morality

[James S Saint]

Man is not inherently good or bad.

Why is it that the women are so often the ones to point out the obvious to a bunch of men apparently incapable of seeing it? Women apparently can't hold onto reasoning even though they can see it and state it, whereas men can see reasoning whether it is good reasoning or bad but then never let go of it such as to update it. It seems a loss either way.

[LaughingMan]

OOOOh I'm so scared!

I'll give you five minutes survival time.

Aren't you in merry old England where possessions of knives are illegal?

I'll survive longer than that.

The smart individuals wait giving plenty of time for the idiots to kill each other off.

[Fixed Cross]

Erm- yes and lets process a thousand years and then figure out Newton again. That would be charming.


Lev - maybe you can convince your professor or whoever you write this BULLSHIT for, but since you already apologized for your lies (or the rumors you read in the Daily Mirror) about a certain writer, I can see you're not quite lost, but are just a little attention whore.

Ill put you on ignore, so I wont be responding to your future attempts to get noticed. You may want to find another audience for your study in prancing.

[A Shieldmaiden]

Is there one man or woman who has not lied, at one time or another, to benefit themselves.

[Arcturus Descending]

Man is not inherently good or bad.

? Women apparently can't hold onto reasoning even though they can see it and state it, .

Not to assume, james, but you do realize that when I said "Man" I meant the human species, not just men.

Why is it that the women are so often the ones to point out the obvious to a bunch of men apparently incapable of seeing it

Perhaps because women are by their natures more intuitive than are men - at least perhaps.
Anyway, I think it is more or less an INDIVIDUAL thing, not a man vs. woman thing.

whereas men can see reasoning whether it is good reasoning or bad but then never let go of it such as to update it. It seems a loss either way

As in the case of YOUR laughing at Magnus Anderson's gross remark in one of his posts. I can't for the world of me understand why you would laugh at that - think it was funny or encourage that kind of language (except for maybe the adage of "Birds of a feather.... but then I'm a woman and can't hold onto any kind of reasoning - but I'm still holding onto that one.

[LaughingMan]

If you want to see how amoral human beings truly are you only need to observe how human beings treat other human beings via economic and social inequality.

How can human beings be a moral species the way it acts and behaves amongst it own?

Doesn't make any sense no matter what the bullshit moralists say.

[Lev Muishkin]

If you want to see how amoral human beings truly are you only need to observe how human beings treat other human beings via economic and social inequality.

How can human beings be a moral species the way it acts and behaves amongst it own?

Doesn't make any sense no matter what the bullshit moralists say.

And the ones banging on about morality are the worst offenders in this matter, claiming that extreme wealth and extreme poverty are "fair".

[LaughingMan]

If you want to see how amoral human beings truly are you only need to observe how human beings treat other human beings via economic and social inequality.

How can human beings be a moral species the way it acts and behaves amongst it own?

Doesn't make any sense no matter what the bullshit moralists say.

And the ones banging on about morality are the worst offenders in this matter, claiming that extreme wealth and extreme poverty are "fair".

Precisely!

A world of hypocrites, liars, and damnable fools, right?

In such a world anger is more useful than despair.

Get even I say.

[James S Saint]

Not to assume, james, but you do realize that when I said "Man" I meant the human species, not just men.

Yet assumed.

Why is it that the women are so often the ones to point out the obvious to a bunch of men apparently incapable of seeing it

Perhaps because women are by their natures more intuitive than are men - at least perhaps.
Anyway, I think it is more or less an INDIVIDUAL thing, not a man vs. woman thing.

Assumed again.

As in the case of YOUR laughing at Magnus Anderson's gross remark in one of his posts. I can't for the world of me understand why you would laugh at that - think it was funny or encourage that kind of language (except for maybe the adage of "Birds of a feather.... but then I'm a woman and can't hold onto any kind of reasoning - but I'm still holding onto that one.

No telling what you assumed about that one.

[Lev Muishkin]

If you want to see how amoral human beings truly are you only need to observe how human beings treat other human beings via economic and social inequality.

