Stripped

committed · Post by **committed** » 1/14/2003, 2:58 pm

*covers his virgin eyes*

starvingeyes · Post by **starvingeyes** » 1/14/2003, 3:06 pm

hazy? ok, that's it. i'm going to spell it out for you.

FACT: the only logical way to determine if an action is "right" or "wrong" is by checking to see if the rights of any other person are violated.

FACT: sleeping around does NOT violate the rights of anyone.

FACT: therefore, sleeping around is NOT wrong.

FACT: by calling someone a "slut", you are implying that sleeping around IS wrong.

therefore, the word slut is meaningless, and serves only to embarass the user.

how many times will i have to repeat myself here? i'm not arguing whether or not ALL people use condoms to perfection, i'm only arguing that it CAN be done, and if it is, you reduce the chance of getting ill or pregnant to almost nothing. are we clear now?

why don't i care if some stupid jackass can't put a condom on properly and thusly infects himself with aids or some other such disease? because it's not my responsibility to babysit him.

tell me, why do you think it's good to encourage a culture that limits the freedoms of people to protect the stupid? sleeping around is only dangerous to those who aren't responsible or mature enough to handle it.

and just as an afterthought, there is nothing logical or rational about using a slur of any sort, for virtually any reason. simply using the term "slut" is illogical and unreasonable.

Narbus · Post by **Narbus** » 1/14/2003, 3:30 pm

xchrisx wrote:why should society see it from my point of view? i'm right. secondly, it's NOT the business of the government, the guy down the street or some people on the internet to judge persons based on how many people they've slept with. it's none of "societies" business. don't agree? prove me wrong.

I have yet to see you prove it "right" that promiscuity is okay. So if everything was totally perfect then sex wouldn't be dangerous at all. Great. But I live in reality, where everything isn't perfect. Sex can be dangerous, even with the best protection.
All you've said is that you know people who have had sex and had no problems. I know people who have had sex and have had problems. So what's your point?

i'm tired of talking about condoms. my point is very simple. if you take the proper care when selecting and using a condom, you reduce the danger to yourself to an almost non existent percetile, save for some skin contact diseases. i don't care if some people have sex without condoms etc. etc. if you're careful, you won't have any problems.

your argument is because some people cannot properly use a device, the device is flawed. this is a fallacy.

Alright. Stop ignoring the parts of my post that you can't argue with. I posted, from the study that you yourself quoted, a shit-load of stats that show that carefully picking a condom does not reduce your chance of danger to an almost negligible percentile. 54% chance of transmission of HIV is not a negligible percentile. 10% failure rate with regards to prenancy is not a negligible percentile.
And my argument is that since people are not perfect, they can be called to task when the participate in unsafe activities. If someone is a dangerous driver, running red lights, speeding through school zones, driving drunk, they can be called to task for it. Just because there are people out there who know how to drive, and do it well, does not mean that everyone should be exempt from criticism.

what? i was pointing out that the chances of getting AIDS are even lower then i originaly posted for most straight men. how does that support your point about my statstics?

My point was that the US is just too big, and too varied for such statistics to really matter to me. I live in the midwest, and am a straight male. My chances are lower. For a gay male living on the west coast, their chances are considerably higher. There is no real relevance that can be garnered from your statistics.

actually i'm trying to argue that promiscuity is ok because it is. still waiting on you to show me why it's "wrong".

BECAUSE YOU CAN FUCKING DIE FROM IT, AND TAKE A LOT OF PEOPLE WITH YOU. LEARN TO READ.

lying to a potential sex partner about being STD free and sleeping around are two very different things. nice try though. one is a direct violation of your rights and the other is not. one is wrong and one is fine. guess which is which.

I never said lying. If the girl hasn't bothered to be tested, since she used a condom everytime (you know, those "perfect" condoms with the 54% transmission rates) and then sleeps with me, still using a great, "ultra-safe" condom, then I get infected with something because I didn't know about her past, then something is wrong.

actually, i've never said i don't believe people don't use condoms wrong. once again, the fact that somebody may be using it wrong does not change the fact that when used properly, it is highly effective.

Please point out in what math system 54% tranmission of HIV is "highly effective."

it's not the condoms fault that you don't know how to use it. so don't blame the condom if it fails.

and you're using the same logical fallacy here as you did above. don't.

