NationStates Jolt Archive

I was thinking....Do we hold as many morals as past generations? I dont remember older people walking around in Booty shorts when they were twelve or taking naughty photo's at a birthday party. Do you think that the West's morals are in a state of decline? Do you think its ok when 2 Girls 1 Cup become's a Internet Hit or when I man cutting of his....well you get the point.

Is this Ok?
Are moral's becoming the thing of the past?

Is the world in a state of moral decline?

nope. if anything, we're making some pretty good progress.

Look at the way little tween girls dress today!! Think about how rude teens are!!! Think about people going crazy of 2 girls 1 cup:eek2: and BEM Pain Olympics. Is the world in a state of moral decline? I'll wanted to get your thought!!

My thought? Ok, first thought. Morality is relative. Further thoughts will be provided at a rate of $9.95 per thought. Paypal not accepted.

No, but frequent use of exclamation points makes you seem deranged!

what does this sentence mean?

"Think about people going crazy of 2 girls 1 cup and BEM Pain Olympics"

Since when has the world ever been 'moral'?

No!!!! The world is not in moral decline!!!!!!!!!! Morals are too subjective to adequately judge!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The internet just allows people who used to do freaky things in the privacy of their own home to do them on camera in front of other people who enjoy those freaky things!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lighten up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/political-pictures-pope-2-girls-1-cup-reaction.jpg

They had different morals. Not more, or better, different. Simple as that.

I was thinking....Do we hold as many morals as past generations? I dont remember older people walking around in Booty shorts when they were twelve or taking naughty photo's at a birthday party. Do you think that the West's morals are in a state of decline? Do you think its ok when 2 Girls 1 Cup become's a Internet Hit or when I man cutting of his....well you get the point.

Is this Ok?
Are moral's becoming the thing of the past?

That's what they said in the 1950s.

Our morals are different. Some are worse, but some of them have changed for the better. Our level of intellectual sophistication, however, is far, far lower. I think that the increasing tendency for cultural changes to be "bottom up" rather than "top down" is the main cause for this...Jackass... enough said...

EDIT - Note that I'm not thinking back to the 1950's, the degeneration really began in the Victorian era, and accelerated following WW1, and again following WW2.

In what way was the world more moral before?

In what way was the world more moral before?

more slavery and imperialism, mainly. sitcom exports just don't do it as well.

more atheism = better morality

more religion = more immorality

(obviously, some NSGers will disagree!)

more atheism = better morality

more religion = more immorality

(obviously, some NSGers will disagree!)

more religion= more insanity

Sexual mores =/= morality. Dress =/= morality. In most Western societies, the kids in their booty shorts, no matter how rich or poor their parents are, have access to free education and free basic health care. They have clean water to drink, provided by their society. They can expect to live long enough to grow out of the "booty-shorts" stage, and when they do grow up, they'll have a say in that society. And all of this is available to them whether they're boys or girls.

What's more, if anyone is fool enough to try to hurt them because of their style of dress, their society pays a group of people to find the assailant and another group of people to try him or her for the crime. These groups will try to do this no matter whether the assailant is richer or older or belongs to an important social group or is even the leader of their society.

They're allowed to change their booty shorts for special costumes or adornments and go to gatherings of people who have various forms of spiritual belief. Their society will let them choose which group they'll go to and won't have official penalties if they choose an unfavoured group, or none at all.

Sure, it doesn't always work out that way for individuals, but the morals that require these things are regarded by their societies as ideals for which to strive.

We're a damn moral bunch.

Sexual mores =/= morality. Dress =/= morality. In most Western societies, the kids in their booty shorts, no matter how rich or poor their parents are, have access to free education and free basic health care. They have clean water to drink, provided by their society. They can expect to live long enough to grow out of the "booty-shorts" stage, and when they do grow up, they'll have a say in that society. And all of this is available to them whether they're boys or girls.

What's more, if anyone is fool enough to try to hurt them because of their style of dress, their society pays a group of people to find the assailant and another group of people to try him or her for the crime. These groups will try to do this no matter whether the assailant is richer or older or belongs to an important social group or is even the leader of their society.

They're allowed to change their booty shorts for special costumes or adornments and go to gatherings of people who have various forms of spiritual belief. Their society will let them choose which group they'll go to and won't have official penalties if they choose an unfavoured group, or none at all.

Sure, it doesn't always work out that way for individuals, but the morals that require these things are regarded by their societies as ideals for which to strive.

We're a damn moral bunch.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v168/hughborg/LOLscifi/00072qeg.jpg
Nicely said.

what is with this trend of starting a thread with nonsense then never posting in it again?

what is with this trend of starting a thread with nonsense then never posting in it again?
Maybe it's like Bush and the Iraq War. They had no idea anyone would respond to their thread and they don't know how to react.

As to the OP: There has never been a "moral" period of history, and there has never been a period of history that did not bitch about how much more moral older periods of history supposedly were. And if there were no older periods of history, they made some up. That's why we have all those "Golden Age" myths. Nostalgia is bunk.

I was thinking....Do we hold as many morals as past generations? I dont remember older people walking around in Booty shorts when they were twelve or taking naughty photo's at a birthday party. Do you think that the West's morals are in a state of decline? Do you think its ok when 2 Girls 1 Cup become's a Internet Hit or when I man cutting of his....well you get the point.

Is this Ok?
Are moral's becoming the thing of the past?

It's no different now to any other time - except - we have better ability to communicate it now. And - just maybe - if you do something to someone else, you MIGHT have a better chance of being held accountable now.

Which is why it's so important, now, to get rid of all those rules that were pointless exercises back in the old days - like making 'being gay' a crime.

Maybe it's like Bush and the Iraq War. They had no idea anyone would respond to their thread and they don't know how to react.


Yeah, I was watching that night.


Bush666: Iraq is teh suck. lololol.
Saddam_2_sexi_4_u: stfu n00b
Bush666: i pwn j00

Saddam_2_sexi_4_u kicked from channel.

I was thinking....Do we hold as many morals as past generations?
No, and that's a good thing.

Morality is the spawn of religion, and religion is a pernicious vice.

I was thinking....Do we hold as many morals as past generations? I dont remember older people walking around in Booty shorts when they were twelve or taking naughty photo's at a birthday party. Do you think that the West's morals are in a state of decline? Do you think its ok when 2 Girls 1 Cup become's a Internet Hit or when I man cutting of his....well you get the point.

Is this Ok?
Are moral's becoming the thing of the past?

The answer to that question is obviously yes. Enough said.

Sexual mores =/= morality. Dress =/= morality. In most Western societies, the kids in their booty shorts, no matter how rich or poor their parents are, have access to free education and free basic health care. They have clean water to drink, provided by their society. They can expect to live long enough to grow out of the "booty-shorts" stage, and when they do grow up, they'll have a say in that society. And all of this is available to them whether they're boys or girls.

What's more, if anyone is fool enough to try to hurt them because of their style of dress, their society pays a group of people to find the assailant and another group of people to try him or her for the crime. These groups will try to do this no matter whether the assailant is richer or older or belongs to an important social group or is even the leader of their society.

They're allowed to change their booty shorts for special costumes or adornments and go to gatherings of people who have various forms of spiritual belief. Their society will let them choose which group they'll go to and won't have official penalties if they choose an unfavoured group, or none at all.

Sure, it doesn't always work out that way for individuals, but the morals that require these things are regarded by their societies as ideals for which to strive.

We're a damn moral bunch.

Rule of law is great but unfortunately the wealthy and powerful have crept above the law yet again. :(

No, and that's a good thing.

Morality is the spawn of religion, and religion is a pernicious vice.

Morality is an unconscious program which was developed by nature to prevent us from wiping ourselves out. Now that we ignore mores I feel we are now more likely to wipe ourselves out.

Religion is spawned by curiosity as to why we're here and how we got here.

Maybe we should stamp curiosity out instead. :rolleyes:

Morality is an unconscious program which was developed by nature to prevent us from wiping ourselves out.

Prove it.

[FOIL HAT] Maybe the liberals are intentionally removing morals and religion as part of their twisted scheme to take over the world [/FOIL HAT]

OH NOES! :eek:

Prove it.

*proves it by posting this link* (http://www.1729.com/blog/BiologyOfMorality.html)

HAHA! Read the part labelled "The purpose of Morality" and "What is Morality"

Chew on that!

When truth becomes relative, morals become relatively unimportant.

When truth becomes relative, morals become relatively unimportant.

Well the truth CANNOT be relative. We have science to thank. :wink: *nods*

I agree that morality is not relative, nor is the truth. But try telling that to people who subscribe to the post-modern mentality - they are more concerned with how "genuine" you are than how factual you are. Guess what, folks? People can be genuinely wrong.

more religion= more insanity

I'm taking it you don't know my religion eh? :tongue:

I would think that we have progressed morally. Today, life is more valued compared to the past. I don't really know how to measure the impact of religion on morality. Back in the day, churches and other holy places weren't violated because people back then feared the wrath of God/ the Gods, thus providing people safety. But then, although religions are supposed to make people fear God's/ the Gods' wrath and promote people to live a moral life, the value of life itself was pretty low compared to today's standards.
BTW you know that tin foil hat is a U.A.V. jammer? I'd keep it on if I was you.

