[anna]

I support that, I don't approve of arranged marriages.

But if she found someone else to love, you'd respect her father if he killed her. You've got some major cognitive dissonance going on.

I just consider arranged marriages less morally debased than porn.

I think God will judge those who arrange marriages less harshly than those who partake in the porn industry, since the former is less evil in intentions than the latter.

You're very fixated on porn. You must have done a lot of research.

[Scheherazade]

But if she found someone else to love, you'd respect her father if he killed her. You've got some major cognitive dissonance going on.



You're very fixated on porn. You must have done a lot of research.

I would not respect him, no - I just think his intentions are less evil and debased than those who produce porn.

I also think porn is more harmful to women as a collective than isolated incidents of 'honor killings'.

[QatzelOk]

So Qatz why don't you go and live in one of these Muslim paradises? Why do people keep flooding out of these Muslim paradises into the Bankster West?

Well, to name Libya as an example, the country had single-payer health care, free university, a multi-thousand dollar bursary for young couples to get a start on life, and many other things that America and Canada don't have yet (if ever).

Why not go visit there? Because the Ownership Class of Capitalist countries told their own stupid citizens a pack of lies about Libya, and then destroyed it.

This is where our refugees are coming from: countries we have stupidly destroyed, l ike dogs obeying a nasty master.

....

Despite the fact (or maybe because of it) that divorce has been legal in Muslim countries for a thousand years, many Muslim women manage to hang onto their husbands for decades - enough time to successfully raise a family. Contrast that to the Feminists of crass commercial nations who can only please their men when their mouths are full.

[Syph]

True, but not necessarily for good motives; many might be having less sex simply due to substituting it for other vices, such as video game addiction, but not out of any actual appreciation of chivalry or virtues.

Your moral absolutist arrogance is astounding. It's clear to me that morality and ethics don't matter to you. Morality is about treating others well, with kindness and compassion. Religion turns otherwise pleasant people into judgmental, misogynist, sex-negative, miserable people.

By any measure, violent crime is at all time lows. We are living in the most peaceful period in the West due to tolerance, openness and a lack of judgement of others. I'd much rather a teenager killing dragons and ogres in a videogame than setting fire to things out of boredom.

Many millennials are morally apathetic and sheltered.

Better to live and let live than brutally murder those who disagree with you.

Many millennials fawn over whores like Nicki Minaj or Miley Cyrus, which shows just how depraved the mass consumerist view of women and sex is.

Don't claim to be a moral authority,

[Zag Edit: Rule 2]

Much of the mass entertainment industry promotes this worldview.

I don't expect you to know much about pick-up artistry considering your religious views. It is widely condemned by the mainstream media since it teaches sexually frustrated young men to prey on women with low self-esteem.

[Scheherazade]

Your moral absolutist arrogance is astounding.

Sorry if truth, much like science, is arrogant toward incorrect points of view.

It's clear to me that morality and ethics don't matter to you. Morality is about treating others well, with kindness and compassion.

Which moral absolutist told you that?

If there is no higher source of moral truth or authority than that of mere mortals, then your moral absolutist view that morality is objectively about kindness and compassion (which of course is myopic in itself, but) means nothing - your view is as valid as Hitler's or Dahmers?

So you're admitting to be a moral absolutist, and that your objectively right, and Hitler and Dahmer wrong.

Religion turns otherwise pleasant people into judgmental, misogynist, sex-negative, miserable people.

Au contrare, it turns otherwise miserable, weak-willed people too scared to take a moral stand on anything, and obsessed with their own lusts and vices which lead to their misery, into men and women of strong character, and higher spiritual ideals than obsession with low-class sex.

By any measure, violent crime is at all time lows. We are living in the most peaceful period in the West due to tolerance, openness and a lack of judgement of others.

Not by any means, violent crime of course was much higher after the 1960s and the faux "peace and love movement", if anything it's recent decrease is due to a resurgence in intolerance of immorality and cultural degeneracy, as evidenced by Trump's uprising victory, and the rise of right-wing parties in Europe.

Plus using 'violent crime' as a moral metric is very myopic, there are plenty of debased people who never cross the legal boundardies, Bernie Madoff for example- in fact we own more 'slaves' today via corporate sweatshop labor than we did before the civil war.

What you call "progress" is an illusion, in fact the only reason you have the service economy you do today is because of Hitler and WWII, which made possible a huge economic boom for the US of unprecedenced scale, not some mythological 'social progress'.

I'd much rather a teenager killing dragons and ogres in a videogame than setting fire to things out of boredom.

