"If I Were The Devil" -Paul Harvey

[voh]

1) Do you think abortion is wrong?

No. Abortion is a valid way of keeping a baby from being born into a world he or she would not benefit from. Sometimes it's better to prevent people from having painful childhoods and horrible lives by preventing them from becoming sentient. Though adoption has my preference, I do think there is a time and place for abortions.

2) Do you think swearing is wrong?

No. Swearing has its place. It can be an outlet of frustration, yelling "Shit!" when you stub your toe, for example. Swearing can go too far, but that's the case with everything.

3) Do you think physical violence is wrong?

Sometimes it's all that's left. If somebody is about to exact physical violence upon you, do you just stand there and end up in the hospital, or do you do what your instinct tells you to do - fight back and save yourself. Violence is something that's ingrained in every living being. But again, there's a specific time and place where violence is allowed and condonable. In general, violent people suck.

4) Do you think jealousy (coveting what another person has or does) is wrong, and should someone be punished for it if it's impossible to control? Do you think it can be controlled?

Jealousy can be a very healthy thing. It can make one wonder about why person x has what he has, but you don't. This might inspire one to go and fix that wrong and improve his chances of getting that as well. Jealousy as a way of hating people because they got "lucky breaks" is sad. Jealousy where you limit your partner from living their life because you're too scared of losing him or her is also really sad.

5) Do you think lying for your personal gain is wrong? What about lying to help someone else? What if the lie will prevent the person you are lying to from being hurt, physically?

It depends. If lying keeps you out of trouble and the repurcussions are little if found out, then why not? I use white lies from time to time. I don't tell big lies, never any lies that would seriously influence life (either my own or others). Lying in general is not as good a choice as telling the truth is.

6) Do you believe people should be allowed to express their beliefs and thoughts freely (free speech) ?

Yes. Though with care.

If I had to choose either yes or no, without nuancing my responses, I would change my answers to reflect that. But life isn't black and white. It's a range from black to white, with many shades of gray in between. If people live in a yes or no world, they're limiting themselves.

That's my opinion

Also, sheep are awesome. Did I mention this before?

[Nikolas]

I think you should hang around Helm a little more often. Goats and sheeps do resemble you know

[voh]

Are you saying I should hang around with goats?

You're sick, man 

[Ginny]

4) Do you think jealousy (coveting what another person has or does) is wrong, and should someone be punished for it if it's impossible to control? Do you think it can be controlled?

4) Eh, just try to make the best of what you have.

That's very true, but doesn't solve the fact that just about everyone covets something, even if not openly, at some point in life. You know someone who has an awesome job you'd like to have. I'm not talking about having their job specifically, but suppose you envy their occupation. Or suppose you envy someones nice handwriting. None of this neccesarily shows that you aren't happy with what you have, it's the human nature, and it's part of what causes us to make progress, because we are, though happy, not fully content with what we have or what we know. This can lead the power hunger and other bad things, and it can lead to progress, both personal and general.

A better question might be, though, do you think that a person should be punished for doing something they don't have control over?
A rather heavy moral question really, and I'd like to adress it to rharpe aswell.
It raises a problem - what can we consider uncontrollable? Some people can't control things that other people can. And anyway, I've always wondered how the bible interprets this issue - are thoughts considered a sin? Apparantly, god can read our thoughts, otherwise how could he know if we are coveting something etc. Somewhere I think I read god sees into our hearts, our intentions. So, is lying or stealing for a good cause ok? (See Eric's and esper's questions) If a person doesn't think what they're doing is wrong, is he still punished? And all sorts of moral questions like that? These don't just apply to religion,  I'm actually thinking of the law and the court system in regards to some of them.