Whenever someone starts going on about 'kids these days', I'm always reminded of this quote:
Children today are tyrants. They contradict their parents, gobble their food, and tyrannize their teachers
cookie for anyone who knows who said it!

Whenever someone starts going on about 'kids these days', I'm always reminded of this quote:

cookie for anyone who knows who said it!

Socrates.

Oh how I long for the good old days. When Ivan the Terrible could head out into a local village and gang rape women with his group of butchers, and then throw their victims to the bears to be eaten for their entertainment. The Rape of Nangking was fun too. Or something.

Gods I hate these stupid threads.

Ifreann, you win a cookie:
http://pixiestixkidspix.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/cookie-bite-web.jpg

I agree that morality is not relative, nor is the truth. But try telling that to people who subscribe to the post-modern mentality - they are more concerned with how "genuine" you are than how factual you are. Guess what, folks? People can be genuinely wrong.

But science disproves post-modernism completely. There have to be absolutes or existence as we know it cannot possibly exist. There are TRUE scientific laws that all matter and energy (excluding that which is being suck in or alread sucked into a black hole) so everything cannot be relative. That being said I don't get how anyone would want to believe in relativism unless they were looking for a way to shrug off moral responsibility.

Oh how I long for the good old days. When Ivan the Terrible could head out into a local village and gang rape women with his group of butchers, and then throw their victims to the bears to be eaten for their entertainment. The Rape of Nangking was fun too. Or something.

Gods I hate these stupid threads.

B-but people have consensual sex with each other without the priest's permission.

AND WE DON'T OSTRACIZE THEM FOR IT!!!

Oh how I long for the good old days. When Ivan the Terrible could head out into a local village and gang rape women with his group of butchers, and then throw their victims to the bears to be eaten for their entertainment. The Rape of Nangking was fun too. Or something.

Gods I hate these stupid threads.

Those people are notorious for being immoral. The OP is reffering to the morals valued in the past and you decided to "refute" him/her by making references to the age's villains.

Ifreann, you win a cookie:
http://pixiestixkidspix.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/cookie-bite-web.jpg

Hooray!

But science disproves post-modernism completely. There have to be absolutes or existence as we know it cannot possibly exist. There are TRUE scientific laws that all matter and energy (excluding that which is being suck in or alread sucked into a black hole) so everything cannot be relative. That being said I don't get how anyone would want to believe in relativism unless they were looking for a way to shrug off moral responsibility.

I agree. If I pull the trigger, that bullet is absolutely going to strike something, and I am absolutely responsible for the consequences of my actions. As is everyone else for every single word or action throughout their entire lives. Whether society will hold them to it, that is another story because of the aforementioned mentality.

I agree. If I pull the trigger, that bullet is absolutely going to strike something, and I am absolutely responsible for the consequences of my actions. As is everyone else for every single word or action throughout their entire lives. Whether society will hold them to it, that is another story because of the aforementioned mentality.

http://weblogs.elearning.ubc.ca/vschools/fail.jpg

I agree. If I pull the trigger, that bullet is absolutely going to strike something, and I am absolutely responsible for the consequences of my actions. As is everyone else for every single word or action throughout their entire lives. Whether society will hold them to it, that is another story because of the aforementioned mentality.

I see what you mean.

Prove it.

You going to get around to that tonight, SL, cos I'm tired and I might go to bed soon.

Funny pic, but I don't see how it relates. If you're trying to tell me I'm wrong, I can prove myself to be correct 30 out of 30 times (rounds in the mag) that every time a round is directed irresponsibly that I can be held liable, both in a court of law and in the opinions of every sane and rational adult. However, I don't plan on trying to go to jail anytime soon, so don't count on me showing you. ;)

You going to get around to that tonight, SL, cos I'm tired and I might go to bed soon.

Erm... the article I posted earlier? It proves my point.

Funny pic, but I don't see how it relates. If you're trying to tell me I'm wrong, I can prove myself to be correct 30 out of 30 times (rounds in the mag) that every time a round is directed irresponsibly that I can be held liable, both in a court of law and in the opinions of every sane and rational adult. However, I don't plan on trying to go to jail anytime soon, so don't count on me showing you. ;)

The part where you seem to think that people don't think murder should be punishable anymore.

You smeghead, those people are notorious for being immoral. The OP is reffering to the morals valued in the past and you decided to "refute" him/her by making references to the age's villains.

The point was, I suspect, that the general moral timbre of ANY age has been a spectrum. People who talk about the golden age of victorian morality ignore the institutionalised rape, torture and cruelty. They ignore the starving masses. They ignore the abuses of children, especially. They ignore the pornography, they ignore the adultery. They ignore the persecution based on race, sex and sexuality.

Those who talk about past eras ignore little details like child-brides, slavery, lack of suffrage, starvation. Those who talk about the godless society we have in this age of science - ignore the fact that women have been using CHEMICAL abortifactants to rid themselves of unwanted offspring for millenia, that 'primitive' peoples used contraception, that 'sanctified' marriage in Christendom was something that only happened to the wealthy.

The glorious moral past that people talk about, exists only in the minds of those who have never cared enough to actually take the lighest glimpse into history.

Sexual mores =/= morality. Dress =/= morality. In most Western societies, the kids in their booty shorts, no matter how rich or poor their parents are, have access to free education and free basic health care. They have clean water to drink, provided by their society. They can expect to live long enough to grow out of the "booty-shorts" stage, and when they do grow up, they'll have a say in that society. And all of this is available to them whether they're boys or girls.

I really like that. You've identified ways in which our societies are moral -- and lets not forget that the extent to which our whole society is moral, is proof that a democratic system of government actually WORKS. Establishing a common morality is precisely what a government should do -- it's as much about leadership as enforcement.

But I suspect the OP still won't accept your reasoning, being focussed on individual cases of "moral choice." The empowerment of children does indeed have some scary aspects -- being free to choose more of their own life, at an earlier age, does put them in danger of consequences they don't have the experience to forsee.

What's more, if anyone is fool enough to try to hurt them because of their style of dress, their society pays a group of people to find the assailant and another group of people to try him or her for the crime. These groups will try to do this no matter whether the assailant is richer or older or belongs to an important social group or is even the leader of their society.

However, the principle is not that fair in practice -- and it won't be until the same standard of rights is enjoyed in legal defence as applies in basic health care or basic education. In no country I know of are all defendants entitled to the same level of legal defence ... a better lawyer makes a difference, and money can buy a better lawyer.

Oh, there is progress being made in this ... but the sheer cost of providing a high standard of defence for all defendants is intimidating, and like medical care the cost of legal services is inflating year by year. Defining and enforcing law is the core role of government, though, and we simply have to pay what it takes to do it right.

They're allowed to change their booty shorts for special costumes or adornments and go to gatherings of people who have various forms of spiritual belief. Their society will let them choose which group they'll go to and won't have official penalties if they choose an unfavoured group, or none at all.

Freedom of religion. Fair enough, I guess.

Perhaps the OP's beef is precisely with freedom. By being allowed so many options, of course some individuals will seek the safety of amoral philosophies (moral equivalences) or narrow moral philosophies (holding one principle to be the only principle and thereby sanctioning acts which are immoral by other principles -- eg those who would kill an adult to 'protect' a foetus.)

I also find an omission in your catalogue of modern moral society -- and it's in the matter of consequences for actions. An individual life is so deeply embedded in other lives (the economy if you will) that it is almost impossible to determine the consequences of an individual choice. When Nike was exposed for using child labour and slave labour in the manufacture of their shoes, people stopped buying Nikes to the extent that the company quickly improved its methods -- an example of people making a moral choice, not to buy the product, and that moral choice being put into practice. But we have only so much time and memory for details, and even a major purchase like a car almost certainly comes with elements of moral culpability ... even if we research carefully before buying, the web of traded commodities, and the globalized nature of that web (crossing jurisdictions) makes it quite impossible to know what our money is going to fund.

To pay tax is to subsidize universal education and health care. Morally good things, as you say. But we cannot pay our tax only for that, in the process of paying we also fund military forces, we fund jails and farm subsidies and many other things which we may find morally bad, or at least compromised. The democratic system seems to have very limited scope to change that balance, and anybody calling for government to never do harm is decried as a dreamer, and a socialist one at that.

It seems to me that we're almost addicted to a degree of moral wrongdoing, so long as the victims of it are out of our direct sight, in some sweatshop in a foreign land, or wearing prison overalls or a soldier's uniform. Yes, our societies are good at protecting OUR children, they're good at protecting OUR lifestyle choices ... but we aren't doing so well in protecting the children and the cultures of countries we trade with.