How can human beings be a moral species the way it acts and behaves amongst it own?

Doesn't make any sense no matter what the bullshit moralists say.

And the ones banging on about morality are the worst offenders in this matter, claiming that extreme wealth and extreme poverty are "fair".

Precisely!

A world of hypocrites, liars, and damnable fools, right?

In such a world anger is more useful than despair.

Get even I say.

Go ahead. What have you in mind?

[LaughingMan]

Go ahead. What have you in mind?

Not much I can say online. *Laughs*

[A Shieldmaiden]

Many claim that the practice of contemplation, will make man moral, gentle, humble and compassionate. Where is the difference in Buddhism and Catholicism, they both uphold male celibacy, as the ultimate form of spirituality, the particular purpose of life, is to be rendered as lacking in purpose, meaningless, that which is essential as sexual love and parenthood. Given the behavior of man and of many so called gurus, one can conclude that mystical knowledge can lead mainly to narcissism rather than selflessness or morality.

[LaughingMan]

Many claim that the practice of contemplation, will make man moral, gentle, humble and compassionate. Where is the difference in Buddhism and Catholicism, they both uphold male celibacy, as the ultimate form of spirituality, the particular purpose of life, is to be rendered as lacking in purpose, meaningless, that which is essential as sexual love and parenthood. Given the behavior of man and of many so called gurus, one can conclude that mystical knowledge can lead mainly to narcissism rather than selflessness or morality.

It's all bullshit.

[Arcturus Descending]

Not to assume, james, but you do realize that when I said "Man" I meant the human species, not just men.

Yet assumed.

Why is it that the women are so often the ones to point out the obvious to a bunch of men apparently incapable of seeing it

Perhaps because women are by their natures more intuitive than are men - at least perhaps.
Anyway, I think it is more or less an INDIVIDUAL thing, not a man vs. woman thing.

Assumed again.

As in the case of YOUR laughing at Magnus Anderson's gross remark in one of his posts. I can't for the world of me understand why you would laugh at that - think it was funny or encourage that kind of language (except for maybe the adage of "Birds of a feather.... but then I'm a woman and can't hold onto any kind of reasoning - but I'm still holding onto that one.

No telling what you assumed about that one.

Great comeback, James. You're slipping.
I assumed NOTHING.

[madera23]

. The future has always been more real than the past. The past is derived from the present, the future is what drives the present, as we all full well know. Yet we allow science to tell us that existence must have a historical cause;; i.e. 'the beginning of time' as 'everything that came out of nothing'.

Past as historical narrative is unreal. Present contains all that is worthy of being 'remembered' -- all components, genes, tendencies --[/

I disagree.
It is the present that is derived from the past, not the other way around.
The past is history that drives us in the present that must be faced and overcome in order live freely in the present.
louise

[James S Saint]

I assumed NOTHING.

You apparently have assumed that you were not assuming.
Can a worse assumption be made?

The simple fact that I stated that you assumed should be sufficient evidence to not assume that you hadn't.

A) you assumed that I didn't already know that you meant "Man" and not "men".
B) you have apparently assumed that it isn't a male vs female distinction.
C) Although I don't know of your third reference, I can tell that you assumed something negative about it that very probably wasn't there.

And in no case, did you ask.

[Arcturus Descending]

James S Saint

The simple fact that I stated that you assumed should be sufficient evidence to not assume that you hadn't.

Hahahahahahahahha. Does that tell you how I feel about that statement?
Are you taking on the role of god again, James?
In a court of law, your so-called "fact" and so-called "evidence would be thrown out of court. The judge would probably say to you - "shame on you, James. Now, the latter sentence there is an assumption but it's based on empirical knowledge. lol

A) you assumed that I didn't already know that you meant "Man" and not "men".

I didn't assume anything there either - I was just asking for clarification. IF I had assumed, I wouldn't have asked.

B) you have apparently assumed that it isn't a male vs female distinction.