I am not, and I did not.
It is not my fault if the condom is defective, which it is, up to 54% of the time. And yes, I'm hoping if I say that enough you'll actually fucking read it.

read my post. i said you don't have the right to insult people. then i followed that up with "you can CALL someone on whatever you want..."

Actually, I do. It's called the First Amendment. I checked, and I didn't see the amendment where I have the right to not be insulted. If you could please point out which one that is, I'd be grateful.

i believe i conceded that condoms are not totally effective against contact trasmitted diseases, but that also depends on the affected area.

Yes, and it also depends on how much sex you have. After all, more sex does equal more chances to transmit disease. Oh, look there, more sex can be really dangerous.

you still have not shown me in any logical and reasonable way on why sleeping around [ something that has no effect on you ] is wrong. it isn't.

I pay taxes. Do you know what taxes help fund? Hospitals, free clinics, Medicare/Medicaid, social security, welfare, and a plethora of other social programs. Many of those programs are aimed at stopping the spread of disease. Others are aimed at treating those who do have the disease, and can't afford the treatment on their own. Still others are aimed at providing for people who don't have the money to raise their kids. So if there's a lot of people sleeping around, then there will be more people drawing money to clean up the aftermath. Money that I have to pay. It does affect me. I am part of society, so problems within society affect me.
And if a friend, or family member is infected because someone was stupid, then I am affected.

i know a girl who at 17 had been with 17 different guys. she had never gotten pregnant and she has never had an STD.

Great. So one person not getting their live run over by sleeping around is somehow justification for all the people in the world to sleep around without caring about the potential side effects?

the fact is, you can spout off your "sex education" indoctrination all you want, but i live in the real world and i see people every day out there having sex, using condoms, and not getting sick or pregnant.

And you can spout off your half-assed doctrine that I have contradicted at every step as long as you want. I like to spend my time in a world where when someone points out how much you're fucking up, you grow a brain stem and listen up.

Narbus · Post by **Narbus** » 1/14/2003, 3:40 pm

xchrisx wrote:hazy? ok, that's it. i'm going to spell it out for you.

FACT: the only logical way to determine if an action is "right" or "wrong" is by checking to see if the rights of any other person are violated.

FACT: sleeping around does NOT violate the rights of anyone.

FACT: therefore, sleeping around is NOT wrong.

FACT: by calling someone a "slut", you are implying that sleeping around IS wrong.

No. "Right" and "wrong" are inherently moral concepts. There isn't always the kind of logic behind the concepts as you seem to think.therefore, the word slut is meaningless, and serves only to embarass the user.
For example, a nihilst believes that all of creation is spiraling down to oblivion, and hastening that descent is the role of that individual in their life. So spreading disease and violating the rights of others would actually be "right" to them. It's a question of perspective.
Second, sleeping around can violate the rights of people, particularly in real life where even the most carefully laid preparations can fail.
So your "logic" falls apart. Oops for you.

how many times will i have to repeat myself here? i'm not arguing whether or not ALL people use condoms to perfection, i'm only arguing that it CAN be done, and if it is, you reduce the chance of getting ill or pregnant to almost nothing. are we clear now?

FIFTY-FOUR PERCENT FAILURE RATE TO CONTAIN THE HIV VIRUS IS NOT PERFECTION.

why don't i care if some stupid jackass can't put a condom on properly and thusly infects himself with aids or some other such disease? because it's not my responsibility to babysit him.

CHRIST ON A CRUTCH. FIFTY FOUR PERCENT FAILURE RATE. DO YOU NEED A GRAPH?!

tell me, why do you think it's good to encourage a culture that limits the freedoms of people to protect the stupid? sleeping around is only dangerous to those who aren't responsible or mature enough to handle it.

Because I should have the freedom to not have my taxes spike so that others can pay for the kids they couldn't afford to have, or the treatment for disease that they can' pay. I have the right to not worry about someone close to me getting fucked over because someone else likes to think with their crotch. Are my freedoms not as important?

and just as an afterthought, there is nothing logical or rational about using a slur of any sort, for virtually any reason. simply using the term "slut" is illogical and unreasonable.

Because human being and human interactions are built on the highest levels of logic. Oh, wait, no, emotion plays a role. That's right, looks like we both forgot for a minute there!