Sure, it doesn't always work out that way for individuals, but the morals that require these things are regarded by their societies as ideals for which to strive.

We're a damn moral bunch.

Broadly I agree with you. Social justice is a hugely moral thing, and not easy to do right. On the balance of the last half-century we've done extraordinarily well at defining a common morality which is not based on religious prescription, and enforcing it.

It comes at a cost though. Individuals, empowered by a system which does not crush them for having unrealistic expectations, build their own moral philosophies which in some cases are bizarrely arbitrary and internally inconsistent. They aren't faced with the consequences of an unrealistic world-view until they actually do cross the line of breaking a law. For each pervert there are a dozen progressives, people who use the freedom society gives them to be better partners, better workers, and better citizens than the generations who taught them the old ways.

The failures, the people who misuse freedom (eg, by not working, by cultivating unreasonable beliefs, by indulging in perversions of sex or lifestyle) attract far more than their share of attention. On the whole, I agree with you that we're a pretty moral bunch ... and I'll add that a morally strong social system (led by a government which tries to do good) models individual moral behaviour. And the vast majority follow that and lead better lives, even if a few, by concentrating on the failures of government or swallowing the salacious shadenfreud available in the media, seek a model of immoral behaviour to excuse their own failings.

You smeghead, those people are notorious for being immoral. The OP is reffering to the morals valued in the past and you decided to "refute" him/her by making references to the age's villains.

Stop hurting my feelings with flames. I'll have to run off to moderation and report it.

The glorious moral past that people talk about, exists only in the minds of those who have never cared enough to actually take the lighest glimpse into history.
Word to your mom.

Well the truth CANNOT be relative. We have science to thank. :wink: *nods*

Science doesn't speak on "truths."

But science disproves post-modernism completely.

...nor "post-modernism."

Really, go find me a scientific theorem regarding post-modernistic truth. You won't find it because you're incorrectly mixing philosophy, politics and science, and then just using the label of "science" to justify your philosophy.

There have to be absolutes or existence as we know it cannot possibly exist. There are TRUE scientific laws that all matter and energy (excluding that which is being suck in or alread sucked into a black hole) so everything cannot be relative.

While there are scientific laws regarding matter and energy, there aren't any regarding your personal sociopolitical philosophical standpoint.

Morality is not matter or energy and isn't in the realm of science at all.

That being said I don't get how anyone would want to believe in relativism unless they were looking for a way to shrug off moral responsibility.

All morals are relative for the same reason everyone's personal preferences are relative. Morality is in fact not much more than personal preference.

Stop hurting my feelings with flames. I'll have to run off to moderation and report it.

I merely pointed out a flaw, something that everyone does here without receiving punishment and rightly so since it doesn't break any rules.

Your post on the other hand only consisted of a blatant name call, which was handled by the authorities properly.

While there are scientific laws regarding matter and energy, there aren't any regarding your personal sociopolitical philosophical standpoint.

Morality is not matter or energy and isn't in the realm of science at all.


But if the matter and energy within us dictates our functions both mental and otherwise would that not mean that matter and energy dictate our behavior?

All morals are relative for the same reason everyone's personal preferences are relative. Morality is in fact not much more than personal preference.

As stated in the article I posted earlier morality is nature's programming to keep humanity a successful species.

what is with this trend of starting a thread with nonsense then never posting in it again?

Meh. It's rarely the OP which makes a good thread good.

It would be interesting to hear from the OP again though. I suspect the idea that Social Justice is a more important measure of how moral Society is, than what the kids are wearing, might be a bit too hard for them ;)

I merely pointed out a flaw, something that everyone does here without receiving punishment and rightly so since it doesn't break any rules.

Your post on the other hand only consisted of a blatant name call, which was handled by the authorities properly.

d00d.

You called me a smeghead.
Red Dwarf aside, there is a substance called 'smegma' with which no sane human would want to have their head constructed of.

Flamer.

The point was, I suspect, that the general moral timbre of ANY age has been a spectrum. People who talk about the golden age of victorian morality ignore the institutionalised rape, torture and cruelty. They ignore the starving masses. They ignore the abuses of children, especially. They ignore the pornography, they ignore the adultery. They ignore the persecution based on race, sex and sexuality.

Those who talk about past eras ignore little details like child-brides, slavery, lack of suffrage, starvation. Those who talk about the godless society we have in this age of science - ignore the fact that women have been using CHEMICAL abortifactants to rid themselves of unwanted offspring for millenia, that 'primitive' peoples used contraception, that 'sanctified' marriage in Christendom was something that only happened to the wealthy.

The glorious moral past that people talk about, exists only in the minds of those who have never cared enough to actually take the lighest glimpse into history.

Quoted for being bloody great.

I can fit my concern with global justice (still a sore spot in our "civilized morality") quite neatly into that. Victorian England was also a great growth period of colonialism!

d00d.

You called me a smeghead.
Red Dwarf aside, there is a substance called 'smegma' with which no sane human would want to have their head constructed of.

Flamer.

Red Dwarfs where I got it from.

But if the matter and energy within us dictates our functions both mental and otherwise would that not mean that matter and energy dictate our behavior?


If you choose to see it that way I suppose it could be said.

But, that's a far cry from saying that our behavior is in any way scientific. That there is a scientific explanation for the physical aspects of ourselves (matter, energy) still doesn't address the fact that behavior and thought are not themselves scientific staples of any kind.

And it doesn't address the concept of some inherent, objective and/or scientific "morality" which isn't supported simply by the existence of matter or energy.

As stated in the article I posted earlier morality is nature's programming to keep humanity a successful species.

"Nature" doesn't "program." Evolutionary processes just happen, they don't have some sort of "plan" or a desire to make humanity as a species "successful." My genes and yours are concerned (if you can describe them as "concerned") only with their own success. To say otherwise is contrary to known science and smacks of a circular argument in which the presumption of a God or Creator or Mother Nature; needless to say not scientific concepts either.

Heh, the idea that channelling Lister would make SL's opinion more valid might have some merit :)

Could use the help, that's for certain.

Heh, the idea that channelling Lister would make SL's opinion more valid might have some merit :)

Every major character on Red Dwarf uses that slang.

Every major character on Red Dwarf uses that slang.

And that makes it okay?

"Idiot" is a ubiquitous term in even G rated films. But it was a flame because it was directed at you, just as 'smeghead' was directed at me.

I'm deeply hurt.

Morality is an unconscious program which was developed by nature to prevent us from wiping ourselves out. Now that we ignore mores I feel we are now more likely to wipe ourselves out.

Religion is spawned by curiosity as to why we're here and how we got here.

Maybe we should stamp curiosity out instead. :rolleyes:

Prove it.

*snip*
*proves it by posting this link* (http://www.1729.com/blog/BiologyOfMorality.html)

HAHA! Read the part labelled "The purpose of Morality" and "What is Morality"

Chew on that!

Do you actually want to debate the content of that article?

It's interesting and eclectic, but the fact that the Java programmer who wrote it has a Bachelor of Science degree doesn't make it the material of a scientific proof!

Name: Philip Dorrell
Education: formally, I have a BSc (maths major) from University of Waikato, New Zealand. Informally, I educate myself every day according to my interests.

And that makes it okay?

"Idiot" is a ubiquitous term in even G rated films. But it was a flame because it was directed at you, just as 'smeghead' was directed at me.

I'm deeply hurt.

I edited it out. I had no idea you would take a word the producers of Red Dwarf made up for laughs to great offense.

I edited it out. I had no idea you would take a word the producers of Red Dwarf made up for laughs to great offense.

It's okay. I'm just going to go take a warm bath and drop the toaster in.

Night.

<snip Rant for the Day>

True, dat ... yes, you're right ... I agree with that one, too ... ah, exactly ... true, alas, and pity 'tis, 'tis true ... yes, but ... of course, you have to consider ... on the other hand ...

Your post deserves the "drunken 3am chat with friend" level of involvement. Sadly, my original reply was meant to be at the OP's broad-brush level, because that's all I had time for. Still the case, may be back later.

SL, Phillip Dorrell makes a very simple case (which frankly is Social Darwinism) that there must exist a reproductive advantage to a "moral instinct" ... and furthermore, provides only the scantiest of reasons why the existence of moral philosophy implies an instinct to think in such terms.

Essentially, he argues in a circle. There is morality. Therefore, there is a moral instinct. Instincts exist for survival value. Therefore, the moral instinct has survival value. And that's why we are moral.

I don't think its very strong, but I won't read any more of it unless you are actually going to defend the claim that "now that we ignore mores we are more likely to wipe ourselves out" which is only distantly connected anyway.

Your post deserves the "drunken 3am chat with friend" level of involvement. Sadly, my original reply was meant to be at the OP's broad-brush level, because that's all I had time for. Still the case, may be back later.

It would have sufficed for me to second Ifreann's applause. Your post was a very good reply and I'd like to see the OP's reaction to it.

