WarpMyMind

I agree

Since I do not ascribe to views of morality, I voted no.

:wink: It's a very good thing it's a herculean task to even get me annoyed, let alone piss me off.

I think I've posted somewhere, probably in "General Hypnosis" about "The Law": As it harms(mentally/physically/permanently) no entity(mentally/physically/permanently) that doesn't wish(at some level) to be harmed(mentally/physically/permanently), do what thou will. It should also be noted that if you do harm someone, it should be done so that they will be made stronger by it. If you want to discuss codes of conduct(or anything else), feel free to PM me.

I voted no. I believe that there are no morals in the sense of an innate justice, I just believe that morals are decided upon by society. This is shown by some societies doing things that other would consider completely immoral, yet they see no wrong in it.

In the general sense of western culture's morals though, I still don't think that most of the things on this site are immoral. As long as the people using them are aware of the effects, and continue with consent and with no harm of any kind to others, then it's not morally incorrect.

EMG has gone to all lengths possible to ensure the above, and so I believe that nothing on this site is immoral, although some may be used for immoral acts, for which EMG and this site could not be held accounted for.

-Linja

Who decides what's moral or immoral? God? I think not, morality only exists if you feel in your heart you should or shouldn't do something, another word for it is your conscionce(think I spelled it right).

Yeah I agree with that Makidas.

Just out of curiousity, where do you think our conscience comes from? I personally believe that it's from social doctrine. But christians say God gave it to us as a guide to what is right and wrong I think, I'm interested as to your opinion. You always say something that makes me think.

-Linja

Mortal, I have the feeling that we have met before. Your answer to Jack and Loony 28 has a familiar ring.

You have neatly set yourself up as arbiter and commentator. I don't buy the construct.

It's the same old story: he who chooses the a priori basis for the debate has won the debate before it starts.

I propose an alternative to the tone/substance/direction of this thread.

Pretend you're a Catholic who has never been to confession. Tell us everything you have done, on this site and off, that someone somewhere might consider immoral.

You have up to 10,000 potential jurors to scrutinize your behavior and, more importantly, your thought process. Is it rational? Is it logical? Is it full of preconceptions designed to make you think highly of yourself?

None of us know. And until we do know, no thinking person will allow a total stranger (or at least a new username) to sit in judgment.

So tell us all about yourself. ALL about yourself. We'll make observations and draw conclusions about your own morality and, above all, about the state--and perhaps health--of your mind.

When/if you pass muster, you can go back to your seemingly innocuous--but actually arrogant and self-serving--question.

Note to a poster higher up in the chain: can you start checking the IP numbers now. It may turn up nothing. This may be a genuine newby. But on the other hand, why would someone with only one day's exposure to the site be worrying so soon about the morals of the site and the behavior of its users. As always, forewarned is fore-armed.

Hell yeah! Wouldn't be half as much fun if it wasn't!

Define the word "moral". As in what constitutes a moral in your set.

I did not mean define "moral" as in: moral - that which is right as judged by some entity.

I meant define "moral" as in: moral - a rule or habit of conduct as explained by some entity(s), especially one pertaining to standards of right/good and wrong/bad as judged by some entity(s).


In order to pose a question or a response to a question, one must make clear ones meaning.. unless the purpose of the aforementioned is to obscure ones meaning for some intention(ex: politics).. or the question/response is more coherent than a previous question/response on the same subject of which the individuals involved are consciously aware.

I would say yes its immoral, well a large part of it is, since society sets the rules and by most western standards this site and its content would be immoral however by my personal judgement I don`t find it immoral, but as someone on this tread said it can be used in immoral ways

and in advance I apoligize if my grammar and word choices aren`t exactly correct but english isn`t my first language

I would define an immoral act as any act, the performance of which, would cause you, (the performer of the act), personally, to feel guilt about it afterward. Yes, I realize it seems a rather open-ended definition, however, it seems to fit the definition of moral that has apparently been agreed upon.

Now, morals are a very subjective and individual thing, unique to each individual. It was said that a society defines what's considered "moral".....this is not quite entirely true. The individuals within the society define what that society considers moral, this by virtue of what the majority of the individuals personally feel is moral.