Mechanical Thought · Post by **Mechanical Thought** » 1/14/2003, 3:41 pm

boooya, that was good lol.
you make ALOT of sense...

committed · Post by **committed** » 1/14/2003, 3:42 pm

sexual promiscuity is okay.

if you and your partners are mature and smart enough to handle it.

saying sexual promiscuity is wrong is like saying guns are wrong because both can be dangerous.

this is only true when the idiotic and irresponsible are involved.

having multiple partners is your choice and it's not wrong.

starvingeyes · Post by **starvingeyes** » 1/14/2003, 3:55 pm

alright dipshit, i'm getting real tired of this crap from you two. with every post you start acting like a bigger and bigger asshole and frankly i don't need to hear it from you. if you can't understand what i'm trying to say then that is your goddamn problem, because i am getting really bored of trying to dumb this down for you.

last time.

I have yet to see you prove it "right" that promiscuity is okay.

1. the only things which can be shown as wrong in a logical and reasonable setting are those things which violate the rights of other people directly

2. sleeping around does not do this.

3. sleeping around is therefore, not wrong.

Alright. Stop ignoring the parts of my post that you can't argue with. I posted, from the study that you yourself quoted, a shit-load of stats that show that carefully picking a condom does not reduce your chance of danger to an almost negligible percentile. 54% chance of transmission of HIV is not a negligible percentile. 10% failure rate with regards to prenancy is not a negligible percentile.

that was the shittiest condom on the block with the 54% failure rate. i'm not even sure they sell those anymore. on the whole they found the condoms between 86-96% effective at preventing HIV when having sex with an infected partner, which as i pointed out earlier, is not easy to do.

the pregnancy stat is refuted by the other study which shows that condoms are 99% effective against preventing pregnancy when used properly.

CAUSE YOU CAN FUCKING DIE FROM IT, AND TAKE A LOT OF PEOPLE WITH YOU. LEARN TO READ.

you fucking moron. F1 racing is dangerous. people die racing F1 cars, and sometimes kill other people. does that make it wrong?

your argument is that dangerous=wrong. LOGICAL FALLACY.

try again.

I never said lying. If the girl hasn't bothered to be tested, since she used a condom everytime (you know, those "perfect" condoms with the 54% transmission rates) and then sleeps with me, still using a great, "ultra-safe" condom, then I get infected with something because I didn't know about her past, then something is wrong.

once again, you use a condom when you're having sex with her and you significantly reduce your chance of getting a disease.

when you take the number of people in the states who HAVE std's and then multiply that by the population and then multiply that by the low end figure of 86% prevention of transfer with a condom you'll discover that the chances of getting one with any random partner are very, very, very low.

I am not, and I did not.
It is not my fault if the condom is defective, which it is, up to 54% of the time. And yes, I'm hoping if I say that enough you'll actually fucking read it.

54%, once again, is an extreme figure for a particular brand. if all condoms were only 54% effective then my current and most of my ex girlfriends would all have gotten pregnant during the time period they were with me.

0.0ml of semen gets through a condom which passes the FDA's tests. breakage is a potential problem, but this is a fairly rare instance and you can just pull out if your condom breaks.

Actually, I do. It's called the First Amendment. I checked, and I didn't see the amendment where I have the right to not be insulted. If you could please point out which one that is, I'd be grateful.

i didn't mean in the legal sense of it, especially considering i don't believe in the law, i meant without facing some consequence.

I pay taxes. Do you know what taxes help fund? Hospitals, free clinics, Medicare/Medicaid, social security, welfare, and a plethora of other social programs. Many of those programs are aimed at stopping the spread of disease. Others are aimed at treating those who do have the disease, and can't afford the treatment on their own. Still others are aimed at providing for people who don't have the money to raise their kids. So if there's a lot of people sleeping around, then there will be more people drawing money to clean up the aftermath. Money that I have to pay. It does affect me. I am part of society, so problems within society affect me.
And if a friend, or family member is infected because someone was stupid, then I am affected.

you're branch hacking here. the problem is that people sleep around and get sick, and as a result, become a drain on "the system", the problem is with "the system" itself. social programs are immoral.

furthermore, sleeping around is not the "social problem" here. whether you like it or not, you can have multiple partners over your life time and not have any unwanted children or diseases, the problem is lack of adherence to the prevention procedure by underage couples.

i posted in 3 easy steps at the top of this post a very clear and logical pathway as to why sleeping around is not wrong. you have yet to refute that, and you won't, because you can't.