Now, when I entitle a post "RANT" I'm pretty much saying that no-one is expected to read it all, let alone reply in full. But reply if you like :)

It's okay. I'm just going to go take a warm bath and drop the toaster in.

Night.
If the water is already warm, why do you need the toaster? Some people are never satisfied with the temperature.

It's okay. I'm just going to go take a warm bath and drop the toaster in.

Night.

I doubt that you're going to kill yourself over something I of all people said. Maybe if you respected me or valued my opinions as factual or logical but I know this is not the case. If you and others feel that I'm a paranoid theory conspirist whose word contains more baloney than a meat shot then why would you kill yourself over something I posted?

If the water is already warm, why do you need the toaster? Some people are never satisfied with the temperature.

A little thing called "ambience", cur.

I doubt that you're going to kill yourself over something I of all people said. Maybe if you respected me or valued my opinions as factual or logical but I know this is not the case. If you and others feel that I'm a paranoid theory conspirist whose word contains more baloney than a meat shot then why would you kill yourself over something I posted?

It's "bologna" darling. Someone as wise as you ought to know that.

Someone as wise as you ought to also know that not everyone is as strong as you are. We cannot all keep ourselves emotionally stable. Words hurt, and I'm not sure you understand the power of your actions.

I edited it out. I had no idea you would take a word the producers of Red Dwarf made up for laughs to great offense.

Hey, does this mean that we get to tell SL what smegma is because he clearly doesn't know, thus horrifying him to his very core?

Hey, does this mean that we get to tell SL what smegma is because he clearly doesn't know, thus horrifying him to his very core?

Wikipedia has pictures, it can do a better job than we ever could.

Wait, you think 2G1C is bad? Christ, haven't you heard of SWAP.avi?

As stated in the article I posted earlier morality is nature's programming to keep humanity a successful species.

Nature has no goal, no aspirations, no plan.

This is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

It's "bologna" darling. Someone as wise as you ought to know that.

Someone as wise as you ought to also know that not everyone is as strong as you are. We cannot all keep ourselves emotionally stable. Words hurt, and I'm not sure you understand the power of your actions.

Firstky I'm not very emotionally strong as all which is why I assumed that others are stronger.

Secondly as the notorious laughing stock of this forum one would think that empty remarks like the one currently in question would do little damage if any.

Nature has no goal, no aspirations, no plan.

This is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

To ovoid making you contemplate suicide too I'm going to say this nicely. Nature does have a goal. To survive, the DNA within us programs us to live on to propagate, to make one's species successful. I agree that it has no aspirations and plan because evolution does not plan, it is a process which causes organisms to evolve to fit into a certain environment. Nature does have a goal but not a plan.

To ovoid making you contemplate suicide too I'm going to say this nicely. Nature does have a goal. .

really? what part of "nature" contemplates this goal? What part of nature decides to pursue that goal?

To survive, the DNA within us programs us to live on to propagate, to make one's species successful.

A favorable mutation, nothing more, nothing less. Nature can not have a goal, nature has no ability to set goals of any sort.

A little thing called "ambience", cur.
I don't know what those last two words mean, so I'm going to seize on the first part and assume you just accused me of having a small penis.

How do you know these things? Who tells you these things . . . are you a member of the occult?

really? what part of "nature" contemplates this goal? What part of nature decides to pursue that goal?

It doesn't decide. It does.

A favorable mutation, nothing more, nothing less. Nature can not have a goal, nature has no ability to set goals of any sort.

Survival is of the species is said species's imperative. Nature set that goal for them.

Survival is of the species is said species's imperative. Nature set that goal for them.

Let me ask my question again, just in case you missed it. What part of "nature" contemplates this goal? What part of nature decides to pursue that goal?

I don't know what those last two words mean, so I'm going to seize on the first part and assume you just accused me of having a small penis.

Any man who can't grasp the concept of ambiance certainly can't grasp his own member.

How do you know these things? Who tells you these things . . . are you a member of the occult?

People do mistake me for being Jewish because of my name, and I get mailings from the ADL...I suppose that sort of falls in to the occult category.

Let me ask my question again, just in case you missed it. What part of "nature" contemplates this goal? What part of nature decides to pursue that goal?

The biosphere. All that lives. If all life didn't make the preservation of their kind their imperative life wouldn't exist.

The biosphere. All that lives. If all life didn't make the preservation of their kind their imperative life wouldn't exist.

so the hanta virus has a goal of survival? Really? How does a virus set goals?

so the hanta virus has a goal of survival? Really? How does a virus set goals?

Through genetic mutations that program it to attack cells in order to propagate. Propagation leads to survival which is the virus's imperative.

really? what part of "nature" contemplates this goal? What part of nature decides to pursue that goal?

Our brains and bodies have a function - an essential "nature." There has been a trend in moral philosophy toward the functionalist view, to some degree. That could be what he means. "Nature" defined as the Earth or the Universe might be indifferent to our activities, but there's some sense, I think, especially in the absense of absolutes or religion, to see morality as chained to our "natural" inclinations.

so the hanta virus has a goal of survival? Really? How does a virus set goals?

Well, it most definitely has a "goal" of survival; it is genetically encoded to infect and reproduce. Since goals are a human concept, it's not necessarily inaccurate to interpret that genetic encoding as a "goal" from a human perspective.

Through genetic mutations that program it to attack cells in order to propagate. Propagation leads to survival which is the virus's imperative.

But it can't make tacos and without tacos, what's the point of living?

But it can't make tacos and without tacos, what's the point of living?

Thats why nature made humanity. :p See, all creatures do their part in maintaining the ecosystem.

Through genetic mutations that program it to attack cells in order to propagate.

A goal is a projected state of affairs which a person or a system plans or intends to achieve or bring about. How does a virus plan anything? How does a virus intend to achieve anything? It has no capacity to plan. It has no capacity to intend. It simply does. In fact, the vast majority of the biomass on this planet, the plants, the bacteria, the viruses, all of it has no capacity to form plans, no capacity to create intent.

Thus no ability to set goals. A flower does not intend to spread its pollen. Even among those forms of life that have a rudimentary consciousness, it is highly questionable which among them, if any other than humans, have the capacity to actually form goals, and intend objectives.

Well, it most definitely has a "goal" of survival; it is genetically encoded to infect and reproduce.

But that's not a goal. My calculator is encoded to do math. Does it have a goal to do math? No, of course not, that's asinine. In order to have a goal, you have to have a capacity to contemplate the future. That's what "goal" means.

Any man who can't grasp the concept of ambiance certainly can't grasp his own member.
Oh, I can grasp it, it just requires a highly specialized set of tools. Sort of like a jeweler's kit, really.

I think, especially in the absense of absolutes or religion, to see morality as chained to our "natural" inclinations.

morality may be a product of our genetics. I never argued it was or wasn't. I merely stated that to assume morality is not only a product of our genetics, but imbuing us with that morality was a goal of some ephemeral concept of "nature", is absurd.

But that's not a goal. My calculator is encoded to do math. Does it have a goal to do math? No, of course not, that's asinine. In order to have a goal, you have to have a capacity to contemplate the future.

It isn't conscious. Most humans are conscious. Consciousness is probably a requirement in moral thinking. :tongue:

It isn't conscious.

And neither is a virus. That's kinda my point.

And neither is a virus. That's kinda my point.

Right. My fault. I've been threadhopping.

Right. My fault. I've been threadhopping.

heh, fair enough. Been there.

Id say largely no...We're far more accepting nowadays than we were just twenty years ago...

We're slowly seeing the decline in persecution of many peoples who have been previously discriminated against...

However it does come with some side effects...Booty Shorts come with greater Sexual Freedom....

But, id say that the good out weighs the bad...

Our brains and bodies have a function - an essential "nature." There has been a trend in moral philosophy toward the functionalist view, to some degree. That could be what he means. "Nature" defined as the Earth or the Universe might be indifferent to our activities, but there's some sense, I think, especially in the absense of absolutes or religion, to see morality as chained to our "natural" inclinations.

I see it as a rational system of thought. Quite simply, thought applied to the behaviour of persons, and consistent across different "seats" of subjectivity because it is rational, capable of being explained to others. It is taught one to another, and agreed on just as we find it in all our interests to agree on the meaning of words, or on the duties of an individual.

As far as I'd go with the evolutionary, instinctual explanation is to say that societies which have a morality that "works" are more successful societies. As such, morality is a part of culture, not of human nature.

South Lizasauria: Even rectifying all your sloppy "survival of the fittest" knowledge to a scientific basis, I don't see how you're going to prove your idea that "abandoning mores puts us all in danger." For one thing, if you accept Dorrell's assertion that the existence of "morality" implies a "moral instinct" then I can't imagine how we could "abandon mores." For another, you can't infer a rule for the behaviour of all society, from a theory about the behaviour of an individual.

