the matter to rest ?

Uyi Iredia:
A decade - at most. That is for first-time murder with intent. Not manslaughter.

Uyi Iredia:
It is individuals who determine morals. In the legislature, in the church, in the mosque, at work (via coded work ethics), in schools (via handbooks). Consider how individuals like Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed and Darwin influenced the morals of many.

Uyi Iredia:
My position is the same. I was just using that example to highlight a point.

Uyi Iredia:
Agreed. Objectivity is needed . . . but . . . subjectivity can't be escaped. Indeed an individual choice would subjective. This is the reason why individuals come together and deliberate on a moral standard to be upheld. This could be done through political means or religious followership. Consider the role of choice (and hence morality) on the issue of gays. The Nigerian legislature recently made it illegal and a punishable offence while in France it was recently made legal.



Okay.

striktlymi:

One word from Sacred scriptures is enough to lay a matter to rest as long as it is used in the proper context.

striktlymi:
Now this is getting interesting...that means one who rap*s another's wife should go home with a warning and a repeat offence should fetch him no more than a probation or an extended sentence of no more than one month jail term...and another who murders a 6 year old should also be out on the streets in 10 years...while thieves in politics should get a hand shake for the moneys looted.

Well this your remedy will take us back to the stone age where one takes matters in his own hands...why allow the killer live to face a 10 year jail term after killing your child when he can be made to meet the same fate as the child?...after all the parent can conveniently afford to be out of circulation for 10 years.

striktlymi:
Individual morals operate under the sphere of private morals and private morals are 'different' from public morals...influencing what ultimately makes its way to becoming public morals is very different from allowing the individual determine what public morals are for him.

striktlymi: If individuals are allowed to determine what public morals are for them then you would see various clashes of interests...what Mr. 'A' would consider morally upright for him might just be what Mr. 'B' condemns as immoral and deserving of death...Even a psychotic killer would consider his killing game morally okay.

striktlymi: Before any conduct is considered as good or bad in the eyes of the public, that object of morality MUST be agreed on by at least the majority of the populace and not what just an individual decides. This is the underlying principle behind popular democracy...it has to be participatory and one man can't just have his way without the majority of folks agreeing to his demands.

striktlymi:
I am talking about the shift in point made...read your comments again and you would realize this shift.

striktlymi:
I don't think the above was ever in dispute.

Uyi Iredia:

Okay.




I only mentioned my punishment for murder and the reason. Why are you now bringing rape and looting into this ? Since you don't like my suggestion, please state what you think punishmentnfor first-time murder should be.




Okay. Individuals can determine what public morals are for him and set out to change them. Case in point: racial segregation was legal, in the Southern parts of U.S. In the Northern parts there was still discrimination even without segregation laws. What gave impetus to the movement ? A woman who determined that a public moral (a law) was unjust and disobeyed it. The name of the woman is Rosa Parks. It seems the import of the names I mentioned is lost on you (particularly in Jesus' case) because these men condemned certain actions and prescribed others.



But we see various clashes of interests. Consider France where the gay marriage bill was passed. It was in spite of protests. Or when Kero Wiwa was sentenced to death, protests. When a looter (Bode George) was released jamboree and thanksgiving amidst public condemnation. FOI bill delayed until pressure from human rights groups and media was intensified. In fact politics is called 'the dirty game' precisely because of this various clashes of interests.



I said the same thing in a different way. I said morals are spread through political machinery (like your said democtatic process) or by religious followership (which implies popularity). Sometimes one men have their way. In the Bible, there was Jezebel. In Germany, there was Hitler. Nigeria had its Abacha's and IBB's. Abacha, unlike Hitler had MINORITY support.





Let's see. A short summary.

I said the law involves double-standard: it's based on retribution while punishing retribution. You said you don't think it's double-standard and the woman is taking the law into her hands. I replied that the law is the acceptable means of taking retribution and it is a cost for the law.

The bolded is why you think I've changed - I didn't. The cost I was referring to is that double-standard is involved if the law abrogates retribution while preventing others from seeking retribution (outside of it).



Okay.

Logicboy03:



f4ck you, Uyi!


Why are you not this logical when you debate with me?