On the subject of lying, I believe lies, or even sometimes false tales can be useful in certain cases. I might lie to avoid a conflict that would only (to my knowledge) result in bad consequences for both sides, though I tend to prefer the honest approach. I might tell a lie that will later cause a person to be happy, or otherwise to prevent someones disappointment. I'm sure most people have at least one secret that they would lie about if asked by some people. They might tell the truth to one person and a lie to someone else, for numerous reasons. Finally, I would certainly lie in the situation esper brought up, though you have to consider it's also a risk to your life if you lie and the Nazis find out you lied. But I'm not exactly objective on this particular subject, being jewish I know what I'd like someone to do in such a situation, and so that's what I'd do. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.* It could just as well have been other people, not Jews, in the situation, but I still think I'd do the same. In the end, such decisions are made in a moment, and depend on many details of the situation.

*I quote the bible more than usual in this thread, because I feel it's appropriate to the discussion.
Funny, when I'm given bible homework I'm too lazy to bother with them, but when a religious discussion interests me I actually opened my bible and looked through some verses.

[esper]

I don't want to be bothered going back and quoting stuff, so, for everyone who responded to the last statement I made: That's just me... I probably WOULDN'T want to put my tongue somewhere another man's tongue would be. I wouldn't want a girl to slap my ass and call me "cutie-pie" if she's done that to another man. It isn't religious preference, as  I have no religion. It is a simple matter of wanting to be the most important thing in the world to someone, not simply "backup important thing" because "primary important thing" didn't quite work out.

What I'm about to say has nothing to do with religion, or faith, or anything of the sort.. It is simply me, being an overly romantic idealistic fool. I have been in love with the girl I'm going to marry since the day I became cognizant of what love is, even though I've never met her. I thought I had... several times... I've told one too many people I loved them, and now, when I meet the person I'm going to want to spend the rest of my life with, I am not telling them "I love you with all my heart," I'm essentially saying "I love you with the part of my heart that's left over from the other people I've said this to."

I'm all embarassed now.

EDIT, as an afterthought... Ginny, I'm only, like .0000004% Jewish, but I'll tell you what I'd do. I'd lie, too, and if the Nazis saw through my lie and went on to find the Jews, I'd probably try to kill the bastards with my bare hands before I let them take the Jews. and you know what? I think God would buy me a pizza for doing it.

[iamus]

I'm going to take up a few of Stranger's points on sex here too.

And might I add that contrary to popular belief, the sexual repression is not created by Christianity or any religion, but is a result of the ever-increasing obsession that Western society has had with sexuality since the industrial revolution.

I'm not sure that's entirely correct. I think the ever-increasing obsession with sex in the Western world is just a more direct symptom of sexual repression, not the cause. The way we portray sex in the media nowadays, is grossly out of whack, but not in the way you might think.

Sex and sexuality is the very cornerstone of life. Without sex we have no society. Without sex, there is no us. It's the most important part of who we are and how we got here Like it or not, whether directly or indirectly, it drives everything we do.

I think the the predominant view we have on sexuality these days is pretty adolescent, but sex is something to be celebrated. It's the act of creation.

First of all, consent isn't always as clear-cut as it may seem. A lot of times, someone will consent to sex in the heat of the moment, and come to regret it later. Other times, you may have someone who initially does not want to have sex, but after repeated coaxing from their partner, pressure from friends, and exposure to all the sexual imagery displayed in the media, they'll change their mind.

Perfectly true. But many times somebody will agree in the heat of the moment, and it will be something that makes a hugely positive impact on their lives. It has the potential for good and bad, in that sense it's no different from any other situation. The only problem with sexual imagery in the media is that there's too much titilation, not enough education. The problem would be multiplied if there wasn't a willingness to display and discuss sex. The likeyhood of somebody then finding themselves in a compromising situation they don't understand is much greater.

Second, safe sex doesn't exist. No method of birth control or STD protection is 100% effective. Duh.

Safe walking down the street doesn't exist. There's risk in everything we do. Often, the riskier something is, the more worthwhile it is.

However, safety is, comparatively, the least of my worries. The most underestimated consequence of having sex too early is the emotional scarring it gives you. Usually, when unmarried people have sex, chances are that they haven't gotten to know one another very well beforehand; spontenaiety is seen as romantic in our culture. As a result, there is more of a risk of breaking up.