Dorrell is a lightweight, well out of his depth, and your refusal to discuss any of the content of his article strongly suggests that you didn't even understand it. I do wish you'd stop citing it as some kind of "proof."

With a lack of sexual mores the risk of STDs has increased, with people caring more about themselves than about whats right people are putting each other at risk more often for their own benefit and said people are less likely to cooperate in the event of a serious disaster.

We can abandon mores because of our highly evolved brains. Your correct when you state that I cannot infer a rule for the behavior of all society from a theory about the behavior of an individual but one must not forget that the majority set the rules for society most of the time and since the majority has power and desires survival they set moral standards. Secondly for the majority to be the majority it must be adept at surviving in the current environment, in fact more adept than others which is why many mores tend to be designed to be guidelines for the well being and survival of those within the community. This excludes racial bigotry which is the majorities unconscious attempt to eliminate genetic competition.

If we allow for a "moral instinct" which directs our thoughts in moral lines, it would follow that the less rational a person is (the less they think) the more morally motivated they will be. The rational mind directs emotions to some extent, and when necessary holds itself above instincts -- a rational person can force themselves to run into a fire, even at cost of their own life, when instinct tells them the exact opposite. If a "moral instinct" is necessary to be moral, the idiots of this world would be the ones who made the most moral decisions, and the geniuses the ones who made the least moral decisions. I don't think that happens -- the brighter people make more successful decisions (better implementation) but there isn't much difference in how "good" people are, across the range of intelligence.

Certainly an intelligent person can be amoral (relatively so) and a not-very-bright person can be very moral. Having a strong moral sense is not a product of thinking a lot, but of thought being directed to moral questions. In the abstract AND in everyday decisions, and it's quite possible for a person to have a very active mind but deliberately avoid contemplating right and wrong -- an "evil genius" being the extreme example. Conversely, a person who can't think much or well may be outstandingly moral, simply through lots of practice in considering the right and wrong of their own actions and of what they see around them.

Now I think it is clear why so many people find morality to be tied up with religious belief. Because religions always have a code of right and wrong behaviour, these people if they are devout spend a lot of their thinking about abstract and everyday situations, considering the right-and-wrong of things, and as such develop a strong moral sense. They can do this well or badly, and simple repetition of the same moral judgement (sin! sin! everywhere! oh smite us god! we're all sinners!) is the bad way to do that, producing a strong and inflexible moral sense that isn't much use in any real situation -- everything becomes black-and-white, a matter of the highest stakes (your immortal soul or your next life). But it can also be done well, reading widely in the religious texts and commentaries, and considering the principles thoughtfully while suspending judgement in real cases. They could also take the moral precepts as starting-points and develop a quite independent moral code of their own ... so a religious code of right-and-wrong is by no means anti-moral in all cases.

more atheism = better morality

more religion = more immorality

(obviously, some NSGers will disagree!)

Well it only took the first page.

Can you elaborate further on this? But I would say that even the opposite of those statements are incorrect.

I seem to remember a quote from Socrates which relates to the OP.

I do not remember it exactly but what he said was something along the lines that the next generation has lost it values they no longer respect their elders they allow themselves to be taken in by vices etc.

If I find it I will post it but even 3000 years ago (don't correct me if I am wrong in the dates it is a rough guess) they were saying the same thing as they are now. When this current generation grows up we will be saying the same thing about our children and when the next generation grows up they will be saying the same thing.

And maybe someone has posted that quote I haven't gone through the entire thread yet.

Whenever someone starts going on about 'kids these days', I'm always reminded of this quote:

cookie for anyone who knows who said it!

Damn I see you did say it first.

Did I get the philosopher right first? Do I get a cookie?

No I still haven't gone through the whole thread yet.

EDIT: Ok, ok maybe if I had looked at the very next post I would have known someone had already said it.

I was thinking....Do we hold as many morals as past generations? I dont remember older people walking around in Booty shorts when they were twelve or taking naughty photo's at a birthday party. Do you think that the West's morals are in a state of decline? Do you think its ok when 2 Girls 1 Cup become's a Internet Hit or when I man cutting of his....well you get the point.

Is this Ok?
Are moral's becoming the thing of the past?

I think where sex is concerned, we're becoming less uptight. I'm not really convinced that's a bad thing from a moral point of view.
Especially considering that, where human rights, equality, political freedoms etc are concerned the Western world at least is more moral than it ever was before...

South Lizasauria:

I was far too merciful. Next time, I will cut you down with two or three words, all you deserve.

Bunnysaurus Bugsii, an anagrammatic flame is still a flame. Cut it out.

No I still haven't gone through the whole thread yet.

Feel free to reply to any of mine without reading them all. I did rather go on Rant Safari.

I also got carried away with the idea that whole societies can be "moral" when it's probably an individual characteristic ... and I misused the word "mores" to mean moral principles, when that's not really what mores are.

Idealistic views of the past are just silly. Totally ignoring the racism, sexism, homophobia...there are so many ways current society is dramatically better. If you take "moral" to mean "ignorant, intolerant and overly fixated with religious dogma" I'm sure society is now far less "moral" than it has ever been. I for one wouldn't return to this "moral" society if given the choice.

Meh. It's rarely the OP which makes a good thread good.

It would be interesting to hear from the OP again though. I suspect the idea that Social Justice is a more important measure of how moral Society is, than what the kids are wearing, might be a bit too hard for them ;)
so it seems but .... well i guess i was expected to recognize some .... popular music video?... in the OP that was outrageous? he came back and edited his post without saying what the fuck he was talking about. leaving me till guessing that there are outrageous videos out there that he finds quite immoral.

maybe its a tv show? i dont know but its annoying to have nonsense put into an OP that is never clarified.

Well those girls and that boy are not the representatives of the Western Civilization, just 3 persons out of 2 billion...

so it seems but .... well i guess i was expected to recognize some .... popular music video?... in the OP that was outrageous? he came back and edited his post without saying what the fuck he was talking about. leaving me till guessing that there are outrageous videos out there that he finds quite immoral.

maybe its a tv show? i dont know but its annoying to have nonsense put into an OP that is never clarified.

Well, that's probably as deep as the OP's interest in the subject goes. "I saw this thing on Youtube which shocked me, so I blame everyone, all of society for offending me." And "morals" is just their word for how some people are wrong, as they see it.

Another possibility is that they were just very protected as a child, and now they've got their own computer they're discovering things their parents "protected them" from. So ... the world has changed. For them. And that's our fault, apparently. :rolleyes:

2 girls 1 cup would not be on Youtube. It's basically the video version of shock images. There are far worse, but this is currently the most famous one.

2 girls 1 cup would not be on Youtube. It's basically the video version of shock images. There are far worse, but this is currently the most famous one.
so what is it?

Coprophagy.

Coprophagy.
ewwww

and its popular enough to cause the downfall of modern society?

Coprophagy.

Coprophagy? Thats about gay policemen, right? Nothing wrong with that...
*Checks on Google images*....AARRRGHHH!
*Dies*

When I was eight or nine -- 35 years ago -- me and my younger sister had this routine. When we were asked if we wanted a sandwich, I'd say "Penis butter!" and my sister would say "No! Vaginamite!" and then we'd have this pretend argument about which was better. "Penis butts her!" I'd say, and "Yeah, but Vagina ... might!" she would insist. Usually we'd just end up with last night's leftover pasta, but if it was a new baby-sitter (we wore out a few) we would often have her blushing and saying "please stop that kids, I'll get in trouble!" as if we didn't know full well what we were talking about. It was a massive hoot.

I put on make-up, and high-heels and jewellery when I was even younger than that (my sister always had more friends than me, so I played with them when I was six or so). I never left the house dressed up as a princess, but my sister did and damn did I want to. People treat you differently when you're dressed differently, and it's an experiment any person of strong character should try. If you never dress as anything but what you think you are, you never realize just how much you are what people expect you to be -- double or triple for really firm stereotypes, likes a business suit or bogan-wear. If you need the steady affirmation of what you think you are, well stick to the one style I guess.

Dressing-up is one of the rites of childhood. It's totally healthy (like, dress-up as a fireman or a soldier, if princesses aren't your thing) and that kids dress as sexy young women is entirely healthy too. They're sexualized in the same play-acting and experimental way as they are "employed" by having a hobby or interest where they can "punch above their weight" and engage with adults on an equal basis.

That kids are exposed to far wider media influences (if it wasn't TV or cable, it certainly is Youtube or file-sharing through their messenger services) simply accelerates the process, makes it happen younger. I found some pretty shocking stuff in my public library when I was barely a teen, it was simply a matter of curiosity, and they'd have had to seriously censor that ordinary suburban library, to keep me away from the stuff which interested me. It was all the things I'd been told "you don't have to know yet." Explosives. Sexual pracitices. Nihilism, sadism, cults of personality. All the good shit. Right there in books.

Let's not pretend that censorship ever protects innocence. It doesn't. Censorship gives extra value to whatever is censored, it makes it the stuff of cults and of inside information. It gives power to what it seeks to prohibit ... and even before the Internet, it just plain didn't work.