You save the best part of your reasoning for this olodo called Striklymi?

striktlymi:

I believe Uyi has realized that when one argues with an olodo, there is a need to handle the olodo with kid gloves.

Uyi Iredia:

Okay.

I only mentioned my punishment for murder and the reason. Why are you now bringing rape and looting into this ? Since you don't like my suggestion,

Uyi Iredia: please state what you think punishmentnfor first-time murder should be.

Uyi Iredia:
Okay. Individuals can determine what public morals are for him and set out to change them. Case in point: racial segregation was legal, in the Southern parts of U.S. In the Northern parts there was still discrimination even without segregation laws. What gave impetus to the movement ? A woman who determined that a public moral (a law) was unjust and disobeyed it. The name of the woman is Rosa Parks. It seems the import of the names I mentioned is lost on you (particularly in Jesus' case) because these men condemned certain actions and prescribed others.

Uyi Iredia:
But we see various clashes of interests. Consider France where the gay marriage bill was passed.

Uyi Iredia:
It was in spite of protests. Or when Kero Wiwa was sentenced to death, protests. When a looter (Bode George) was released jamboree and thanksgiving amidst public condemnation. FOI bill delayed until pressure from human rights groups and media was intensified. In fact politics is called 'the dirty game' precisely because of this various clashes of interests.

Uyi Iredia:
I said the same thing in a different way. I said morals are spread through political machinery (like your said democtatic process) or by religious followership (which implies popularity). Sometimes one men have their way. In the Bible, there was Jezebel. In Germany, there was Hitler. Nigeria had its Abacha's and IBB's. Abacha, unlike Hitler had MINORITY support.

Uyi Iredia:
Let's see. A short summary.

I said the law involves double-standard: it's based on retribution while punishing retribution. You said you don't think it's double-standard and the woman is taking the law into her hands. I replied that the law is the acceptable means of taking retribution and it is a cost for the law.

The bolded is why you think I've changed - I didn't. The cost I was referring to is that double-standard is involved if the law abrogates retribution while preventing others from seeking retribution (outside of it).
Okay.

Logicboy03:



f4ck you, Uyi!


Why are you not this logical when you debate with me?

You save the best part of your reasoning for this olodo called Striklymi?

striktlymi:
I guess you fail to see where I was heading with the rape thingy and the rest...if you give 10 years max for murder, then what punishment do you give to a rapist that would be considered fair in line with the 10 years you gave to the murderer?

striktlymi: I believe the punishment meted out to any individual should be commensurate with the crime committed. If someone deliberately take the life of another, his life should also be forfeit...but considering that I am against the death penalty then I will say life in prison is an appropriate punishment.

Note that there can be exceptions to the rule when some other factors like age, intent etc are put into consideration.

striktlymi: Civil disobedience is still the right of every citizen. Like I said there is nothing wrong with influencing what ultimately becomes public morals and what you have up there is quite different from what your argument was.

striktlymi: You argued that individuals should be left to determine what constitute public morals for them and I am saying that it certainly will not work because private morals are very subjective. One can't use his private morals as a basis for judging what public morality is.

striktlymi: If what is determined to be public morals is seen by some to be against one's fundamental rights as human beings then anyone is permitted to protest this through civil disobedience.

striktlymi: Now, what do you think would have happened to this same lady if she had killed someone because she believed that it is a good thing to kill that individual when the law clearly states that taken another's life is wrong?

striktlymi: Why do you think this gay marriage bill was enacted? It is basically because of the need for there to be an objective standard by which public morals are determined. If the bill was not passed and every gay person decides to get married anyway, how then do they draw the line between private and public morals?

striktlymi: Now you are taking this 'clash of interest' thingy out of context. Ken's case and the pressures of various interest groups do not exactly fit into what I had in mind...

striktlymi: We are talking about the everyday clash of interests which would arise if there is no objective basis for determining public morals...why would a man who killed another be arrested in the first place if he thinks that what he does is morally okay?

striktlymi: The answer is quite simple really...there is already a basis for determining what is wrong and right in the public eye for which the individual can be held liable for his actions or inactions...and that basis is the constitution, not the individual's private morals.

