Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

Ah, I didn't mean it very seriously/argumentatively. Maybe I should've put a smiley at the end of it but I didn't want to do that twice in the same post

[Bohandas]

Ah, I didn't mean it very seriously/argumentatively. Maybe I should've put a smiley at the end of it but I didn't want to do that twice in the same post

You should put a quote of the post by Kael that you're responding to there so people don't think that you're responding to my comment that comes between kael's post and your response and get confused.

[Zangi]

I don't want to derail the thread any more to debate the ethics of it, you can start your own thread if you wish, but I'm going to call any deliberate killing of an animal for the sake of killing that goes quite beyond its instincts and within it's moral understanding - as mentioned earlier such animals may have an understanding of human drowning - I'm just going to call a deliberate murder by dragging a trainer underwater until she dies "evil". Not to say that someone doesn't deserves shit for imprisoning animals that shouldn't be imprisoned, but just saying that the murder itself is evil.

Its only evil because it goes against the ethical/morale standard of 'modern' human society.

[Vester]

I don't want to derail the thread any more to debate the ethics of it, you can start your own thread if you wish, but I'm going to call any deliberate killing of an animal for the sake of killing that goes quite beyond its instincts and within it's moral understanding - as mentioned earlier such animals may have an understanding of human drowning - I'm just going to call a deliberate murder by dragging a trainer underwater until she dies "evil". Not to say that someone doesn't deserves shit for imprisoning animals that shouldn't be imprisoned, but just saying that the murder itself is evil.

Its only evil because it goes against the ethical/morale standard of 'modern' human society.

We're modern humans. We judge things based on our subject position as modern humans. That's how it always is.

[G-Flex]

I don't want to derail the thread any more to debate the ethics of it, you can start your own thread if you wish, but I'm going to call any deliberate killing of an animal for the sake of killing that goes quite beyond its instincts and within it's moral understanding - as mentioned earlier such animals may have an understanding of human drowning - I'm just going to call a deliberate murder by dragging a trainer underwater until she dies "evil". Not to say that someone doesn't deserves shit for imprisoning animals that shouldn't be imprisoned, but just saying that the murder itself is evil.

Its only evil because it goes against the ethical/morale standard of 'modern' human society.

That's pretty circular. As modern humans, we consider it "evil" because it goes against the standards of modern humans? That's tautological.

[Footkerchief]

I don't want to derail the thread any more to debate the ethics of it, you can start your own thread if you wish, but I'm going to call any deliberate killing of an animal for the sake of killing that goes quite beyond its instincts and within it's moral understanding - as mentioned earlier such animals may have an understanding of human drowning - I'm just going to call a deliberate murder by dragging a trainer underwater until she dies "evil". Not to say that someone doesn't deserves shit for imprisoning animals that shouldn't be imprisoned, but just saying that the murder itself is evil.

If only there was some kind of axis of which we could declare them members.

[Zangi]

Axis of Assholery versus Principality of Polite?

[Bohandas]

I don't want to derail the thread any more to debate the ethics of it, you can start your own thread if you wish, but I'm going to call any deliberate killing of an animal for the sake of killing that goes quite beyond its instincts and within it's moral understanding - as mentioned earlier such animals may have an understanding of human drowning - I'm just going to call a deliberate murder by dragging a trainer underwater until she dies "evil". Not to say that someone doesn't deserves shit for imprisoning animals that shouldn't be imprisoned, but just saying that the murder itself is evil.

Its only evil because it goes against the ethical/morale standard of 'modern' human society.

That's pretty circular. As modern humans, we consider it "evil" because it goes against the standards of modern humans? That's tautological.

It kind of makes sense given that things like 'good' and 'evil' have no existence outside of the human mind...

...and the corollary following from this, that the 'good' and 'evil' of previous generations of humans died with them...

The animals can be good and evil to the extent that good and evil exist, but this is very little.

[Vertigon]

Of course you're really unlikely to see two guys hugging each other.

Unless you're a band kid :b seriously our band is the huggiest group I've ever seen and it's awesome :3

[Phmcw]

Meh I've seen a lot of what I consider to be bad advice and bad argument in this thread.

1° is sex is a defining even he first time is emotionally bonding,...