Well, depending on how early somebody has sex, the possibility of emotional scarring over a positive experience is dependent on many other factors. Sex would only be the catalyst to the reaction. The possibility of breaking up may be greater, but it's not necessarily a bad thing. We learn from and intigrate bad experiences. It's the only thing that really makes us stronger.

Sexual chemistry is not enough to sustain a relationship, after all. Neither is love. For a relationship to last, you need to be compatible with one another in a mental, emotional, and spiritual sense, and you also need to be committed to one another.

You'll find no argument from me here. But not everybody is cut out for relationships like that. Not everybody should be.

Some of you may ask "well, what about casual sex?" I have to admit that I wonder if casual sex even exists; more often than not, when I hear stories about it, one or more people get emotionally attached in the end. This leads me to believe that we are naturally inclined to love and care for those we are sexually intimate with. In the cases where casual sex works, I hypothesize that it is a result of a person's heart getting broken so many times that they just don't feel it anymore.

Again. This varies from person to person. For a lot of people the emotional connection and the sexual connection can be two very different things. Some people may be covering up some deep emotional pain by having casual sex, but I'd wager there's just about as many who just plain like it that way, Male or Female. Nothing wrong with that if that's what works for them.

An alternate hypothesis is that casual sex is more beneficial to men than it is to women. This is supported by evolutionary theories as well as personal experience; it's usually the women who get emotionally attached. In this case, I would say that women who like casual sex are trying to be like men; in a patriarchal society such as ours, this is called "empowerment", and is seen as a good thing. Obviously, I have problems with this.

I do have something to say here. I think.
Might have to stew on it a bit longer though.

If you can get married and stay married to the same person for life, then you'll undoubtedly be spared much of the emotional scarring that you'd get if you had sex with more than one person.

That is a bit baseless, tbh. Sex is when we are at our most unguarded, but that gives it equal potential to be an empowering experience and imprint positively on personality. Somebody with sexual confidence extends that confidence into all areas of life, because so much of our unconcious processing when dealing with either gender, is, at the root, determined by sex. It's just a fact of being an animal. No getting round it. Much as you can get on top of it, you can't really control smells and instinct.

Marriage, at least, provides more protection, a way of "predicting the weather", so to speak.

I don't want to be protected. Let it shine when it wants to and rain when I least expect.

[Nikolas]

When was this thread renamed :"6 to 10 questions about morality and sex, or why you are not moral"?

As mentioned before life is not black and white. It is grey. And people that don't seem to understand that are probably dumb. The same sentence could very well fit to the next thread about Mohhamed cartoons.

Of course it's fun to indicate your beliefs, while trying to nail down all the wrong points of another member, but heck, I am certain that noone will change their minds over this thread.

And btw, why has everyhting got to do with sex? I'm innocent, and 10 years ago I was sinless (and a virgin!)! Heck, what does sex got to do with things. And Stranger, I'm in love with my wife and make love with her, not sex (just because you think that people confusse love and sex...)

[iamus]

It is a simple matter of wanting to be the most important thing in the world to someone, not simply "backup important thing" because "primary important thing" didn't quite work out.

Well I don't know, Esper. I think that's dependent on the one scenario and leaves out a lot of others. Why couldn't you be the most important person in somebody's life, just because they've been in a relationship before? People get in and out of relationships, they learn the kind of people they are compatible with and who they aren't compatible with.

Somebody could've been in many different relationships and then BANG! as soon as they meet you it all falls away and they devote themselves entirely. Maybe somebody was in a bad relationship, and you represent everything that was missing from that.

I wouldn't want a girl to slap my ass and call me "cutie-pie" if she's done that to another man

And seriously, I'm not taking the piss or anything, but what if she'd gotten all exhausted and sweaty from enjoying a really good game of tennis with another man? Would that make you look a a raquet differently? What's the difference between the two situations?

[esper]

What can I say... I'm one jealous guy.

[iamus]

When was this thread renamed :"6 to 10 questions about morality and sex, or why you are not moral"?

It wandered it a bit. You don't find it interesting?

As mentioned before life is not black and white. It is grey. And people that don't seem to understand that are probably dumb.