starvingeyes · Post by **starvingeyes** » 1/14/2003, 4:15 pm

No. "Right" and "wrong" are inherently moral concepts. There isn't always the kind of logic behind the concepts as you seem to think.therefore, the word slut is meaningless, and serves only to embarass the user.
For example, a nihilst believes that all of creation is spiraling down to oblivion, and hastening that descent is the role of that individual in their life. So spreading disease and violating the rights of others would actually be "right" to them. It's a question of perspective.
Second, sleeping around can violate the rights of people, particularly in real life where even the most carefully laid preparations can fail.
So your "logic" falls apart. Oops for you.

no, sleeping around can never violate the rights of people. ever. sex is a voluntary action between two people. simply having more then one partner cannot, in any way, violate their rights.

there is a difference between sleeping around and knowingly trasmitting a disease, which aside from rape, is the only way i can think of that you can do something which violates a persons rights by having sex with them.

nihilism is both irrational and unreasonable. a rational and reasonable concept of morality dictates that you are free to do whatever you please so long as you do not harm others.

FIFTY-FOUR PERCENT FAILURE RATE TO CONTAIN THE HIV VIRUS IS NOT PERFECTION.

in a study conducted in 1994 by the new england journal of medicine, out of 123 couples where one partner had AIDS and the other did not, NONE of the unifected partners contracted the virus. method of protection? condom.

most resources i have found on the internet say condoms yield up to 100% prevention of the AIDS virus provided they are used properly and consistently. my point stands.

Because I should have the freedom to not have my taxes spike so that others can pay for the kids they couldn't afford to have, or the treatment for disease that they can' pay. I have the right to not worry about someone close to me getting fucked over because someone else likes to think with their crotch. Are my freedoms not as important?

the problem here is with the social security system, not sleeping around.

Because human being and human interactions are built on the highest levels of logic. Oh, wait, no, emotion plays a role. That's right, looks like we both forgot for a minute there!

what? i said "it is illogical to use the word 'slut'". you're right, emotion does play a role in human relations. so? that you get emotional doesn't make your illogical actions any more logical or rational.

emily · Post by **emily** » 1/14/2003, 4:15 pm

umm, lock this thread? i'm learning too much about condoms.

Mechanical Thought · Post by **Mechanical Thought** » 1/14/2003, 4:23 pm

we should all just go to www.muchmusic.com/mod and vote for the In Repair video on the vote-a-matic

Narbus · Post by **Narbus** » 1/14/2003, 4:29 pm

1. I've spelt it out as clearly as I can without pictures that having sex with multiple partners, even with protection, is directly proportional to the risk of prenancy or disease. You are on some moral, emotional ego trip where you are refusing to concede even that point. I do not think you are one to complain about getting "tired" of anything.
2. Rights don't exist, save in a legal sense, unless you are professing to believe in some higher power, in which case we're generally back to promiscuity being wrong.
3. No, that's not the shittest condom. The exact quote from your own study was, ""In vitro trials have reported HIV leakage in 0-100% of the condoms tested, with all but one brand between 0.0% and 54%." There was ONE brand which did not have the 54% leakage rate.
4. Also in that study was a list of ways in which the study may have produced overly high saftey results, which calls all your stats into even greater question.
5. That study was a meta-analysis of 25 other studies. Logically, I would put more trust in that study than in the ones you are not referencing for me to check.
6. In F1 racing, all drivers know of the dangers. In real life, people lie, people "blur the truth," people forget, or make incorrect assumptions. In short, they mess up. They don't know all the risks, or assume that condoms are perfect. They are not.
7. There are ways to ensure the mistakes don't happen. Fewer sex partners means fewer mistakes, logically. Along with the above, people don't always know when they're transmitting disease. Yet that very rarely keeps them from having sex.
The fact that more than one person is involved in the promiscuity, and the fact that it can and does result in an increased burden for society to carry does make it a social issue.
Am I suggesting that everyone needs a counter with how many people they've slept with? No. Am I suggesting that there are some very serious problems that come from promiscuity, and that people who are participating in this dangerous activity should be called on it? Yes.
Is "slut" the best way to do this? Probably not. Does the fact that some people choose to use a term that carries negative connotations mean that the act they are deriding is any safer? No.