More moral myopia, since you're concerned not of the character of the individuals in question, just the myopic measurable effects.

Even if the Orlando shooter had missed all his targets, and there were no measurable death statistics, his methods and motives would've been the same.

Many millennials are morally apathetic and sheltered.

Better to live and let live than brutally murder those who disagree with you.
[/quote]
"Living and let living" is a sure way to apathy and guaranteed misery, rather than taking a stand for what's right, plus it's not a matter of disagreeing with me, but with reality, much as if one says "2 + 2 = 5", then 'my opinion' means nothing, they're at odds with the laws of nature.

Many millennials fawn over whores like Nicki Minaj or Miley Cyrus, which shows just how depraved the mass consumerist view of women and sex is.

Don't claim to be a moral authority,
[/quote]
I don't, I just represent one greater than me.

You however claimed to be a moral authority in declaring "kindess and compassion" moral absolutes - but who's 'authority' do you represent? Don't be so weak and cowardly, it leads to your own suffering.

Much of the mass entertainment industry promotes this worldview.

I don't expect you to know much about pick-up artistry considering your religious views.
[/quote]
You'd be surpised, I know much more about sex and sexual ecology than most slavish porn addicts and sex-obsessed nihilists- in fact I've studied works ranging from Ovid to "Zan Perrion" because of my sociological interest in the subject.

It is widely condemned by the mainstream media since it teaches sexually frustrated young men to prey on women with low self-esteem.

Ha ha ha, your naivete is hilarious. Simply because a mainstream media issues a statement saying "PUA is bad" says nothing of the entire media industry.

Shows like Californication, artists like Nicki Minaj who teach young girls that 'giving up anal in exchange for crack and money' is empowerment, as well as much of the hip hop industry, just to name a view, promote a rapacious world view just like that of PUAs.

You're so gullible you think that just because the media says "oh BTW PUA is bad" doesn't mean they don't make money off of promoting entertainment of that worldview to young men and women.

I bet you think that just because cigarette cartons have disclaimer about "smoking being bad for you", this means the corporations behind it are actively opposed to nictoine addiction to, don't you? Please don't patronize me with your naive worldviews that arise from living in a bubble of "faux progress" rather than reality.

[Syph]

Sorry if truth, much like science, is arrogant toward incorrect points of view.

It appears we have widely differing standards of what constitutes as "truth" which is a nebulous concept as an atheist as I can't accept God exists a priori. All I know is what the evidence of the external world suggests and even that is subject to change over time.

Which moral absolutist told you that?

There is no absolutism in my ethical framework. It is based of the ethical premise that actions with consequences that cause more happiness than suffering are ethical. You can dispute that premise to your heart's content, but it's how I live my life. I'm not a utilitarian but I am a consequentialist.

If there is no higher source of moral truth or authority than that of mere mortals, then your moral absolutist view that morality is objectively about kindness and compassion (which of course is myopic in itself, but) means nothing - your view is as valid as Hitler's or Dahmers?

People/experts only need to make a value judgement if an act causes more happiness than suffering. It's an appeal to consensus but I'm a pragmatist rather than a logician.

So you're admitting to be a moral absolutist, and that your objectively right, and Hitler and Dahmer wrong.

I'm flexible enough to not be an absolutist. My values have changed before and will likely shift again. I can't make objective claims a posterori so you are straw-manning and invoking Godwin's law.

Au contrare, it turns otherwise miserable, weak-willed people too scared to take a moral stand on anything, and obsessed with their own lusts and vices which lead to their misery, into men and women of strong character, and higher spiritual ideals than obsession with low-class sex.

People take moral stands on things I value all the time: abortion, contraception, gay rights, gender equality, sexual liberty. I find these perfectly compatible with my ethical framework. However, your a priori authority has tenets that maximise suffering and minimise happiness.

Not by any means, violent crime of course was much higher after the 1960s and the faux "peace and love movement", if anything it's recent decrease is due to a resurgence in intolerance of immorality and cultural degeneracy, as evidenced by Trump's uprising victory, and the rise of right-wing parties in Europe.

Disingenuous and false. Your confirmation bias is leaking through. There have been a few explanations offered as to why crime rates have fallen since the 70's. Contraception and abortions meaning young women can have sex without giving birth to children they can't raise properly. Criminals have been vanishing across the West since most countries legalised abortion.

Plus using 'violent crime' as a moral metric is very myopic, there are plenty of debased people who never cross the legal boundardies, Bernie Madoff for example- in fact we own more 'slaves' today via corporate sweatshop labor than we did before the civil war.