No, wrong again. Words DO make a difference, James. No assumption there either. That was merely my thought, my intuition. It isn't an assumption which is more or less made in stone.

C) Although I don't know of your third reference, I can tell that you assumed something negative about it that very probably wasn't there.

Wrong again, by my perception it was negative. For whatever reason, you at least appeared to think it was funny when MA said that gross thing...gross by my perception and I kind of INTUIT, not assume, also by the perceptions of men in here, men who might also be turned off by particular sexually gross comments such as that was and men who would even dream of putting something like that in here. You responded with a laughing smilie - whatever your intention may have been - it didn't seem either logical or reasonable to me. Such as it was, it might only be encouraging to him. If a child said something gross to you, would you shrug it off by laughing?

And in no case, did you ask.

[/quote]
Fine. I'm asking now. Why would you laugh at something so gross, off the wall, and which clearly to any reasonable person, has no place in here. Of course, that is only my perception, but as far as being logical or having any aesthetic value at all, it was meant for the gutter.

[phyllo]

This is the post:

I am not trying anything, I am simply acting instinctively.

That is pretty apparent. And a large part of why they keep equating men to animals. Of course, it kind of depends on how one defines a "men".

Only a REAL MAN would come up with a response like this one;

You can't see jackshit, moron, your eyes are covered with my cum.

[madera23]

All races are fundamentally good. All humans are fundamentally, good.
Therefore conflict between good and good is good, and the end of a good being is good.
It is what keeps good from going bad.

Take food out of its cold environment and it goes bad.
Same with humans.

[madera23]

Making the distinction between good and right is important, for it to be well explained and understood. The "good" and the "right" each have their own area of relevance and are separate. Good relates to an advantage or profit gained from something and right has to do with acting in accordance to rules. Humans seem to have an innate sense of morality which may have been taught to them by parents, religion, etc. Using right and wrong, could be seen as simply favoring or an attempt to influence another's behavior, if this is so, the doctrine or system of moral conduct would be meaningless. Ignoring the fact that all things are for some reason interconnected, if one pays particular attention to good over right, this could also easily lead to contention, as many wars have shown, on the other hand, the action or manner of justifying such wars is usually found in a rules-based morality. "Because we so commonly take it for granted that moral values are intimately connected with the goal of human well-being or happiness, Kant insists that these two concepts are absolutely independent". Something that is classified as "moral" does not always make it "good".

"The weak do what they can and the strong do what they need to do."

[Lev Muishkin]

. The future has always been more real than the past. The past is derived from the present, the future is what drives the present, as we all full well know. Yet we allow science to tell us that existence must have a historical cause;; i.e. 'the beginning of time' as 'everything that came out of nothing'.

Past as historical narrative is unreal. Present contains all that is worthy of being 'remembered' -- all components, genes, tendencies --[/

I disagree.
It is the present that is derived from the past, not the other way around.
The past is history that drives us in the present that must be faced and overcome in order live freely in the present.
louise

Past , future and present are not derivative.
There is a continual present. The past is a dream of things no more. History is our understanding of the past in light of the present, and the future is yet to be - but always shall be.

[LaughingMan]

Morality is real I tell you!

It's a world of brotherly love!

[Fucking assinine bullshit as usual.]

[LaughingMan]

Don't forget that human beings are so cooperational that it takes a government through the use of violence, coercion, and blackmail to get human beings to cooperate because if that didn't happen nobody would work together under the types of organization that we have today.

What does all of that mean anyways?

Could it be that our natural disposition left unchecked is an asocial one?

Another strike against the moralists once again.


As I said earlier, complete assinine fucking bullshit.

[statiktech]

Do you really think you're doing anything more than making empty assertions then patting yourself on the back for it?

[LaughingMan]

Do you really think you're doing anything more than making empty assertions then patting yourself on the back for it?

Prove me incorrect then in debate.

Oh, that's right, you don't really debate where instead you always resort to name calling or defamation.

At least in my insults I try to debate points.

Not Statik however. He's beyond approach.