Then discussion and possible education can only be a good thing.

Of course it's fun to indicate your beliefs, while trying to nail down all the wrong points of another member, but heck, I am certain that noone will change their minds over this thread.

You never know. Nobody expects the other to. But good discussion is offering up opposing viewpoints, so that people can see how others look at the same situation. No one is attacking anyone.

[Nikolas]

It wandered it a bit. You don't find it interesting?

Yes, I do actually. But what I find most interesting is the fact that sex, instead of the necessity to keep the species alive (along with being beautifull, and everything else. I love making love to my wife... And lot's of other things too), it is pinted down as a sin (mostly). And is discussed as such.

Then discussion and possible education can only be a good thing.

Of course. This is what I meant...

You never know. Nobody expects the other to. But good discussion is offering up opposing viewpoints, so that people can see how others look at the same situation. No one is attacking anyone.

Again we agree...

[iamus]

Yes, I do actually. But what I find most interesting is the fact that sex, instead of the necessity to keep the species alive (along with being beautifull, and everything else. I love making love to my wife... And lot's of other things too), it is pinted down as a sin (mostly). And is discussed as such.

I agree with you. That would be the whole Guilt issue. I'm trying to discuss around it.

I grew up with Catholic Guiltâ,,¢.

I decided it wasn't for me.

[The Inquisitive Stranger]

First of all, Adamski, I'm very well aware that not all of what I've said is always true in all cases. Our beliefs are coloured by our own personal experiences, and we all have very different personal experiences. Bias is inevitable; it is lessened by looking at the different views of different people, but can never be avoided completely. My goal in this discussion is not to convince anyone that I'm right; it is to learn from others and hopefully have people learn something from me as well. I have not learned anything from your rebuttals to the points I have made; in fact, they are not even rebuttals, but insults. It would be a lot more help to me if you provided some actual well-thought-out counterarguments. I always welcome them. (Unless, of course, you consider your own personal experience to be an appropriate counterargument, in which case, why should I take someone else's personal experience over my own?)

Also, might I ask what makes you think you know exactly what "experiences everyone else in the world is having"? I highly doubt that you know exactly what goes on in the heads of every denizen of the world...

Now, time for some more fun...

Also, I'd like to throw in a couple of words on the topic of pornography. Merriam-Webster Online (sorry, I don't have access to the OED right now) tells me that it means the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement. I see no reason why this in itself would be wrong. The argument that usually comes up, about it degrading women and so forth, is fallacious, as pornography in itself is a much broader concept, and not by definition degrading. This is a textbook example of an association fallacy.

Let me clarify, then: Pornography, by its very nature, objectifies something. Whatever is depicted to cause sexual excitement serves the sole purpose of exciting someone: this is objectification. I shall rephrase my previous statements to say that the object is not always a woman; however, this does not erase the fact that women are significantly more present in pornography than other creatures are. (This is a problem having to do with the general status of women and the concept of femininity in our society, not necessarily an argument against pornography itself.)

Objectification is a form of degradation; it reduces a human being into something whose only use is the pleasure of others. This is why I find it wrong. Sorry for making unclear statements before; I was in class and trying to take notes and reply to this thread at the same time. Uck.

I'm not sure that's entirely correct. I think the ever-increasing obsession with sex in the Western world is just a more direct symptom of sexual repression, not the cause. The way we portray sex in the media nowadays, is grossly out of whack, but not in the way you might think.

Repression is a form of obsession. Why would you go through such pain to suppress something if you didn't care about it so much? Read "The History of Sexuality" by Michel Foucault for more on this.

I think the the predominant view we have on sexuality these days is pretty adolescent, but sex is something to be celebrated. It's the act of creation.

I celebrate the act of creation. I don't celebrate the predominant adolescent view. Does that clarify things?

Safe walking down the street doesn't exist. There's risk in everything we do. Often, the riskier something is, the more worthwhile it is.

It's a matter of deciding whether or not something is worth the risk, then, isn't it?

