|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 26, 2019 17:20:31 GMT
I'll admit to having a soft spot for "Big Shot":
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2019 17:22:19 GMT
I'll admit to having a soft spot for "Big Shot": Forgive lowtack Father, he knows not what he does. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 26, 2019 17:25:55 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2019 17:37:22 GMT
Back in the day I suffered musically challenged people putting Uptown fecking Girl on pub jukeboxes repeatedly. If hating Billy Joel because of that makes me a blasphemer, so be it. I have already lived through that hell. |
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Mar 26, 2019 18:12:40 GMT
but that doesn't hurt anyone or do any harm? That includes harm to ones self and could included harm to animals or the environment.
I confess, I can't think of anything that I consider immoral but that doesn't do any harm or hurt anyone.
To answer this, we need two bits of information. Morality is subjective. So for something to be immoral for this discussion, does that mean it must be taken from the point of view of the one who is being hurt? And what does "hurt" someone mean? If someone is frightened by something you do, have you hurt them?
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Mar 26, 2019 18:54:18 GMT
By how he compares it with slavery, it seems he considers it causing some sort of harm. I agree that homosexuality doesn't harm anyone. But I don't think there's a god that is offended by it. Do you think that people are going to far when they call things immoral because they think it harms a god in some psychological way? No, they are trying to find something in religion to justify their own bigotry. For Christians, it doesn't stack up. You can't be a follower of Christ and prejudiced against gay people. Why do you suppose some folks are bigoted against gays? It's not a challenge so much as an honest query  .
But seriously where does the almost intuitive disdain for homosexual behavior come from? I have to admit, I have at times felt it. But my reason tells me there's nothing wrong with it...it's just a personal preference. But why do you think some attach righteous/moral significance to it?
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Mar 26, 2019 18:55:50 GMT
I find people who don't stop to say hello to and smooth every dog they pass in the street to be immoral 🤷 But it's easy to see the harm in that. Think of the dogs for gods sake.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Mar 26, 2019 19:03:09 GMT
Why do you think society frowns upon it? Do you think it's because generally, it increases the chance of harm...ie deformities? Sure... but... also..... Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwww.. ..  I know...I get that. And I can see that if someone believe there was a god who was personally offended by it that that is the basis for saying it causes harm...harm to god. But I don't believe there's a god, but I still think Ewww same as you. But why has society developed such a stigma against it? I think it's pretty generic across societies...men don't try to reproduce with their daughters or sisters. Might it be something built in to us because way way way back...when sexual reproduction was just beginning, genes had to produce individuals who felt repulsion at trying to produce young with one's sister/mother/daughter because those gene pools that didn't produce individuals like that were at a distinct disadvantage and didn't survive? IOW repulsion at the idea of screwing one's relatives was an adaptation that improved the chances the gene pool would survive.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 26, 2019 19:03:16 GMT
Getting horny for kids
|
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Mar 26, 2019 19:30:31 GMT
canonizing a cluster fuck to conform to your cauterized visions
cantankerous causation
fueled by
centuries old constipation
still
doesn't give you
the right
to
promote voodoo
as if
no matter what evil you do
is looked upon
as
business as usual
by all the same pawns
who
for lack of a nearby animal farm
still insist upon
acting like
enlightened patriarchal pigs
while dancing jigs
only
their ears are
channeled into.
sjw 03/26/19 inspired at this very moment in time by yet another generation tossed over the precipice.
from the 'bewitched series' of poems
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 26, 2019 20:16:01 GMT
Who or what one gets horny for is not a voluntary choice. As long as you're not acting on it, and thus not doing harm to kids, why is involuntarily getting horny for kids immoral?
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 26, 2019 22:34:41 GMT
Who or what one gets horny for is not a voluntary choice. As long as you're not acting on it, and thus not doing harm to kids, why is involuntarily getting horny for kids immoral? of course it’s a voluntary choice. If you are conflating attraction with horniness you’re a perv. Even then people who are just attracted to kids need to work on that. |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 26, 2019 23:06:53 GMT
Who or what one gets horny for is not a voluntary choice. As long as you're not acting on it, and thus not doing harm to kids, why is involuntarily getting horny for kids immoral? of course it’s a voluntary choice. If you are conflating attraction with horniness you’re a perv. Here's an article from TeenVogue you might find useful. It's titled, "What Horny Means, And How to Tell If You're Horny". It begins: "How can you tell if you're horny? The biggest challenge I faced as a teenager dealing with newly minted sexual desires was something rather obvious: recognizing that what I was feeling was sexual desire." www.teenvogue.com/story/how-to-tell-if-youre-horny
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2019 23:23:03 GMT
but that doesn't hurt anyone or do any harm? That includes harm to ones self and could included harm to animals or the environment.
I confess, I can't think of anything that I consider immoral but that doesn't do any harm or hurt anyone.
Off the top of my head, I'd say that a thing that does no harm cannot be immoral by definition.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Mar 27, 2019 0:25:11 GMT
but that doesn't hurt anyone or do any harm? That includes harm to ones self and could included harm to animals or the environment.
I confess, I can't think of anything that I consider immoral but that doesn't do any harm or hurt anyone.
Off the top of my head, I'd say that a thing that does no harm cannot be immoral by definition. That would seem to be the case, wouldn't it? That's kind of where I find myself.
But others have raised some things that I had to press a bit to find the "harm." Vegas brought up the father who slept with his willing adult aged daughter and we could add to it that he and/or she knew absolutely that they would be unable to produce children through the union; eg she'd had a hysterectomy . If no one else knows about it going on, is there any harm? If not, is that union immoral?