striktlymi: Let's settle this...what do you think should be the basis for public morals? The constitution or the individual's private morals?

striktlymi: There is no double standards when everyone is judged with the same set of laws. Note that the difference between judicial killing and extrajudicial killing is just sovereignty...in judicial killing there is a sovereign who has legitimacy but in extrajudicial killing there is no sovereign and legitimacy is not accorded the individual.

striktlymi:
I guess you fail to see where I was heading with the rape thingy and the rest...if you give 10 years max for murder, then what punishment do you give to a rapist that would be considered fair in line with the 10 years you gave to the murderer?

striktlymi: I believe the punishment meted out to any individual should be commensurate with the crime committed. If someone deliberately take the life of another, his life should also be forfeit...but considering that I am against the death penalty then I will say life in prison is an appropriate punishment.

Note that there can be exceptions to the rule when some other factors like age, intent etc are put into consideration.

striktlymi: Civil disobedience is still the right of every citizen. Like I said there is nothing wrong with influencing what ultimately becomes public morals and what you have up there is quite different from what your argument was.

striktlymi: You argued that individuals should be left to determine what constitute public morals for them and I am saying that it certainly will not work because private morals are very subjective. One can't use his private morals as a basis for judging what public morality is.

striktlymi: If what is determined to be public morals is seen by some to be against one's fundamental rights as human beings then anyone is permitted to protest this through civil disobedience.

striktlymi: Now, what do you think would have happened to this same lady if she had killed someone because she believed that it is a good thing to kill that individual when the law clearly states that taken another's life is wrong?

striktlymi: Why do you think this gay marriage bill was enacted? It is basically because of the need for there to be an objective standard by which public morals are determined. If the bill was not passed and every gay person decides to get married anyway, how then do they draw the line between private and public morals?

striktlymi: Now you are taking this 'clash of interest' thingy out of context. Ken's case and the pressures of various interest groups do not exactly fit into what I had in mind...

striktlymi: We are talking about the everyday clash of interests which would arise if there is no objective basis for determining public morals...why would a man who killed another be arrested in the first place if he thinks that what he does is morally okay?

striktlymi: The answer is quite simple really...there is already a basis for determining what is wrong and right in the public eye for which the individual can be held liable for his actions or inactions...and that basis is the constitution, not the individual's private morals.

striktlymi: Let's settle this...what do you think should be the basis for public morals? The constitution or the individual's private morals?

striktlymi: There is no double standards when everyone is judged with the same set of laws. Note that the difference between judicial killing and extrajudicial killing is just sovereignty...in judicial killing there is a sovereign who has legitimacy but in extrajudicial killing there is no sovereign and legitimacy is not accorded the individual.

Uyi Iredia:

5 years. I know you'll disagree.

Uyi Iredia:
Okay.

It isn't. It's a clear case of private moral overriding public morals.

Uyi Iredia:
And public morals are subjective to private morals, especially so, since they are made by them.

Uyi Iredia:
Except when they aren't. As in Abacha's regime, Hitler's regime, South Africa's apartheid regime etc.

Uyi Iredia:
She would have been convicted.

Uyi Iredia:
To curb gays. Before the laws were enacted, gays didn't publicly profess love, have $ex or marry. The prospect of stigmatization was enough to deter them. Now can gays secretly have $ex or marry despite the law ? Yes.

Uyi Iredia:
It's another clear case of private moral overriding public interest.

Uyi Iredia:
Because there are laws, and there are people who enforce those laws by agreement, or by compulsion. Just note public moral won't stop individuals from deciding what's moral for them.

Uyi Iredia:
This basis was made by individuals, no ?

Uyi Iredia:
The constitution is a public moral. It's basis is private moral.

Uyi Iredia:
There's double-standard if what justifies an act in the court doesn't justify an act by a person.

outc@st:
Note: striktlymi = outc@st

outc@st:
Definitely! That would be a slap on the face of justice. Someone commits murder and gets just 10 yrs while one who r.apes another gets 5 yrs? Lady justice must be in love with a murderer. Lol!!!

outc@st:
No! That's a clear case of civil disobedience and not just an individual using her private morals as a basis to override public morals.