Emily: If you're tired of reading the thread, then stop clicking on it.

starvingeyes · Post by **starvingeyes** » 1/14/2003, 5:01 pm

Rights don't exist, save in a legal sense, unless you are professing to believe in some higher power, in which case we're generally back to promiscuity being wrong

o really? the axiom of self ownership states that each person is the owner of their own body and mind. the basic non agression principle, which is human instinct, shows that each person has the right from birth to have this ownership remain unchallenged and intact.

there is no basis in nature for any other "rights" to be granted. legal "rights" don't exist.

read some locke, nozick or rand text books and get back to me on this one. even some basic aristotle or mill would be nice.

No, that's not the shittest condom. The exact quote from your own study was, ""In vitro trials have reported HIV leakage in 0-100% of the condoms tested, with all but one brand between 0.0% and 54%." There was ONE brand which did not have the 54% leakage rate.

you're quoting a particular part of a study which stated it's overall findings to be that condoms are 86% effective against AIDS transmission. at another point in the study, it shows that the instance of aids transfer in the 12 cohort samples of "always" users was 0.9% with a 95% confidence interval.

In F1 racing, all drivers know of the dangers. In real life, people lie, people "blur the truth," people forget, or make incorrect assumptions. In short, they mess up. They don't know all the risks, or assume that condoms are perfect. They are not.

whether you are aware of the danger involved in a specific activity does not change the fact that there is nothing inherently wrong about dangerous activities, which was your earlier assertion.

your belief that this is a "social problem" is based on the flawed premise of "social problems". i don't believe that anything that does not directly effect me is my problem. to do otherwise would be irrational.

Narbus · Post by **Narbus** » 1/14/2003, 7:19 pm

xchrisx wrote:o really? the axiom of self ownership states that each person is the owner of their own body and mind. the basic non agression principle, which is human instinct, shows that each person has the right from birth to have this ownership remain unchallenged and intact.

there is no basis in nature for any other "rights" to be granted. legal "rights" don't exist.

read some locke, nozick or rand text books and get back to me on this one. even some basic aristotle or mill would be nice.

This one comes down to whether or not you feel that being human entails certain inalienable rights, and is a whole other thread in and of itself. So, in the interests of not letting this go on an even bigger tangent, I'll simply disagree with the idea, though if you do want to start another thread, I'll be glad to discuss it there.

xchrisx wrote:you're quoting a particular part of a study which stated it's overall findings to be that condoms are 86% effective against AIDS transmission. at another point in the study, it shows that the instance of aids transfer in the 12 cohort samples of "always" users was 0.9% with a 95% confidence interval.

So overall, there is an 86% success rate vs. the transmission of HIV when using condoms. A few points:
1. That's still a 14% chance, overall, that the condom will not prevent transmission. Still a very noticeable percentile.
2. That's on average. The line I quoted shows there are individual deviations on that average, and some rather severe ones.

xchrisx wrote:whether you are aware of the danger involved in a specific activity does not change the fact that there is nothing inherently wrong about dangerous activities, which was your earlier assertion.

I wasn't very clear here. My point was that the people are aware of the dangers involved in F1 racing, and have chosen to participate anyway. They have chosen to waive at least part of their right to health by risking it in such a way. The other participants also know that if one car is involved in an accident, it could also involve them, and all have chosen to proceed with the event in spite of the dangers. They are aware of the dangers, and proceed ahead.
Due to the nature of promiscuity, and the fact that neither people nor condoms are perfect, people are not always aware of the danger when chosing to have sex with someone, so they are not given the chance to judge the situation accurately.

xchrisx wrote:
your belief that this is a "social problem" is based on the flawed premise of "social problems". i don't believe that anything that does not directly effect me is my problem. to do otherwise would be irrational.

The number of things that affect a person is not something you can list as simply as you are implying.
One person's bad day can ruin the days of 10 other people, who in turn ruin the days of 10 other people...and six degrees later someone ruins my day. We are not as isolated from each other as you seem to be suggesting. "A butterfly flaps it's wings in China, and Chicago is hit with a blizzard," and all that.
The issue of what does affect an individual is a very complex one, and yes, society does err on the side of sticking their nose where it doesn't belong, in many cases.
However, that does not change the fact that there are certain dangers that go hand in hand with sexual activity, nor does it change the fact that as the number of partners you have increases, so do the chances of problems.

starvingeyes · Post by **starvingeyes** » 1/16/2003, 10:24 am

This one comes down to whether or not you feel that being human entails certain inalienable rights, and is a whole other thread in and of itself. So, in the interests of not letting this go on an even bigger tangent, I'll simply disagree with the idea, though if you do want to start another thread, I'll be glad to discuss it there.

you disagree with the concept of inalieable rights? then i suppose you agree with slavery, forced sterilization and hitler, at least on a moral level, if not an ethical one.