I'm a consequentialist, if a person thinks about killing but never acts I don't consider that person immoral. I hope you realise that Madoff got a 150 year sentence in the end for fraud (which is immoral in my framework as well).

More moral myopia, since you're concerned not of the character of the individuals in question, just the myopic measurable effects.

You can't judge "character" without policing thought. Your theoretical authority can theoretically police thought though. Religion... I understand why you dismiss measurable effects as myopic! Your authority isn't measurable so why bother!

Even if the Orlando shooter had missed all his targets, and there were no measurable death statistics, his methods and motives would've been the same.

The shooter would have committed an act that through his own incompetence would have failed. The presence or absence of intent doesn't really matter. The actions support the hypothesis of a premeditated attack.

"Living and let living" is a sure way to apathy and guaranteed misery, rather than taking a stand for what's right, plus it's not a matter of disagreeing with me, but with reality, much as if one says "2 + 2 = 5", then 'my opinion' means nothing, they're at odds with the laws of nature.

I am not the one here disagreeing with a posterori reality. I accept that I exist and 2+2=4 a priori I just don't don't give a higher power a free pass. Funny you should mention mathematics as it's the only type of knowledge that is truth outside of external evidence. However, it seems to contradict reality at times. For example: 1 + 2 + 3... to infinity = -1/12

I don't, I just represent one greater than me.

Touche, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

You however claimed to be a moral authority in declaring "kindess and compassion" moral absolutes - but who's 'authority' do you represent?

Not really, they are values that fit my framework. I don't need to appeal to authority for such a plan to be implemented.

Don't be so weak and cowardly, it leads to your own suffering.

Is this suffering you are trying to project onto me? From where I'm sitting, I feel pretty contented

Simply because a mainstream media issues a statement saying "PUA is bad" says nothing of the entire media industry.

I never denied the market for PUA existing because men in our society are conditioned by the same media that if they aren't getting their end away then they aren't real men. Society hurts and profits from men by preying on their insecurity.

Shows like Californication, artists like Nicki Minaj who teach young girls that 'giving up anal in exchange for crack and money' is empowerment, as well as much of the hip hop industry, just to name a view, promote a rapacious world view just like that of PUAs.

Californication is a mockery of materialistic excess in the titular state. I wholeheartedly disagree with the commodification of sex in exchange for goods unless it's honest and consensual. If a rich "sugar daddy" wants a "gold digger" while both consent that's their business. Same with prostitution.

I bet you think that just because cigarette cartons have disclaimer about "smoking being bad for you", this means the corporations behind it are actively opposed to nictoine addiction to, don't you?

You call me naive yet make this absurd claim. Tobacco companies were forced by governments to put warning labels on. Otherwise Tobacco companies would be running Christmas advertising showing children having a Marlboro on Christmas morning.

[Scheherazade]

It appears we have widely differing standards of what constitutes as "truth" which is a nebulous concept as an atheist as I can't accept God exists a priori. All I know is what the evidence of the external world suggests and even that is subject to change over time.

Logical evidence is superior to 'emperical evidence', as unlike the latter, it never changes, much like mathematical proofs.

Which moral absolutist told you that?

There is no absolutism in my ethical framework. It is based of the ethical premise that actions with consequences that cause more happiness than suffering are ethical. You can dispute that premise to your heart's content, but it's how I live my life. I'm not a utilitarian but I am a consequentialist.
[/quote]
Then if atheism causes more suffering than happiness, even from a consequential perspective, there's no reason to be one.

People take moral stands on things I value all the time: abortion, contraception, gay rights, gender equality, sexual liberty. I find these perfectly compatible with my ethical framework. However, your a priori authority has tenets that maximise suffering and minimise happiness.

Not at all, happiness is caused by understanding of the spiritual and aesthetic, not mere external or physical pains and pleasures, so maximizing virtue and wisdom maximizes happiness.

There have been a few explanations offered as to why crime rates have fallen since the 70's. Contraception and abortions meaning young women can have sex without giving birth to children they can't raise properly. Criminals have been vanishing across the West since most countries legalised abortion.

Then by that logic, mandating involuntary black abortions should also minimize crime since young black populations have much higher crime rates than other demographics.

I'm a consequentialist, if a person thinks about killing but never acts I don't consider that person immoral. I hope you realise that Madoff got a 150 year sentence in the end for fraud (which is immoral in my framework as well).

This is why consequentialism is a vapid philosophy, since by that logic, a person who pre-meditated murder, but never acted on it out of fear of being caught, is somehow less "moral" than a person who feel asleep at the wheel while driving and accidentally killed a pedestrian, since the only metric of morality is whether someone was killed or not.