Barbie is in her old age now. Kids have always enjoyed playing with the trappings of adulthood, high heels or a fire-truck, false breasts or a stick-on mustache. The only change is one of affluence (and cheap merchandise): parents can afford to let their kids choose their own clothes, they can afford clothes which wear out or are just a passing fancy ... and if the other kids can dress as sluts, what the hell kind of parent would say "no, you can't play like that" ... it's the shallowest kind of morality which says "dressing as a princess is OK, but dressing as a two-dollar whore isn't." They're both just dressing up.

The day may come for those kids when they have to wear a McDonald's uniform, or they have to wear a tailored suit or three-hundred-dollar prêt-à-porter which they can't afford to spill ink on. For fucks sake, while they are still at liberty to experiment with their clothes, and observe the differing reactions of adults and their peers, let's give them that freedom at least, to dress themselves. Let's stop being so paranoid about what the paedophiles will think or do, and have more faith in parents and in the law to protect children while they're still playing around, experimenting, having fun with what will some day be one of their few avenues of public aesthetic expression -- what they choose to wear.

Really, I think sometimes "morality" just means "the good old days when I was an innocent child and didn't judge." When judgement was something the old folks did. Before we discovered just how badly judging others burdens us with their guilt.

When we were princesses and firemen and nobody told us it was wrong.

[FOIL HAT] Maybe the liberals are intentionally removing morals and religion as part of their twisted scheme to take over the world [/FOIL HAT]

OH NOES! :eek:



*proves it by posting this link* (http://www.1729.com/blog/BiologyOfMorality.html)

HAHA! Read the part labelled "The purpose of Morality" and "What is Morality"

Chew on that!

That's not what your article says. It says that morality is instinctual. Instinctual =/= designed by nature to keep humans from destroying themselves.

When I was eight or nine -- 35 years ago -- me and my younger sister had this routine.

i hated babysitting kids like you.

Coprophagy? Thats about gay policemen, right? Nothing wrong with that...

Nothing at all wrong with gay cops. As part of a gay-bi-straight balanced police force ... hang on ... "copro" means "poo" ...

arrggggh!

*dies also*

i hated babysitting kids like you.

I knew we had a special bond! I knew it!

You're Sandy right? The nice blond teenager who escaped into the electrical substation across the road and was never seen again?

You were one of the best. My sister and I were very regretful about that "dicky-bird" incident. We didn't know she was your mother, really. :(

I knew we had a special bond! I knew it!

You're Sandy right? The nice blond teenager who escaped into the electrical substation across the road and was never seen again?

You were one of the best. My sister and I were very regretful about that "dicky-bird" incident. We didn't know she was your mother, really. :(
lolol.

it was a very good rant by the way.

That's not what your article says. It says that morality is instinctual. Instinctual =/= designed by nature to keep humans from destroying themselves.

As a further illustration of how wonderful it is to be a child in the age of the Internet, pursuant to Rave #3, allow me to present one of my favourite childhood jokes, courtesy of Google since my memory did not suffice:

"A mama skunk had twin baby skunks named In and Out. When In was in, Out was out. When In was out, Out was in. How did she tell them apart?" "In stinked!"

But it can't make tacos and without tacos, what's the point of living?
For some lifeforms, to eventually become ingredients in a taco.
With a lack of sexual mores the risk of STDs has increased, with people caring more about themselves than about whats right people are putting each other at risk more often for their own benefit and said people are less likely to cooperate in the event of a serious disaster.
With the easy access to effective contraception and education in the 1st world, the risk of STDs is greatly decreased. Does that mean nature designed condoms and schools?

Secondly for the majority to be the majority it must be adept at surviving in the current environment, in fact more adept than others
Or more adept at procreating. There are vastly more ants than humans on earth, because the reproduce at a much greater rate than us. We are somewhat harder to kill than ants, however.
which is why many mores tend to be designed to be guidelines for the well being and survival of those within the community.
So wearing booty shorts endangers one's life?! Holy shit!
This excludes racial bigotry which is the majorities unconscious attempt to eliminate genetic competition.
But that's part of nature's design, isn't it? A 'sub-species' of humanity seeking to survive, to preserve its genetic make up.

For some lifeforms, to eventually become ingredients in a taco.

Lentils can be an ingredient in a taco, right?

Please tell me "yes." I have my sights set on being a lentil in my next life.

I call foul, bo. Angst!

Let me ask my question again, just in case you missed it. What part of "nature" contemplates this goal? What part of nature decides to pursue that goal?
The part that wants us to adhere to certain kinds of "moral" social behaviors, like no buttsecks outside of heterosexual marriage, obviously. Duh.

Through genetic mutations that program it to attack cells in order to propagate. Propagation leads to survival which is the virus's imperative.
Which is why the hanta virus doesn't do buttsecks. *nods* (or something like that.)

With a lack of sexual mores the risk of STDs has increased, with people caring more about themselves than about whats right people are putting each other at risk more often for their own benefit and said people are less likely to cooperate in the event of a serious disaster.
Yet more historical ignorance.

Reality: The rate of infection and risk of death or permanent disfigurement/disability as a result of STDs today (in the evil immoral present) is far lower than it was even 80 years ago. This has absolutely nothing to do with "morality," but everything to do with medical science.

In the supposedly more pure and innocent past, do you know what they meant when they used the word "pox" that they tossed about so freely back in the day (1700s and earlier)? There were (and still are) particular diseases called poxes (smallpox, cowpox, chickenpox, etc,) which had particular kinds of rash outbreaks on the skin, and "pox" did sometimes refer to the permanent scarring caused by smallpox (when it didn't kill the victim), which was endemic around much of the world.

However, "pox" also was a reference to the advanced stages of syphilis, an STD, which was also endemic in much of the world and which also causes rashes and lesions on the skin in its end stages. Before the 20th century, it was challlenging to find someone, especially a male, over the age of 15 who had not been exposed to syphilis. It was so common that it was part of everyday slang speech.

One of my favorite verses from the 18th century poet Alexander Pope is an example, when, in insulting a lawyer he didn't like, he writes:

"Time, that at last matures a clap to pox,
Whose gentle progress makes a calf an ox,
And brings all natural events to pass,
Hath made him an attorney of an ass."
(Sorry, Neo Art, sweetie. ;))

The uses of the words "clap" and "pox" make it clear that Pope is talking about a sexually transmitted disease, in language immediately recognizable to his audience. When someone wished a pox upon you, they were not referring to chickenpox, my friend. They were talking about the "king's evil," i.e. syphilis. Similarly, there were countless other STDs that were described as "clap," and it was even more challenging to find someone who didn't have one of those. In your rose-colored past of moral rectitude, the majority of human beings were walking around with petri dishes of contagious foulness between their legs.

So much for your moralistic view of public health. If you think it was otherwise, then I challenge you to read some history and present some information that indicates that STDs are a bigger problem now than they were in earlier periods.

We can abandon mores because of our highly evolved brains.
The same feature that allows us to formulate morals in the first place? So are you saying we'd be more, or less, moral if we were dumber?

Your correct when you state that I cannot infer a rule for the behavior of all society from a theory about the behavior of an individual but one must not forget that the majority set the rules for society most of the time and since the majority has power and desires survival they set moral standards.
Really? Let's examine that by looking at an example of a moralistic attitude. Is it your contention that, at various periods and in various places, homosexuality was considered immoral by the majority of a given community because it threatens the survival of the species? Then how do you account for all the times, places and social groups in which homosexuality is not considered immoral, but does not lead to any downturn in the human population in those times/places/groups?

If the impetus for morality is survival, and things that are considered immoral are things that harm survival, then surely you should be able to prove that homosexuality harms survival by showing us examples of societies that did not condemn homosexuality -- such as Greece or Japan -- and which no longer exist or were severely set back by the damage done to their ability to survive by their tolerance of this immorality.

Oh, but wait, Greece and Japan are both still existing, and have done so very comfortably for thousands of years. So I guess that won't work.

Secondly for the majority to be the majority it must be adept at surviving in the current environment, in fact more adept than others which is why many mores tend to be designed to be guidelines for the well being and survival of those within the community.
I see, so during all the periods of history when different sexualities or different religions or different cultural customs were deemed immoral by whoever happened to hold power at any given moment, and the people who fell into those "immoral" groups were routinely ostracized from society, imprisoned, tortured and/or killed for having that label attached to them, all that was actually supporting the well being and survival of those within the community? All those except the people in the hated group, that is, of course.

And, of course, you can account for the lack of well being and survival among all societies that did not treat those particular groups that same way. You can, right?

Because you have to, if you are going to claim that morals are a natural human response to threats against species survival. Either you have to show that all societies condemn the same behaviors as immoral because they all threaten species survival, or you are going to have to show how a given behavior threatens the survival of one group but not another, to account for these cultural differences.