Posted: Tue Jan 14, 03 6:19 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

xchrisx wrote:

o really? the axiom of self ownership states that each person is the owner of their own body and mind. the basic non agression principle, which is human instinct, shows that each person has the right from birth to have this ownership remain unchallenged and intact.

there is no basis in nature for any other "rights" to be granted. legal "rights" don't exist.

read some locke, nozick or rand text books and get back to me on this one. even some basic aristotle or mill would be nice.

This one comes down to whether or not you feel that being human entails certain inalienable rights, and is a whole other thread in and of itself. So, in the interests of not letting this go on an even bigger tangent, I'll simply disagree with the idea, though if you do want to start another thread, I'll be glad to discuss it there.

xchrisx wrote:

you're quoting a particular part of a study which stated it's overall findings to be that condoms are 86% effective against AIDS transmission. at another point in the study, it shows that the instance of aids transfer in the 12 cohort samples of "always" users was 0.9% with a 95% confidence interval.

So overall, there is an 86% success rate vs. the transmission of HIV when using condoms. A few points:
1. That's still a 14% chance, overall, that the condom will not prevent transmission. Still a very noticeable percentile.

perhaps, but it should also be noted that combined with the fact that your chance of geting aids with UNPROTECTED sex is about .4%, if you use a condom you reduce that chance to .006%. This makes having sex with a condom much safer then hundreds of other activities we do daily, at least with respect to AIDS

Due to the nature of promiscuity, and the fact that neither people nor condoms are perfect, people are not always aware of the danger when chosing to have sex with someone, so they are not given the chance to judge the situation accurately.

regardless, the fact that something is dangerous and you may not be able to judge the danger properly does not change the fact that there is nothing "wrong", morally, about dangerous activies. it CAN be wrong to knowingly impose certain risks on people for one's own gain, but the fact remains that danger does not equal wrong, ever.

However, that does not change the fact that there are certain dangers that go hand in hand with sexual activity, nor does it change the fact that as the number of partners you have increases, so do the chances of problems.

individual responsibility. if society believed in this concept it wouldn't worry about other people's problem. the moral pandering society commits is due to a general belief that people cannot look after themselves and "we" know better.

capable individuals can sleep around all they want without harming themselves or anybody else.

Narbus · Post by **Narbus** » 1/17/2003, 1:14 am

xchrisx wrote:
you disagree with the concept of inalieable rights? then i suppose you agree with slavery, forced sterilization and hitler, at least on a moral level, if not an ethical one.

Are you honestly so stupid?

Sit down and I will explain the concept of right and wrong, seeing how it you
have no concept of the issue outside of mindless regurgitation of lines from books that you obviously have decided to just believe blindly, rather than actually think about.

Right and wrong are relative. This is not true and false. 2+2 does not equal 56, but killing a man to feed your starving family is not part of some great equation. Right and wrong are based on the values you place on things, and how you act around those values.

Slavery wasn't wrong, not to the South before the Civil War. They didn't see blacks as actual people, so treating them as slaves wasn't wrong. The North saw it differently, and happened to win the war.

Hitler knew he was right, so did the Allies, but only one side won the war. Or did you honestly think that every Nazi was sitting around discussing how very, very wrong they were, while continuing down the path they chose?

No. It was the stupid, outdated idea that there is such a thing as absolute morality that started the Holocaust, and perpetuated it, and is responsible for terrorism, prejudice, racial intolerance, and a slew of other things that you’ve been citing as “wrong.” Their ideas are different from yours, but they believe in them just as strongly, and it blinded them to actual thought just as much as it’s blinded you.

Any idea or concept has two or more differing sides, there is no one thing that EVERYONE calls wrong. Some guy on the street who kills people for kicks doesn't see it as wrong. But seeing as how it's one versus everyone else, he's wrong only by society’s opinion, not some almighty rule from the sky.

