[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Come on, let’s not get bogged down in minutiae.
Zap, I want to see an immorality ranking from you before you discuss one more seatbelt or whorehouse with Lifticus.
Lixy, Mick, you too.[/quote]
Mine is almost exactly the same as Lift’s. I don’t think most of these issues have anything to do with morality.
Kind of scary.
One for you, Lixy:
Is eating pork wrong because it is prohibited, or prohibited because it is wrong?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Boston: it seems that many of the acts deemed by you (and by extension, by society) to be MIS are in fact MF (mala fastidiosa: wrong because they are icky).
While “icky” may serve to inform our societal mores, do you think it is really a sufficient justification for legislation?
In other words, if something is so repulsive that people naturally avoid doing it, is it necessary to pass a law against it?[/quote]
Varq,
I think the “icky” feeling may be a signal that we developed a reaction against certain things because doing so held a Darwinian advantage for the species. So I think the mala in se characterization would still hold, and the ickiness would be an indication that the act was MIS. Inherited wisdom from the previous millenia…
I guess that’s a rather conservative concept, and I would be open to affirmative arguments showing why any “icky” acts were not bad.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
One for you, Lixy:
Is eating pork wrong because it is prohibited, or prohibited because it is wrong?[/quote]
Neither.
Pork eating was prohibited because it is allegedly unhealthy. One needs to look no further than the context of the Quranic verses in which the prohibition was made to realize that it was a health issue, not one of moral. The verse includes drinking blood and feeding on carcasses with a dubious cause of death.
Nowadays, many “Muslims” make it a moral issue and I’m certainly not one of them.
As for your original question, I’ll break it into three categories:
Highly Immoral
Murder – unless in self-defense (I’m talking imminent attack).
Forced sexual intercourse (rape)
Child prostitution
Robbery and theft
Producing or viewing child pornography – I’m assuming very young.
Sexual intercourse with a minor – A 17 year old is not a minor!
Immoral
Libel and slander
Littering
Driving while intoxicated – Would you want a drunk surgeon?
Sexual intercourse with an animal – Respect for animals.
Copyright infringement* – As in plagiarism.
Fuss over nothing
Smoking tobacco
Eating pork
Prostitution
Smoking marijuana
Anal sex (male-female)
Copyright infringement* – Ripping CDs, copying books, etc…
Curling in the squat rack – In all seriousness…
Consensual sex between adult siblings
Voting Republican
Shooting heroin
Drinking alcohol
Oral sex (male-female)
Voting Democrat
Consensual sex between adult 1st cousins
Chewing gum
Producing or viewing pornography
Oral sex (female-female)
Masturbating
Consensual sex between an adult and his/her parent – On the edge.
Sacrilege and blasphemy
Taking Ecstasy
Anal sex (male-male) – or female-female for that matter.
Oral sex (male-male)
Using a Bosu ball
Snorting cocaine
Gambling
[quote]lixy wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
One for you, Lixy:
Is eating pork wrong because it is prohibited, or prohibited because it is wrong?
Neither.
Pork eating was prohibited because it is allegedly unhealthy. One needs to look no further than the context of the Quranic verses in which the prohibition was made to realize that it was a health issue, not one of moral. The verse includes drinking blood and feeding on carcasses with a dubious cause of death.
Nowadays, many “Muslims” make it a moral issue and I’m certainly not one of them.
As for your original question, I’ll break it into three categories:
Highly Immoral
Murder – unless in self-defense (I’m talking imminent attack).
Forced sexual intercourse (rape)
Child prostitution
Robbery and theft
Producing or viewing child pornography – I’m assuming very young.
Sexual intercourse with a minor – A 17 year old is not a minor!
Immoral
Libel and slander
Littering
Driving while intoxicated – Would you want a drunk surgeon?
Sexual intercourse with an animal – Respect for animals.
Copyright infringement* – As in plagiarism.
Fuss over nothing
Smoking tobacco
Eating pork
Prostitution
Smoking marijuana
Anal sex (male-female)
Copyright infringement* – Ripping CDs, copying books, etc…
Curling in the squat rack – In all seriousness…
Consensual sex between adult siblings
Voting Republican
Shooting heroin
Drinking alcohol
Oral sex (male-female)
Voting Democrat
Consensual sex between adult 1st cousins
Chewing gum
Producing or viewing pornography
Oral sex (female-female)
Masturbating
Consensual sex between an adult and his/her parent – On the edge.