This excludes racial bigotry which is the majorities unconscious attempt to eliminate genetic competition.
Oh, right, of course. All the majority's moralistic prejudices support species survival, except for the ones you say don't. And you somehow can say that racial bigotry doesn't support species survival at the same time that you claim it is an attempt to eliminate genetic competition, which arguably would be a survival instinct -- the urge to reproduce one's own kind. Yeah, but that's not a survival instinct, nope, of course not.

Tell me, is industrial pollution moral or immoral? Because it most certainly threatens survival, by poisoning large segments of the population, yet the majority of people in the developed world support, maintain and seek to spread the lifestyle that generates enough pollution to harm public health. And they have done so for over 150 years, well into the time frame of your supposed more moralistic past. So, where does that fit into your "morality = survival instinct" worldview?

So wearing booty shorts endangers one's life?! Holy shit!

Wearing booty shorts is immoral?

Wearing booty shorts is immoral?

It is according to the OP.

One of my favorite verses from the 18th century poet Alexander Pope is an example, when, in insulting a lawyer he didn't like, he writes:

"Time, that at last matures a clap to pox,
Whose gentle progress makes a calf an ox,
And brings all natural events to pass,
Hath made him an attorney of an ass."
(Sorry, Neo Art, sweetie. ;))


I continue to love Pope. I'd forgotten that little verse. :)

(And, yeah, seriously, anyone who thinks that promiscuity, homosexuality, or premarital sex are even remotely new phenomena really, really needs to reread their history books.)

It is according to the OP.
Somebody needs to get a life...

BTW - Can you say Kutulu! LOOOL :)
(@ CthulhuFhtagn)

I continue to love Pope. I'd forgotten that little verse. :)

(And, yeah, seriously, anyone who thinks that promiscuity, homosexuality, or premarital sex are even remotely new phenomena really, really needs to reread their history books.)
The opening verse of the poem that contained that one is on point as well:

"Yes, thank my stars, as early as I knew
This town, I had the sense to hate it, too.
Yet here, as ev'n in Hell
There must be on giant vice,
So excellently ill,
That all beside, one pities, not abhors,
As who knows Sappho, smiles at other whores."

I typed that from memory, but I think it's close enough. A neat description of London as a pit of vice that rivals Hell itself, as well as a suggestion of a spectrum of degrees of immorality (implying that even in a completely immoral word, there is bad and then there is really bad), and finally a cute little dig at a particular lady he didn't like. Now that's what I call poetry, baby!

I'll take realism, even cyncism, over romanticism every day of the week. Romanticism is nothing but lies.

Lentils can be an ingredient in a taco, right?

Please tell me "yes." I have my sights set on being a lentil in my next life.

I call foul, bo. Angst!
I dare say a taco with lentils would be possible. Consult with LG.
Wearing booty shorts is immoral?

I didn't think so, but so claims the OP.

Are we less moral? Not really, if anything we are only getting less prudish and are finally meeting up with the acceptable level of sexual standards that Europeans have enjoyed since about 277 BC.

Are we less moral? Not really, if anything we are only getting less prudish and are finally meeting up with the acceptable level of sexual standards that Europeans have enjoyed since about 277 BC.
Oh this is an American thing again... :rolleyes: Well I'm a Europian so I'll but out...

Are we less moral?

I'm not less moral, I'm more immoral!

A subtle difference of which I am nevertheless proud.

Seems to me that this complaint happens every generation. Admittedly, my peers weren't taking abstinence pledges and then blowing each other or only doing anal in order to obey the letter of the law. At 13. But hey.

Seems to me we reap what we sow when we introduce children into a world that manages to couple consumerism with Puritanism and thinks it works. What do we get? Fucked up rationalizations from both parents and kids about anything regarding sex, and a culture that has no problem with marketing using sexual themes to younger and younger kids.

The one thing that can give kids a fighting chance against falling for any number of baited hooks is the one thing we're almost universally forbidden from giving them: the truth and a forthright discussion on the topic.

Seems to me we reap what we sow when we introduce children into a world that manages to couple consumerism with Puritanism and thinks it works. What do we get? Fucked up rationalizations from both parents and kids about anything regarding sex, and a culture that has no problem with marketing using sexual themes to younger and younger kids.

Yep.

9th highest rapes per capita in the world (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita).

Largest prison population in the world - per capita, too.

Then ya get Guantanamo, with the disturbing expressions of sick fuckers getting off on killing, rape and power. The soldiers in Iraq killing and/or raping women and/or children. The folks at home making and selling and watching and participating in child pornography, underground underage prostitution rings. And what goes on in our prison population? Yeah. Ass rape.

Shit, this belongs in the America Is the Greatest Place on Earth thread!

Yep.

9th highest rapes per capita in the world (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita).

Largest prison population in the world - per capita, too.

Then ya get Guantanamo, with the disturbing expressions of sick fuckers getting off on killing, rape and power. The soldiers in Iraq killing and/or raping women and/or children. The folks at home making and selling and watching and participating in child pornography, underground underage prostitution rings. And what goes on in our prison population? Yeah. Ass rape.

Shit, this belongs in the America Is the Greatest Place on Earth thread!

Hadn't thought of all of that, but I agree completely.

Yep.

9th highest rapes per capita in the world (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita).

Largest prison population in the world - per capita, too.

Then ya get Guantanamo, with the disturbing expressions of sick fuckers getting off on killing, rape and power. The soldiers in Iraq killing and/or raping women and/or children. The folks at home making and selling and watching and participating in child pornography, underground underage prostitution rings. And what goes on in our prison population? Yeah. Ass rape.

Shit, this belongs in the America Is the Greatest Place on Earth thread!

Shit Australia is third in that list (Interesting to note that countries like Yemen and Saudi Arabia are near the bottom) and we are first in the highest percentage of people victimized by crime.

Though it is hardly surprising that we are first, especially if you live in Sydney or in the Northern Territory.

Shit Australia is third in that list (Interesting to note that countries like Yemen and Saudi Arabia are near the bottom) and we are first in the highest percentage of people victimized by crime.

Though it is hardly surprising that we are first, especially if you live in Sydney or in the Northern Territory.

That's likely because rape needs victims to report their assailants. I'm thinking that's not common at all in Muslim nations. Not common enough, at any rate, not that I'm bragging about my country, as Trostia so ably pointed out.

nope. if anything, we're making some pretty good progress.

I concur.

That's likely because rape needs victims to report their assailants. I'm thinking that's not common at all in Muslim nations. Not common enough, at any rate, not that I'm bragging about my country, as Trostia so ably pointed out.

Very good point. I was also thinking that it may not be considered a crime if it was allowed by law in these countries under certain situations

I was thinking....Do we hold as many morals as past generations? I dont remember older people walking around in Booty shorts when they were twelve or taking naughty photo's at a birthday party. Do you think that the West's morals are in a state of decline? Do you think its ok when 2 Girls 1 Cup become's a Internet Hit or when I man cutting of his....well you get the point.

Is this Ok?
Are moral's becoming the thing of the past?

We are losing many of our traditional asinine morals.

If anything, the shirking of tradition is a better signal of progress than the adoption of new moral norms.

I was thinking....Do we hold as many morals as past generations? I dont remember older people walking around in Booty shorts when they were twelve or taking naughty photo's at a birthday party. Do you think that the West's morals are in a state of decline? Do you think its ok when 2 Girls 1 Cup become's a Internet Hit or when I man cutting of his....well you get the point.

Is this Ok?
Are moral's becoming the thing of the past?

I certainly hope so, morals are keeping most of the interesting things out of our culture.

We are slowly getting rid of the ridiculous mores that the religions and past civilization had placed on society. Plus we are gaining better morals, a two for one for how I view it.

there is only one morality and that is the avoidance of causing suffering.

there are a lot of pseudo-moral pretentions, (generally based on dominant, popular, brand name flavours of 'belief', i.e. religeons by any other name) often reguarding, but by no means limited to, personal erotic relationships. (these are of little or no pertinence, those that address personal relationship issues, to anything other then the problem of overpopulation.)

there IS an exccess of romantacizing and rewarding of aggressiveness. this, combined with exccessive human population, making this world an ever more brutal and dangerous place. precisely what the right wing big lie pretends to be making it less of, and using that pretense as its excuse.

so you could say, as long as the right wing insanity retains as much popular support, do to emotional attatchment primarily, then indeed the ongoing brutilization, is indeed a deminishment of the real morality of the avoidance of causing suffering.

then again, as more people are becoming awaire of this; well, awairness is one thing, diciplining oneself accordingly seems to be largely another; but awairness at any rate, seems to be at least a good sign.

there is only one morality and that is the avoidance of causing suffering.

Yes. But life is more complicated than that.

