I admit the phrase is slightly redundant, but it has been widely used by geoscientists for, well, centuries. Try: Online Dictionary Oblate \Ob*late"\, a. [L. oblatus, used as p. p. of offerre to bring forward, offer, dedicate; ob (see Ob-) + latus borne, for tlatus. See Tolerate.] [1913 Webster] 1. (Geom.) Flattened or depressed at the poles; as, the earth is an oblate spheroid. [1913 Webster] 2. Offered up; devoted; consecrated; dedicated; -- used chiefly or only in the titles of Roman Catholic orders. See Oblate, n. [1913 Webster] Oblate ellipsoid or Oblate spheroid (Geom.), a solid generated by the revolution of an ellipse about its minor axis; an oblatum. Contrasted with prolate spheroid. See Ellipsoid of revolution, under Ellipsoid. [1913 Webster] or . . . The Ellipsoid! Or is it the Spheroid? How about the Geoid? "An ellipsoid is defined as the solid (i.e. a three dimensional object) produced by rotating an ellipse (a two dimensional object) about one of its axes. In the case of the earth, the ellipse is rotated about the minor axes. An oblate ellipsoid is defined as an ellipsoid which is flattened at the poles. Thus, the term oblate applies only to an object which is rotating, as the Earth does, since the term pole would have no meaning otherwise. (The term prolate ellipsoid would apply to an ellipsoid which is expanded at the poles.) Thus, all of these measurements pretty much confirmed that the shape of the earth is that of an oblate ellipsoid. That the Earth is an oblate, rather than prolate, ellipsoid is assumed knowledge and the qualifying term oblate is often omitted for brevity." This one should interest an engineer: Dynamics of Falling Oblate Ellipsoids
"Everyone" doesn't have to agree on something for it to be a universal truth. Again, I can fully believe outright fallacy, doesn't make it true. See above flat earth example. For something to be the "best thing possible" it would have to have a 0% chance of any negative consequences. Again, who cares what millions of idiots think. Should I bring up the fact that billions of people are Christians? Your argument to that is that all of those people are weak-minded sheeple. Everyone who is pro-choice for the sake of not wanting the responsibility should be posed the question "Should your parents have aborted you if they felt like it?" Doesn't matter what I do, that does not sanction it as being "ok". You love it, and you are right in that we can't tell anyone what they can and cannot believe, but that doesn't make it any less wrong. I will not claim that. I have not used my faith at all throughout this entire thread, and will continue to stay away from that. It's not necessary.
Does something have to be agreed upon my everyone to make it true? No. Murder is evil, wrong--immoral. And if in a certain culture says that murder is moral, it is still not. This is not subjective. If most of the world thought that murder was moral, it would still not be. Morality is not subjective. Also, no matter what you call the shape of the earth, it is what it is. The truth of its shape is absolute right now at this point in time--debating semantics is something else entirely.
but unless you are drawing your absolutes from god, how are we to determine these morals? rational discourse? but thats just opinion! where is the proof that your moral absolutes are correct? where is the lab that can demonstrate which morals are correct? the only one i can almost always agree on is that killing innocent people is wrong. and even then not always. i am aware that if you want to have a successful society, there are certain rules you should enact. and you can call those morals if you like, but almost all of them have exceptions and are not absolute. frogleg reads too much ayn rand and 157 reads too much bible.
Yes. It. Is. Period. Some people believe that it is morally wrong to drink alcohol, or play football. Some peoples moral lead them to believe that utilizing technology, such as thisa here internet, is wrong. Just because your morals may be more widely accepted does not make them fact.
or be subjectively determined to be good or bad. thats the point. it is subjective. it is not immoral to like or dislike whatever you want for whatever reason you want. if you hate blacks, thats ok, i hate asparagus. go ahead and hate whatever you want. not explicitly yet, but clearly your claim is that god tells man what is right and wrong. is it not?
TigerRagAndrew, I got the impression that you took PHIL2020, 'Ethics', at LSU, given your knowledge of guys like Mill. Maybe this assumption was incorrect. Regardless, if that class taught me anything, it's that morality is subjective. Morality is not limited to right and wrong, but also the basic patterns or ideas that you use to justify or condemn particular actions in a multiplicity of situations. There is absolutely nothing that suggests that one moral philosophy is superior to another. Therefore, it is subjective.
That which sustains your life and that which brings happiness to you is the good, the moral bedrock. Go from there. Take alchohol: If you drink to excess=immoral. If you drink in moderation, do not injure your body, that is not immoral. (p.s. i've drank to excess many times, so what? i'm not morally perfect)
You seem to have stumbled on at least some semblance of an answer. Who is to decide on the difference between 'excess' and 'moderation'? Further, why is it not immoral to drink 'in excess' if you don't injure your body? What I'm getting at is the criteria by which you use to evaluate your moral position on certain actions, regardless of how widely agreed upon their moral worth may be, differs from person to person. You and I may agree on certain things as being morally wrong. But that doesn't mean that we agree that they are wrong for the same reason. Thus, morality is subjective.
This is rediculous. What if killing fetuses pays my bills, thus sustaining my life, and brings me great happiness - does that make it right or moral???