Sacrilege and blasphemy
Taking Ecstasy
Anal sex (male-male) – or female-female for that matter.
Oral sex (male-male)
Using a Bosu ball
Snorting cocaine
Gambling
[/quote]
I need to know how FF anal sex works.
I also need pictures.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I’ll spell it out for you, Headhunter:
R-e-l-a-t-i-v-i-t-y
Are you one of those guys who complains about barbaric asians eating noble dogmeat, while simultaneously chewing on a hamburger?
Why can’t a guy not make love to his beloved mare, yet he can eat horse meat? You don’t need to be Doctor Dolittle to learn that the horse will probably be happy to live and get occasionally mounted by a human then to be torn to shreds in the meat grinder.
So why some guys here view it as grave as robbery.
And my stoneage example was to show you that the very proto society we came from had a very “close” relationship to animals.
[/quote]
The source of all morality is in POWER. Morality is established by the powerful, for the benefit for the powerful.
That is why Christian morality, in fact all altruistic moralities MUST fail and be destructive. Altruistic morality causes the strong to help or benefit the weak. Thus the stronger members eventually are overwhelmed by the less intelligent yet more prolific of the earth (as we see happening now).
Nietzsche put all of this far more eloquently than I: “All things pass away, therefore all things deserve to pass away. Thus preached madness!!” Madness led to the creation of altruism.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I’ll spell it out for you, Headhunter:
R-e-l-a-t-i-v-i-t-y
Are you one of those guys who complains about barbaric asians eating noble dogmeat, while simultaneously chewing on a hamburger?
Why can’t a guy not make love to his beloved mare, yet he can eat horse meat? You don’t need to be Doctor Dolittle to learn that the horse will probably be happy to live and get occasionally mounted by a human then to be torn to shreds in the meat grinder.
So why some guys here view it as grave as robbery.
And my stoneage example was to show you that the very proto society we came from had a very “close” relationship to animals.
The source of all morality is in POWER. Morality is established by the powerful, for the benefit for the powerful.
That is why Christian morality, in fact all altruistic moralities MUST fail and be destructive. Altruistic morality causes the strong to help or benefit the weak. Thus the stronger members eventually are overwhelmed by the less intelligent yet more prolific of the earth (as we see happening now).
Nietzsche put all of this far more eloquently than I: “All things pass away, therefore all things deserve to pass away. Thus preached madness!!” Madness led to the creation of altruism.
[/quote]
It is called entropy. It has nothing to do with philosophy or morality.
Power has got zero to do with morality. Absolutely zero. Mark it as another failed attempt to make it to the “powerful words” section.
As to MIS and MP.
Murdering and generally harming and showing violent behaviour from base motives is considered MIS in every culture. If you kill because of rightful revenge or in self defense or whatnot it’s perhaps something different and is, as such, usually part of some attorney’s strategy.
And that’s it.
No more MIS?
And the rest, like stealing, cheating and so forth? MP.
Guy-behind-guy- girl-on- top- hamster -in- between -dead- midget- at- 6’o- clock -fucking in all combinations? Also MP. Like stealing, cheating etc.
Where do I derive my conclusions from?
By studying higher animals and primitive cultures. That’s right, dolphins, lions, apes etc. They all have one moral LCD. As do stone age cultures. Killing, attacking and general cruelty from base motives or because of insanity (more often the case in the animal kingdom) will bring the rest of the group against you. If you’re a tyrant and kill for power, well, perhaps you get away with it. But only because you renew the society around you. If your coup fails, you will get punished- at that point most animals will simply abandon the evildoer, which is, in most cases, a death sentence.
No stone age culture knows property above “it’s in my tent”. In fact, there are many curious anecdotes when civilized visitors find they have a hard time getting used to the new rules. A chieftain of an indonesian tribe (could be a south american, I might look this one up) simply took one sock of a westerner (which the guy left unattended to dry) because the concept of “a pair” did not apply to him. As long as he didn’t ripped it from his hands, it was rightfully taken, for didn’t he have another one?