When you get your head out of your ass and realize that not everyone runs on the same rules you do, maybe you'll understand the world a little better. Or are you so incredibly stupid and arrogant as to believe that the whole world should be run according to only your half-assed, overly liberal ideas, in spite of the fact that they have absolutely no basis in reality?

I'll not bother bringing up the fact that I invited you to discuss this in another thread in something at least approaching a reasonable manner, but I do feel it necessary to point out there is nothing even approaching the most basic shreds of logic in your statement. The pathways that your brain must operate upon are so far removed from anything even faintly approaching "intelligence" that I don't even believe your earlier claim that you know how to operate something as basic as a book. How you have managed to operate a computer thus far to spew your insane, deluded ramblings across these forums is beyond me.

I hope that there is at least some kind of medical condition capable of explaining whatever it is that's wrong with you, because I pity your family if your deranged babbling is somehow the way you actually prefer to be.

DamascusSteel · Post by **DamascusSteel** » 1/17/2003, 1:17 am

HAHAHA!!!

committed · Post by **committed** » 1/17/2003, 1:37 am

ha man i laughed at that shit

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 1/17/2003, 3:42 am

Narbus, you're crazy.

There is such a thing as absolute morality. A is A. Your perception has no bearing on whether or not a certain action you take is morally admisable.

Robbing the rich to feed the poor doesn't change the fact that it's still theft.

Murdering jews because you think they're bad for your nation doesn't change the fact that it's still murder.

dropping bombs on afghans because you think they're harboring terrorists doesn't change the fact that it's murder.

How you see things does not change their moral value. Simply saying "killing that man was not wrong in my book" does not absolve you of having to face the concequences.

how in holy fuck can you even argue shit like this?

you can call Chris a psycho all you want, but can i point out that it's you who feels that right and wrong are shaped by how you view things in "your own little world"?

Rights are moral principles defining a man's freedom of action in a social context.

Rights are inalienable -- they may not be morally infringed upon, i.e., a thief may rob you, but morally he is in the wrong, and you are in the right.

Rights are not guarantees to things, but only guarantees to freedom of action (right to liberty) -- and a guarantee to the results of those actions (right to property).

Your rights are derived from using your rational mind to think and act on those thoughts in pursuit of rational self interest. taking an action which renders mans mind useless goes against that same principle and therefore is a violation of the rights of any man whom you take that action against.

This is how mans values are derived. This is how we determine right and wrong.

Do you need another lecture or would you prefer to continue living in your republicrat world where you decide what's right and wrong, and goddamn these anarchists and their "logic" and "facts"!

one more thing: if there's no such thing as right and wrong, then how can what Christina does be classified as wrong?

xoNoDoubt69 · Post by **xoNoDoubt69** » 1/17/2003, 6:31 am

DamascusSteel wrote:HAHAHA!!!

Awwwww.That makes me

Narbus · Post by **Narbus** » 1/17/2003, 8:24 am

No, it's all relative. In a society with no concept of individual ownership, the idea of "theft" would be an outlandish idea.

To some people, it's crazy to be a practicing Catholic. To some Catholics,
it's crazy to be anything else.

Hitler (allegedly) thought that Jews were ruining his country, so the extermination of them was something good, in his eyes.

We are not murdering Afghans. We are saving our own country from the horrible machinations of terrorists.

If a society doesn't see murder as wrong, then what consequences would there be? None. If no one cared, no consquences. It's that easy. If it's so "wrong" then why aren't murderers struck down by divine lightning upon commiting their crimes?

I can argue shit like this because it's true. Look the fuck around. You saw the people dancing in the streets after 9/11. They thought the terrorists were great. Their morals said that the US was a giant evil, so attacking it was brave and wonderful. They didn't think that there might be more to the story, they were blinded by their absolute morality and you are helping the problem along.

Rights are NOT inalienable. Freedom of speech is limited, even in our country. We constantly change and evolve what's "right" for the time we live in. Once upon a time, society decidedit was morally wrong to have premarital sex. Is it still wrong? Debatable. Oh, look. Rights change.
Just because you place value on human life doesn't mean there's any value there inherently.

They aren't inalienable, they are dependent upon the society in which you find them.

I, personally, find Christina's music "wrong" (more accurate term: bad) because I place more value on people who produce art than I do on people who produce entertainment. It's a value that I hold, and it's shaped my judgement. Not all people hold this same value, however. Hence the people who like her music.