I'm reading a book and in it the author gives an example of an action that would seem to be a case where absolutely NO harm could come of some action many might claim is immoral. Every week, a guy buys a chicken from the super market, takes it home and before he cooks it, he...well, satisfies himself with it. Would that be immoral...or just kind of disgusting but not immoral?
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Mar 27, 2019 0:31:01 GMT
It's gross, but is it immoral if they absolutely NEVER acted on it, not in the slightest way and never ... fed the feeling so to speak...ie did not dwell on it and if they avoided kids sio they would never yield to the temptation, never said or did anything untoward?
Why would it be immoral?
The only problem I'd see is if the person ever put themselves in a situation where they could act on the feeling or dwelt on it to the point the sought to satisfy themselves with kids. The harm with dwelling on it or cultivating the feeling is that they MIGHT act on it causing irreparable damage to some child.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2019 1:47:43 GMT
Off the top of my head, I'd say that a thing that does no harm cannot be immoral by definition. That would seem to be the case, wouldn't it? That's kind of where I find myself.
But others have raised some things that I had to press a bit to find the "harm." Vegas brought up the father who slept with his willing adult aged daughter and we could add to it that he and/or she knew absolutely that they would be unable to produce children through the union; eg she'd had a hysterectomy . If no one else knows about it going on, is there any harm? If not, is that union immoral? I have no moral problem with a father sleeping with his daughter if both are properly consenting adults. The issue there is that this is a very rare thing; the vast majority of father/daughter incest cases involve children, and even when it's an adult there is a strong possibility of the father having groomed the child to want that kind of relationship. It's extremely hard to demonstrate that such a relationship is genuinely consensual, so I'm content for the law to forbid it in practice even if there's a theoretical case of no harm done. Is this chicken alive? If so then it can't give informed consent to the action since it has no understanding of what's happening. If he's pleasuring himself with a standard supermarket chicken, I really don't see anything immoral about it. Sticking your member in the body of a chicken is certainly less of an affront to it than killing it in the first place, after all, and we're okay with that. It's just really, really weird and gross. Unless it's a frozen chicken. Then the frostbite possibilities are... unpleasant.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Mar 27, 2019 9:44:21 GMT
That would seem to be the case, wouldn't it? That's kind of where I find myself.
But others have raised some things that I had to press a bit to find the "harm." Vegas brought up the father who slept with his willing adult aged daughter and we could add to it that he and/or she knew absolutely that they would be unable to produce children through the union; eg she'd had a hysterectomy . If no one else knows about it going on, is there any harm? If not, is that union immoral? I have no moral problem with a father sleeping with his daughter if both are properly consenting adults. The issue there is that this is a very rare thing; the vast majority of father/daughter incest cases involve children, and even when it's an adult there is a strong possibility of the father having groomed the child to want that kind of relationship. It's extremely hard to demonstrate that such a relationship is genuinely consensual, so I'm content for the law to forbid it in practice even if there's a theoretical case of no harm done. Is this chicken alive? If so then it can't give informed consent to the action since it has no understanding of what's happening. If he's pleasuring himself with a standard supermarket chicken, I really don't see anything immoral about it. Sticking your member in the body of a chicken is certainly less of an affront to it than killing it in the first place, after all, and we're okay with that. It's just really, really weird and gross. Unless it's a frozen chicken. Then the frostbite possibilities are... unpleasant. I think there are things we are repulsed by that aren't immoral. I would imagine these "repulsions" arose as some sort of evolutionary adaptation that, at one time, was instrumental in the survival of the gene pool. IOW, the gene pool of humans or some ancestor species of humans survived because it produce individuals who were automatically repulsed and therefore avoided certain behaviors. I imagine homosexuality might fit into that category. At one time, when resources were scarce and a given species was few in numbers, a gene pool producing individuals who didn't care where they expended their reproductive resources might've been selected against. So that adaptation spread throughout the gene pool. And once that "tendency" to be repulsed caught on, it was never completely lost even though now, the survival of humanity would not seem to be threatened by homosexuality. Now people conflate this intuitive reaction born of millions of years of evolution with them actually having a good reason to think something is immoral.
But for me, morality comes back to whether there is a chance of harming someone...others obviously, but also including one's self, harming the population at large, harming animals or harming the environment.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,678
Likes: 1,304
|
Post by The Lost One on Mar 27, 2019 10:46:29 GMT
but that doesn't hurt anyone or do any harm? That includes harm to ones self and could included harm to animals or the environment.
I confess, I can't think of anything that I consider immoral but that doesn't do any harm or hurt anyone.
What about something that allows harm to happen without being the cause of it? Like not helping someone you spot drowning in a lake? I would consider that immoral but its debatable whether it is technically harming someone.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 27, 2019 11:11:43 GMT
It's gross, but is it immoral if they absolutely NEVER acted on it, not in the slightest way and never ... fed the feeling so to speak...ie did not dwell on it and if they avoided kids sio they would never yield to the temptation, never said or did anything untoward?
Why would it be immoral?
The only problem I'd see is if the person ever put themselves in a situation where they could act on the feeling or dwelt on it to the point the sought to satisfy themselves with kids. The harm with dwelling on it or cultivating the feeling is that they MIGHT act on it causing irreparable damage to some child.
This is the dilemma isn't it? If thoughts cannot have a moral center then of course nothing is immoral (Or moral) without action. I say the notion of a guy jerking off to sexual imaginations of toddlers or babies is an immoral action because thinking is a verb and the thoughts ARE avoidable. Routinely thinking about it does cultivate feelings of acting on it. Maybe they are too afraid to get caught. Maybe they don't have the opportunity. If it were a legal and available option, would they take it? We know people who never act on it may still have gobs of kiddie porn which is also an immoral action. Regardless, if a dude is routinely aroused by kids, there is something morally wrong with him. It may be a mental issue, but then he should be getting help for it.
|
|
.