Well it's not true. Period. The proof is that you're desperately trying to make it so. You try to make your first time special, when it's really not. If you're a girl it will be painful, if you're a boy you will be clumsy. If you're both virgin......

2° If you only know one person you won't know what you're missing.

Yeah and you'll wonder what you've missed. And possibly cheat on your partner for this sole reason.
I've been with a girl whose I has been her sole boyfriend and it has serious downsides. First there is no point of reference. If you're a douche this can be a good point but often not. Second it raised a few problem with her self esteem. And third when you lack experience in relationship you're simply less good at it. We broke for a time and now we're back together and happier than ever.

3° purity, blah, blah.

Yeah that made A LOT of sense, before we invented test for this kind of thing.
This is btw a perfect example for me of the supremacy of science against religion. All religious book contain GREAT public health advice but sadly their follower follow them even when it stop to make sense. And now it impregnate our culture.

[Willfor]

3° purity, blah, blah.

Yeah that made A LOT of sense, before we invented test for this kind of thing.
This is btw a perfect example for me of the supremacy of science against religion. All religious book contain GREAT public health advice but sadly their follower follow them even when it stop to make sense. And now it impregnate our culture.

This final one amuses me in the largest way. Absolutely no one in this thread has argued from the position of purity. You literally just made this point to argue against no one who is posting in this thread unless I missed it. And the best part is you're arguing it from the point of "science over religion" when that has absolutely nothing to do with it. It's culture versus culture, and you are arguing for your ideals. Which is not a bad thing, but you're holding them up as if science mandates your beliefs, when you just use facts to justify them.

[Tack]

Yeah, nobody really mentioned religion here.

[Phmcw]

3° purity, blah, blah.

Yeah that made A LOT of sense, before we invented test for this kind of thing.
This is btw a perfect example for me of the supremacy of science against religion. All religious book contain GREAT public health advice but sadly their follower follow them even when it stop to make sense. And now it impregnate our culture.

This final one amuses me in the largest way. Absolutely no one in this thread has argued from the position of purity. You literally just made this point to argue against no one who is posting in this thread unless I missed it. And the best part is you're arguing it from the point of "science over religion" when that has absolutely nothing to do with it. It's culture versus culture, and you are arguing for your ideals. Which is not a bad thing, but you're holding them up as if science mandates your beliefs, when you just use facts to justify them.

No.
Purity, as in "no sex is purer than sex" is an idea pervasive in our society, and I cannot help but think that it give the "blank canvas" idea mentioned on the first page a lot of it's appeal.
Said idea come from religion as prophylactic advice, but as it became sacred it's now rather a pain, especially since it's irrelevant, even as health advice.

It's not a circular logic but you've got to agree with my premise (sex and purity are not related) to agree with my conclusion (science is better than religion), not the other way around. I don't use science to validate my belief, I say that my views of the world (beliefs if you will, but it's not exactly that), once again, lead me find science more efficient than religion.

[Willfor]

No.
Purity, as in "no sex is purer than sex" is an idea pervasive in our society, and I cannot help but think that it give the "blank canvas" idea mentioned on the first page a lot of it's appeal.
Said idea come from religion as prophylactic advice, but as it became sacred it's now rather a pain, especially since it's irrelevant, even as health advice.

It's not a circular logic but you've got to agree with my premise (sex and purity are not related) to agree with my conclusion (science is better than religion), not the other way around. I don't use science to validate my belief, I say that my views of the world (beliefs if you will, but it's not exactly that), once again, lead me find science more efficient than religion.

My first response will be Tack's:

Yeah, nobody really mentioned religion here.

And I will add a point:

No one has brought up purity. No one is arguing that people who don't have sex are somehow holier than people who have sex. This may be a point that you are experiencing in your real life by people who are arguing this issue with you. However, no one has used that reasoning in this thread.

[Phmcw]

You don't understand.
Religion has been mentioned by the way, but indeed the point of purity from a religious perspective has not been defended within this thread (though it is often raised IRL) still the point of a "blank canvas" being preferable is on page 1.
I claim that the appeal of that idea come from the fact that a virgin is seen as more pure (or from fear of he competition, but that's another can of worms).

If we were talking about making music who the hell would rather work with a complete beginner than an accomplished musician?