You can't judge "character" without policing thought. Your theoretical authority can theoretically police thought though.

Religion... I understand why you dismiss measurable effects as myopic! Your authority isn't measurable so why bother!

That which isn't measurable is superior to that which is, much like art and aesthetics and logic, that which exists but is immaterial.

I am not the one here disagreeing with a posterori reality. I accept that I exist and 2+2=4 a priori I just don't don't give a higher power a free pass. Funny you should mention mathematics as it's the only type of knowledge that is truth outside of external evidence. However, it seems to contradict reality at times. For example: 1 + 2 + 3... to infinity = -1/12

This of course means it's a superior way of gaining knowledge than what people naively accept as "reality", meaning mere external evidence which of course is subject to change and therefore an unreliable foundation.

If a rich "sugar daddy" wants a "gold digger" while both consent that's their business. Same with prostitution.

It's their choice to be immoral, much as it is an alcoholics or a person who views child pornography in a nation where it's legal, but just because they have the legal freedom to fail doesn't negate their lack of virtue and the suffering which it will rightfully bring them.

Likewise the idea that actions between 'consenting individuals' have no external effects on the economy is false, in reality all actions effect everyone and everything around them to some degree. The difference between alcoholism and murder is in reality just one of degree, not of kind. There's really no such thing as an action which 'doesn't effect anyone else'.

So I'd say society has a right, or even a duty, to be concerned about everything which goes on to some extent or another, even things which go on in others' bedrooms.

[Syph]

Logical evidence is superior to 'emperical evidence', as unlike the latter, it never changes, much like mathematical proofs.
...
Not at all, happiness is caused by understanding of the spiritual and aesthetic, not mere external or physical pains and pleasures, so maximizing virtue and wisdom maximizes happiness.
...
That which isn't measurable is superior to that which is, much like art and aesthetics and logic, that which exists but is immaterial.

This of course means it's a superior way of gaining knowledge than what people naively accept as "reality", meaning mere external evidence which of course is subject to change and therefore an unreliable foundation.

Let's agree to disagree.

Then if atheism causes more suffering than happiness, even from a consequential perspective, there's no reason to be one.

My personal assessment sees the lack of existential eternal punishment as relieving both physical and mental suffering.

Then by that logic, mandating involuntary black abortions should also minimize crime since young black populations have much higher crime rates than other demographics.

Absolutely not, I'm not claiming that a posteriori evidence can be used to predict the future. Heck, we can't even predict the weather. It can only be used to test the data of the past with hypotheses explaining it.

This is why consequentialism is a vapid philosophy, since by that logic, a person who pre-meditated murder, but never acted on it out of fear of being caught, is somehow less "moral" than a person who feel asleep at the wheel while driving and accidentally killed a pedestrian, since the only metric of morality is whether someone was killed or not.

It's difficult to assess how pre-meditated an act is if they didn't attempt it. If someone stops themselves from committing a crime that is a neutral act. The unethical act is the killing or the attempted killing, not buying the murder weapon (unless its illegal).

It's their choice to be immoral, much as it is an alcoholics or a person who views child pornography in a nation where it's legal, but just because they have the legal freedom to fail doesn't negate their lack of virtue and the suffering which it will rightfully bring them.

This is bizarre moral gymnastics (unsuprising given its source...), you bring up damaging acts such as alcohol abuse and child pornography and equate them to two men or two women or four people having sex.

Likewise the idea that actions between 'consenting individuals' have no external effects on the economy is false, in reality all actions effect everyone and everything around them to some degree.

I'd like to see your evidence for that. Unless there is an extremely immodest orgasm it's unlikely that there will be any effect on anyone outside the bedroom.

Then if atheism causes more suffering than happiness, even from a consequential perspective, there's no reason to be one.

I knew the theocratic dreams wouldn't be far away...

[Scheherazade]

It's difficult to assess how pre-meditated an act is if they didn't attempt it. If someone stops themselves from committing a crime that is a neutral act. The unethical act is the killing or the attempted killing, not buying the murder weapon (unless its illegal).

Plenty of easy examples of that.

A terrorist is arrested by the FBI for plotting to blow up a subway, he went so far as to give detail plans and procure the explosives, but stopped his plan at the last minute when he suspected his online collaborator was actually an undercover FBI agent.

Should he be given no charge simply because he "never acted on it"?

While 17 year old with no criminal record, who kills a pedestrian with a car due to having impaired driving from prescription sleep medications (which violated the state's DUI laws)- should be charged the same as a premeditated 1st degree murderer simply because the "act was the same"?