Cheating and lying are more often just viewed as a clever way of overcoming your adversary, especially if he’s an outsider. Intellectual property? Give me a break!
Of course, if you take on step further and look at the historical evolution of bigger civilizations, things tend to complicate as religions poke their ugly noses in. This is where an honest discussion becomes almost impossible. So let’s leave it to the LCD of successful modern civilizations, and what might that be: Property rights.
1.MIS- be nice
2.MP- try not to steal in any way
P.S. Lixy, would you be so kind and read my above posts concerning making love to animals? Why is it respectful to kill it for meat but not to fuck it and let it live?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Nietzsche put all of this far more eloquently than I: “All things pass away, therefore all things deserve to pass away. Thus preached madness!!” Madness led to the creation of altruism.
It is called entropy. It has nothing to do with philosophy or morality.[/quote]
Thus Spoke Zap-thustra???
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Power has got zero to do with morality. Absolutely zero. Mark it as another failed attempt to make it to the “powerful words” section.
[/quote]
Nonsense. Altruism was invented by slaves and those with a slave-mentality to drain the productive and intelligent. Its how the weak use the benevolence of the intelligent and powerful as a weapon against them, since the weak cannot compete physically or mentally.
Do you really think that things like welfare and old-age retirement (govt) plans were invented to help the poor? LOL!! Its how the herd milks the productive members of society. Those who protest are labelled ‘selfish’ and ‘cruel’, by those who are beyond selfish and beyond cruel.
What do they tell you in those churches?
I will later elaborate on that, but say, Headhunter, how come you’ve changed from staunch I.C. Jezus to I.M. McNietzsche? Is it not god’s intention that we love each other very much, your cynism therefore out of bounds?
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
P.S. Lixy, would you be so kind and read my above posts concerning making love to animals? Why is it respectful to kill it for meat but not to fuck it and let it live? [/quote]
Can’t really justify putting that one in the “mildly immoral bin”. I just know that beef is yummy, that not much good can come out of inter-species copulation, and that the Quran prescribes rituals to slaughter the cattle.
I’ll grant you that it’s a twisted notion of respect, but I don’t think there’s disrespect when you kill it in a thank-you-nature-for-this mindset.
Necrophilia: Mala prohibitum or mala in se?
As with all sexy things, usually (highly) mala prohibitum, but things are a bit more complicated here:
Cruising for corpses is strongly unnatural since you’re practically begging for an infection, so you got to have serious issues.
Any chieftain or shaman of a tribe would do well in condemning such activities.
Mala in se?
If it’s a genetic streak you’d quickly fall out of the genepool, so the problem sorts itself out. So it’s fair to assume it’s sort of a social disorder. In a tribal society, the people usually don’t have the opportunity and motivation to just fuck a corpse for heck of it, wheras you can bet that Jessica Biel’s fresh, unscathed corpse would cause some lonely, single mortician’s trousers to swell. In fact, I don’t recall specific holy scriptures speaking against this, because for most ancient cultures it’s so out of the question (any references?).
If said mortician then proceeds to use a condom, we have practically ruled out all the hygenic problems that occur here. So it’s definitely not an issue of disease.
We condemn it because of a different (and important) MP:
Don’t mess with the dead. It’s one of the highest ranking MPs but it’s not at the top, since it can drastically vary from culture to culture (ask a cannibalistic society).
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Don’t mess with the dead. [/quote]
Quote of the day.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Power has got zero to do with morality. Absolutely zero. Mark it as another failed attempt to make it to the “powerful words” section.
Nonsense. Altruism was invented by slaves and those with a slave-mentality to drain the productive and intelligent. Its how the weak use the benevolence of the intelligent and powerful as a weapon against them, since the weak cannot compete physically or mentally.
Do you really think that things like welfare and old-age retirement (govt) plans were invented to help the poor? LOL!! Its how the herd milks the productive members of society. Those who protest are labelled ‘selfish’ and ‘cruel’, by those who are beyond selfish and beyond cruel.
[/quote]
Altruism is the base for sharing your food, for attending the sick, for caring for the elderly. Up to a point, every primitive culture did that- with success.