Like I said before, given each citizen the right to determine what public morals are for them and apply same as law is a recipe for anarchy.

outc@st:
I don't think the above has been in dispute. Remember my narrative on the law making process? This was meant to show how public morals are determined and accepted as laws. Public morals are determined by private morals.

outc@st:
I am not sure I understand the above.

outc@st:
Precisely! And in that answer lies the difference. Civil disobedience is a political tool which is part of the inalienable rights of citizens to protest any law that is seen as unjust. On the other hand, using private morals as a basis of determining public morals contravenes the provisions of the law.

outc@st:
If after deliberations in parliament it was decided that gay marriages are illegal, but a church still decides to go ahead to wed a gay couple i.e using their private morals to determine public morals, this would be seen as going against the law and the individuals involved would be liable to prosecution.

The point here is that we do not use our private morals to override what is already determined as public morals. It's similar to the example of the individual who believes killing another is right.

outc@st:
No! Ken and the Ogoni 8's case is different. Ken was what you can call a victim of circumstance. He was found guilty of inciting others to violence against some Ogoni chieftains who were brutally murdered. His accuser was an intolerant military regime...this is very different from what we are talking about.

outc@st:
Like I mentioned earlier, pressure groups are an intrinsic part of any law making process. The individuals in a pressure group do not go about using their private morals as a basis for determining what public morals are for them.

If their pressures do not work out and the interest they represent fail to make it into law, the best they can do is accept the determined public morals and fight for other interests as against going against what ultimately becomes public moral. This too is different.

outc@st:
I agree! Individuals should be free to determine what is private morals for them, to the extent that their private morals do not infringe on the rights of anyone else.

outc@st:
The basis is determined by individuals collectively and not that an individual is left to determine this on his own and make same, public morals.

outc@st:
The above is not in dispute.

outc@st:
If every individual is subject to the same set of laws and judged by same then there is no double standards.

Uyi Iredia:

Okay. Why the name ? Just curious.

Uyi Iredia:
There are 3 aims IMO of the justice system: retribution, reformation and restoration. Rape is serious no doubt but I think we can agree it's less serious than murder. Keeping in mind we just don't want to punish, I think 5 years is enough for a first-time rapist. A serial rapist (first time) or a second-time rapist gets a stiffer penalty.

Uyi Iredia:
The bolded was all I needed you to affirm. I also agree it is a case of civil disobedience. On your last statement, I quite disagree. Anarchy as seen through history, is typically precipitated by adverse social factors (usually catalyzed by a failure of government). Keep in mind what I said earlier, that individuals through religious or political means influence public morals. I used Jesus as an example.

Uyi Iredia:
Okay.

In such regimes people weren't allowed to protest violation of human rights.

Uyi Iredia:
Okay.

But in the case you mentioned private morals overrode public morals, hence prosecution. Note this occurred under the law. Before the law I stated stigmatization did the work. I'm beginning to think you see only formally made laws as public morals OTOH I think public morals are the morals common to most, if not everyone in the society (they may or may not be codified).

Uyi Iredia:
I disagree. The reason being that his killing was supposedly in Abacha's interest. Abacha had no qualms killing political opponents or activists. In spite of public appeals to the contrary he got Saro Wiwa killed. The machinery through which he was murdered is the judiciary. Like it or not, he was tried, sentenced and executed because of Abacha.

Uyi Iredia:
Pressure groups are a coalition of individuals. Privately they believe something is wrong e.g corruption, racial segregation, human rights violation etc. They unite so they can influence public morals through campaigns, protests and suing.

Uyi Iredia:
Actually, they are free. No matter how a government tries to straitjacket a people into a mode of thinking freedom prevails. This is why, for example, Stalin ultimately failed to eradicate religion from Russia.

Uyi Iredia:
If your parents flog you for stealing, and say it's right because they are your elders; don't you think it'll be pretentious if they flogged you for flogging a younger sibling who stole ?

thehomer: Ah. Ingersoll. He is actually one of my favourite speakers.

If you can, try reading the volumes of his lectures keeping in mind when they were written. It was in his works that I firs heard the phrase "honor bright".

Uyi Iredia: I'll be back to reply.