Well, depending on how early somebody has sex, the possibility of emotional scarring over a positive experience is dependent on many other factors. Sex would only be the catalyst to the reaction. The possibility of breaking up may be greater, but it's not necessarily a bad thing. We learn from and intigrate bad experiences. It's the only thing that really makes us stronger.

That is true. However, one also shouldn't seek bad experiences for the sake of having bad experiences.

That is a bit baseless, tbh. Sex is when we are at our most unguarded, but that gives it equal potential to be an empowering experience and imprint positively on personality. Somebody with sexual confidence extends that confidence into all areas of life, because so much of our unconcious processing when dealing with either gender, is, at the root, determined by sex. It's just a fact of being an animal. No getting round it. Much as you can get on top of it, you can't really control smells and instinct.

I don't want to be protected. Let it shine when it wants to and rain when I least expect.

Well, good for you. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then. In the meantime, though, thank you for your constructive insights.

As mentioned before life is not black and white. It is grey. And people that don't seem to understand that are probably dumb.

So... is life only one shade of grey, or varying shades of grey?

Of course it's fun to indicate your beliefs, while trying to nail down all the wrong points of another member, but heck, I am certain that noone will change their minds over this thread.

Agreed. I'm definitely doing this all for fun, and I'm definitely not trying to change people's minds. I hope everyone knows that.

Like I said earlier, I do enjoy learning from other people, but learning from others does not necessarily mean agreeing with them.

And btw, why has everyhting got to do with sex? I'm innocent, and 10 years ago I was sinless (and a virgin!)! Heck, what does sex got to do with things. And Stranger, I'm in love with my wife and make love with her, not sex (just because you think that people confusse love and sex...)

Huh? We're talking about sex because rharpe brought it up. I think. As for why everything in general has to do with sex, we're already discussing that. I think. As for your last point, are "love" and "making love" the same things?

You never know. Nobody expects the other to. But good discussion is offering up opposing viewpoints, so that people can see how others look at the same situation. No one is attacking anyone.

Again we agree...

As do I!

[Nikolas]

I do differentiate between loving someone (I also love my parents and brother and children, although all in a different kind of love than the way I love my wife), and the physical act of love...

Now if I may ask, why a picture of a nude woman (and there are more pictures of nude women than donkeys (<-creatures), fortunately), objectifies her? And why is it wrong for something, or someone to be there only for the pleasure of others. Like clowns, or funny pics, or comics, or sex? Would it be because sexual pleasure is a baaaaad thing? Cause I still don't get why you are allowed to have pleasure with your wife (and by doing so, you are not sinning, thus having pleasure is not sin, and anyway because sin is not the idea here, you don't object to that), but when doing it with a pic and your handfull then you are wrong because you take pleasure for something, and thus you objectify it...

And let me clarify because by reading the previous paragraph, I myself am confused.

I take pride for the beauty of my wife.
I take pleasure from my wife.
By NO means I ever ever objectify her!
But for pornography there is a problem, and the problem is not that the girl (or any creature you want is there), but the fact that I make here into an object.

Honestly I'm confussed...

[Akumayo]

I'm noticing something here. Ã, All the questions being thrown about, all this battle between what's immoral, moral, and amoral, it all boils down to about 10% of our difference. Ã, To explain:
-We all agree that it is wrong to brutally murder random people for random or nonexistant reasons
-We all agree that it is wrong to rape someone
-We all agree that we shouldn't lie, cheat, steal, etc solely for our own personnal gain
-The list goes on and on and on

We agree, it seems to me, on about 90% of our morals. Ã, We all share a common ground for what is right and what is wrong. Ã, We all understand the morality of being human. Ã, It seems though, that this 10% difference in our beliefs is fueling a totally unnecessary investigation into one anothers personall opinion. Ã, I mean to say that we are no longer discussing morality at this point, but opinion, this reflects what Stranger just addressed I believe.

I'm not saying we should end this discussion, 'cause it's very interesting, I'm just putting into perspective the fact that dispite our different opinions non of us are truly immoral or amoral

When someone becomes a rapist child molesting serial killer, I'll call them immoral. Ã, But by all means, continue!