It doesn’t mean they did not kill their surplus offspring or occasionally murdered disabled infants. This was also necessary for survival.
But without healthy dose of altruism, humanity would have never gone that far.
Nobody’s gonna care for Mr. Superman when he’s ill, if he is also a Superasshole. As we get born little and helpless, with a following long span of weakness, it’s imperative to have someone watch for us for years. A clan leader and his warriors had always a lot more woman, children and other noncombatants to watch over then they had arrows or spears.
You can even argue that since the years a child needs protection increased dramatically in homo sapiens’ evolution, the need to feel altruism was one of the most important and rewarding traits.
A mammal without affection isn’t capable of the concept of teamwork- one of the keys to higher brain functions.
The irony is, of course, that some people today overshoot and spend hundreds of bucks for kids in Africa to feel better.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
What do they tell you in those churches?
I will later elaborate on that, but say, Headhunter, how come you’ve changed from staunch I.C. Jezus to I.M. McNietzsche? Is it not god’s intention that we love each other very much, your cynism therefore out of bounds?[/quote]
The problem is that Jesus lived so long ago and never wrote down his own words (though the Gospel of Thomas comes close), that his words have been bent by people with their own agenda. I think Jesus told people to simply leave each other alone.
Nietzsche’s writings are, of course, legit and VERY insightful, if you question the source of morality. Most people attribute morality to some sort of evolution or biological basis, because they’ve been taught to ignore that humans THINK. But humans are not ‘equations’. As Nietzsche points out, humans can and did come up with using morality as a weapon.
Even Freud gave great credit to Nietzsche for his incredible insights.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Necrophilia: Mala prohibitum or mala in se?[/quote]
Mala fastidiosa. With one proviso.
In my estimation, murder (and Lixy, I don’t consider killing in self-defense to be murder) and rape are the only unambiguous mala in se on my list, inasmuch as I define an MIS as an unjustifiable act that causes irreparable harm to another human being.
We kill animals with impunity, because they are tasty. Unless one is a PETA member, this is not generally considered murder, because the victim is not human. If an animal kills a human, however, we ruthlessly pursue that animal and exact the ultimate penaly for its crimes. It would be no defense for the animal to claim that the human in question was tasty, even if it were possible for the animal to claim such. Moral relativism again: a different set of moral standards for humans and for non-humans.
Similarly, sex with an animal is generally not considered rape, even though in most cases it would be hard to prove consent (Thunder’s twinkly-eyed ewe to the contrary) Bestiality is icky to people who don’t do it themselves, but to my way of thinking, it is far below rape of a human on the sliding scale of evil.
As an aside, there was a case of a Dayak woman in Borneo raped by an adult male orang-utan, but generally this kind of animal-on human rape is extremely rare. Female-on-male interspecies sexual harassment is not unheard of: female orangs have been known to present themselves to human males, even rubbing their genitals on the man’s body and face. Female dolphins do the same thing, and far more aggressively: they have prehensile labia that can grab and hold you like a vise.
Now, if the human male was similarly inclined, I would not consider these couplings to be rape. And no, I am not speaking from personal experience here. I prefer human females, thanks.
Now, back to necrophilia: a corpse is an ex-human. That which made it human (call it soul, spirit, life-force, whatever) is no longer there. It is, for all intents and purposes, a piece of meat. In our culture, it is distasteful (no pun intended) to eat a corpse, but it does the person no further harm if he or she is already dead.
Similarly, to copulate with the dead is supremely disgusting, but the corpse is, by definition, beyond suffering. Think of it as a stinky, clammy RealDoll.
However, here’s the proviso: actively hunting and killing other humans expressly for the purposes of eating and/or copulating with their corpses is, to my way of thinking, an MIS of greater magnitude than either murder or rape.
This is all fine with me, as I like Nietzsche, but there is no way even you could bend the bible to go along with his teachings.
Also, I thought you discounted evolution as crap?
To make some advances to your point of view: Women, as the physically weaker specimen have to use their social skills a lot to cope with men. In a broader sense, they somtimes play and twist common morality to enforce their opinion.
[quote]orion wrote:
I need to know how FF anal sex works.
I also need pictures.[/quote]
Here is a picture. I think you can imagine how it works.