We might cause suffering by accident. Could any law prevent that?
We might need to cause suffering to relieve suffering (pulling the thorn from the foot of the fawn.)
If we would suffer ourselves (to achieve some end) is it really so bad to cause suffering in others? To some end they later appreciate?


there are a lot of pseudo-moral pretensions, (generally based on dominant, popular, brand name flavours of 'belief', i.e. religeons by any other name) often reguarding, but by no means limited to, personal erotic relationships. (these are of little or no pertinence, those that address personal relationship issues, to anything other then the problem of overpopulation.)

Well, yes. But remember that sex is not just "erotic relationships." For some, it is power, self-affirmation ... and even hate. "Erotic" is a very pretty word, and I would not describe even my own well-baulked, introspective sexuality as purely "erotic." When one opens the door of instinct, more may come in than the pleasant breeze of a caress.

there IS an exccess of romantacizing and rewarding of aggressiveness. this, combined with exccessive human population, making this world an ever more brutal and dangerous place. precisely what the right wing big lie pretends to be making it less of, and using that pretense as its excuse.

"Ever more brutal and dangerous" ... no! This is quite wrong, and if the "ruling class" chose a lie to tell, they would tell us it is "ever more dangerous" so they could take more control over us "for our own protection." They wouldn't just hand us "safety and prosperity" ... they would make us work for it, make us pay for it, make us sacrifice to them in their chosen coin, for it.

There is a lie, but it's not a lie told by any conspirators ... not a lie written into history. It's the lie we tell ourselves as we grow older and from practice discover that the means rarely lead to the ends we intended. In youth, everything seems good to do, if we will it ... but discovering the consequences, we recognize more and more things which are bad to do. Urges not to succumb to. There are still good acts, and we should always be ready to do them when the consequences are clear ... but we learn to distrust good intentions which cannot see the results, we learn to distrust instinct.

And that, not some conspiracy, is why as people grow older, they are inclined to see the "old days" as more moral than what prevails now. To see violence and hatred as "more random" than the violence and hatred they thought justified in their own youth. To doubt the new justifications, moral reasoning which now, as ever, is nothing more than minds lawyering desire and consequence.

so you could say, as long as the right wing insanity retains as much popular support, due to emotional attatchment primarily, then indeed the ongoing brutilization, is indeed a deminishment of the real morality of the avoidance of causing suffering.

If you mean that the real political issues, the matters that government can actually do something about, are trampled by moralizing of what consenting adults do to each other ... I agree. I am so, so glad that I was not born in the United States. I laugh at those popup ads which offer me a Green Card like it's a good thing, not a piece of dogshit I just trod in.

then again, as more people are becoming awaire of this; well, awairness is one thing, diciplining oneself accordingly seems to be largely another; but awairness at any rate, seems to be at least a good sign.

Awareness is moral. And morality is awareness, not some instinct which it is immoral to examine. Disciplining oneself is indeed another matter... but it's not just a personal thing. We can punish each other, we can implore each other, shun each other (thus causing suffering for a purpose), we can bribe and even trick each other into behaving morally as you put it (to diminish suffering.) Above all, and the very point of morality, is to be rational, to put in words and to persuade each other of what is right. Justice is not done, but that it be seen to be done.

While it is true that Kids Today play that damn rock music, dress inappropriately, and need to cut their damn hair already, one must also remember that modern technology has made for some stunning advances for Crotchety Old Fart complaining.

Thanks to the internet, you can slut-shame teenage girls you've never even met! Instead of standing outside the local middle school and hissing "whore!" at 12 year olds who show too much ankle, you can lurk around MySpace or Facebook and post "whore" at 12 year olds who live on the opposite side of the country. And don't worry, it's just as non-creepy when you stalk them on MySpace!

The internet also allows you to read gasping editorials from all over the world. For instance, did you know that teenagers in England sometimes smoke reefer? Let the common bond of Old Fartism unite you with your fellow Old Farts in foreign nations!

The internet also provides you with an idea forum for posting your personal grievances. If existing websites don't focus enough on your interests, you can start what is known as a "web log" and post an extensive list of complaints. (For formatting and topical suggestions, see Focus On The Family and Conservative Women for America.) This will give everybody the chance to enjoy your views!

While it is true that Kids Today play that damn rock music, dress inappropriately, and need to cut their damn hair already...
I had a really scary moment the other day at work. Outside the store some of the usual 14-year old crowd walked across the car park, and I thought "damn, they need to cut their hair, they look like tools".

They really did look like tools, and I don't mind people having long hair, but I was still entirely too close to old fartism for my liking. And I'm only 22 for crying out loud.

I had a really scary moment the other day at work. Outside the store some of the usual 14-year old crowd walked across the car park, and I thought "damn, they need to cut their hair, they look like tools".

They really did look like tools, and I don't mind people having long hair, but I was still entirely too close to old fartism for my liking. And I'm only 22 for crying out loud.

*lol
It's exactly the other way around over here... my usual reaction anytime I see teenagers over here is "Jeez, they need to grow some hair, they look like fucking gobshites with big ears"... ;)

*lol
It's exactly the other way around over here... my usual reaction anytime I see teenagers over here is "Jeez, they need to grow some hair, they look like fucking gobshites with big ears"... ;)

What bugs me is clothing with random shit written on it.

Couldn't care less what they smell like or what sounds are coming out of their phone. But surely I shouldn't have to read them.

There should be a law. Use of more than two consecutive letters without forming a word in any documented language, shall be a crime punishable by confiscation and destruction of offending apparel. Preferred method: dousing with liquid hydrocarbon and and subsequent incineration.

I had a really scary moment the other day at work. Outside the store some of the usual 14-year old crowd walked across the car park, and I thought "damn, they need to cut their hair, they look like tools".

They really did look like tools, and I don't mind people having long hair, but I was still entirely too close to old fartism for my liking. And I'm only 22 for crying out loud.

Hehe. I think things like that sometimes, too, but I don't feel quite so old-fartish about it given that I was also thinking such things when I was myself a teenager. (Heck, I've been laughing at the Rebellious 14-Year-Old Club that has been expressing their rebellion by hanging around outside one particular movie theater wearing unbelievably stupid clothes, cursing really loudly, and giggling at each other for something like 18 years now. The membership of the Rebellious 14-Year-Old Club changes every year, as does the precise nature of their unbelievably stupid clothes, but the basic "ZOMG I'm so cool I can stand around giggling and saying 'cocksucker' with my friends while wearing my pants around my ankles oh YEAH!" nature of the club has stayed exactly the same. I can't help it, they're funny!)

I was thinking....Do we hold as many morals as past generations? I dont remember older people walking around in Booty shorts when they were twelve or taking naughty photo's at a birthday party. Do you think that the West's morals are in a state of decline? Do you think its ok when 2 Girls 1 Cup become's a Internet Hit or when I man cutting of his....well you get the point.

Is this Ok?
Are moral's becoming the thing of the past?

Why are all the examples you use related to sexual frankness in some way? Do you honestly believe that is what morality boils down to? If so, then that attitude is less common is the West nowadays, true, but that doesn't mean we have less morals, just different ones. We also have a whole code about the human rights of prisoners that got written since these old ladies were twelve, for example, which indicates perhaps a progression in morality (or at least, it would if our governments could only stick to it).

Why are all the examples you use related to sexual frankness in some way? Do you honestly believe that is what morality boils down to?
If the OP is American...yes. He probably does.

It's not just about sexual frankness, though, it's about FEMALE sexual frankness. Or, more precisely, females walking around being sexual as if they had the right or something. Females wearing clothing that reveals the ways in which their bodies are not the same as male bodies. Females behaving in ways that make males uncomfortable or unhappy. Females being overtly sexual and sometimes not even feeling ashamed of themselves.

This is a common problem among Americans, though I'm not entirely clear on why.

Christianity; it's inherent to the doctrine.

If the OP is American...yes. He probably does.

It's not just about sexual frankness, though, it's about FEMALE sexual frankness. Or, more precisely, females walking around being sexual as if they had the right or something. Females wearing clothing that reveals the ways in which their bodies are not the same as male bodies. Females behaving in ways that make males uncomfortable or unhappy. Females being overtly sexual and sometimes not even feeling ashamed of themselves.

This is a common problem among Americans, though I'm not entirely clear on why.

Christianity; it's inherent to the doctrine.
Puritanism (and related Calvinist sects), especially. Even though the majority of Americans are descended from later waves of immigration that had nothing to do with them, they did establish the dominant social power structure in the northeast and part of the southeast, which informed the early years of US culture.

Not only is fear and hatred of female sexuality central to the Puritanical mind (Eve caused original sin, remember), but so is judgmentalism and the hypocrisy that goes with it.

Morality is an unconscious program which was developed by nature to prevent us from wiping ourselves out. Now that we ignore mores I feel we are now more likely to wipe ourselves out.
As rational agents, we are no longer slaves to our unconscious.
Religion is spawned by curiosity as to why we're here and how we got here.

Maybe we should stamp curiosity out instead. :rolleyes:
We can be curious without jumping to conclusions and holding foundationless beliefs.