-Regards, Glacies Akumayo

[The Inquisitive Stranger]

Now if I may ask, why a picture of a nude woman (and there are more pictures of nude women than donkeys (<-creatures), fortunately), objectifies her? And why is it wrong for something, or someone to be there only for the pleasure of others. Like clowns, or funny pics, or comics, or sex? Would it be because sexual pleasure is a baaaaad thing? Cause I still don't get why you are allowed to have pleasure with your wife (and by doing so, you are not sinning, thus having pleasure is not sin, and anyway because sin is not the idea here, you don't object to that), but when doing it with a pic and your handfull then you are wrong because you take pleasure for something, and thus you objectify it...

I never said sexual pleasure was a bad thing in and of itself. If you are using the image of a person solely for your pleasure, you are denying their humanity. You are essentially denying the fact that they are intelligent, rational (and spiritual, if you believe in that) creatures. With your wife, however, I'd imagine that it's different; obviously, you love her for more than just her body. You also respect her right to choose when she wants to have sex with you, and it's not only your pleasure you're concerned about, but hers as well. Does that make more sense?

Entertainment forms such as comics, funny pictures, and yes, even adventure games don't really objectify anyone (they can, but don't have to). Clowns are just plain scary. As for whether cartoon porn is okay, well, I wonder, who gets turned on by cartoon porn, anyway?

[iamus]

I shall rephrase my previous statements to say that the object is not always a woman; however, this does not erase the fact that women are significantly more present in pornography than other creatures are.
(This is a problem having to do with the general status of women and the concept of femininity in our society, not necessarily an argument against pornography itself.)

I agree. I was going to go into this in more detail, but some aspects of it are a bit sensitive for a board with the age range this one has.

I don't think we're actually disagreeing on much, except maybe the last statement I made.

Repression is a form of obsession. Why would you go through such pain to suppress something if you didn't care about it so much?

That's kind of my point. It's a feedback loop. The more you repress something, the more obsessed you become by it. The more obsessed you are, the more you repress it. Eventually it begins to bubble and blister to the surface. First it's something you talk about in whispers. Next, you overcompensate and talk about it too much (which is where I think we are now).

I celebrate the act of creation. I don't celebrate the predominant adolescent view. Does that clarify things?

Mostly, yes. So you do think there is a place in the media for expression and celebration of sex and sexuality?

It's a matter of deciding whether or not something is worth the risk, then, isn't it?

Again, my sentiments exactly.

That is true. However, one also shouldn't seek bad experiences for the sake of having bad experiences.

Not at all! But neither should one shy away from things that provide the possibility of bad experiences if they also provide the possibility of good ones. Deciding if it's worth the risk again.

Well, good for you. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then. In the meantime, though, thank you for your constructive insights.

No bother at all. It's a pleasure to have someone to bounce off of.

Huh? We're talking about sex because rharpe brought it up. I think.

Indirectly he did, with his questions. It was a repression as obsession thing. Ã, 

[iamus]

I never said sexual pleasure was a bad thing in and of itself. If you are using the image of a person solely for your pleasure, you are denying their humanity.

Hmmmm. Are you objectfying the image or the person? Where do they seperate? I could go off on a massive tangent here, as I've been working through something related to this thought. I won't though.

[voh]

Stranger: A woman (or man) has a choice whether or not to pose for a nude photo shoot. If he or she opts to go even further, and star in a porn movie, it is still their own choice. Well, hopefully. But assuming it is, how can it be a bad thing to objectify someone if they've chosen to be seen as an object in the first place?

If you allow yourself to be photographed in the nude, you gotta bear the consequences. It's kind of backwards to blame the viewers for doing something the person being viewed knew could happen.

[Akumayo]

Though I see your point here Stranger, I'm gonna have to agree with voh...  they brought it on themselves, they can't feel bad for it.  As for the person doing the... "acts" and objectifying, are they really objectifying if the photo/picture is MEANT as an object?  This is a difficult subject... so many angles to glance at the topic...