So.....if you've done anything on this site that you felt guilty about later, then you've done something immoral :)

Guilt is a bad thing. Manipulate a person into feeling guilt over something and you've gained a measure of control over them (this is a bad form of control, such as cults use. Not to start any flame wars or anything, but the concept of guilt is one the Catholic church has been exploiting since its inception.)

Anyway, enough of that 8)

I myself have done nothing that has caused me to experience guilt, therefore I've done nothing immoral.

OTOH, the only regrets I have (a totally different subject, but I feel like mentioning this anyway) are the things I wanted to do but didn't for whatever reason *other* than those acts that would induce feelings of guilt on my part.

In the sense I've described, your personal morals *do* form the ruler that your conscience operates with.

SO......who here has a guilty conscience? :D

Hehe not me and I doubt many people on this site have, or else we wouldn`t come here, since it natural for you to avoid the things you feel guilty about

i voted no.

the things i would do to alleviate the repression of NOT doing them would be immoral. as repression has done to everyone who's experienced it, through history.

Quite mouthful to be sure.

I had to amend this so if someone read the long version I apologize for the change.

It was genuine and the reason I put it I'm not sure but was moved to express love. Maybe it was to ensure I stayed humble but I digress.

The reason I had not used the mention of God was that no one else used the word God. This from the beginning was a discussion on peoples beliefs. It would be arrogant for me to ask a question and then answer it myself. I chose to listen to others and ask questions to see if I can follow their line of thinking. Use of dictionary.com was necessary to consolidate capture the true meanings of words so misinterpretations could not be used. I would challenge you to find a place I accused anyone of anything and did anything but ask questions. I never forbid anyone from asking me that question and I've answered it for you when asked. If someone has another question for me I will answer it willingly.

On to your opinions. Isn't it weak to talk about tribal cultures and compare them to the modern technological age. While Africa may have a a sense of moral relativity their culture has not shown itself capable of handling modern day society. By these comparisons I come to the conclusion that to advance further than we are now (and to avoid falling backward) we must adhere even more strictly to a moral code than ever before as they have to adhere to one to move to the modern era.

Jack, I think you're onto something.

As a son of Texas, you are familiar with states' rights and local government. And you probably know all of this. There are only two sources of sovereignty in the U.S.--the federal government and the state governments. Local governments have no independence or jurisdiction except those that the state government delegates to them. The First Amendment was made applicable with full force to the states and their subdivisions by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Ever notice how religious zealots don't like a free debate conducted on a level playing field. They start with the notion that they are Right From The Start. Hardly a useful way to have a discussion.

I'm glad you included the quotations from the "longer" edition. They show that these were in fact very different documents. I also hear that the first one condemned the Vikings. Well, why not? They figured out when St. Patrick's Day and robbed the Irish pilgrims like clockwork every year. Apparently they noticed things. The Catholic Church noticed them, too. It included a line in the Litany against them.

And now they are Lutherans. Funny thing, that.

If anyone made a copy of the "longer" edition, why not post it. Then all of us can decide for ourselves whether the replacement is merely a shortened version. The comparison may also give us insight into the depth of commitment to the truth.

---Mortal---
If you read sandy's posts you'll find at least one reason why she's so bitter/defensive/whatever when it comes to topics like this one. Way to edit that question out by the way.

I intended my question as an observation of your own behaviors.

As far as being on or off topic.. you did bring it up in a post under this topic. Way to avoid the point.

Dictionary.com is good as a general outline for definitions. But for a lot of words, a lot of people have individual definitions that go beyond or differ from the ones present there.

Just because a culture is now dead or on the brink of being so, that doesn't mean that it's any less relevant.

---sandy---
Sorry, I didn't have the foresight of saving the original post, just of quoting it. In the future I will though. For some reason, I never expect that people will delete what they've already posted, but will add to their posts, as I have just done with this sentence.

I humbly ask for forgiveness of my arrogance. Thank you for a wonderful discussion. I will still be checking this forum if anyone has any questions for me. or anyone wants to continue our discussions. Maybe I'm wasting my time but as I said it has been a tremedous learning experience for me and I wouldn't change it for the world.

Again, Sandy I am sorry for my arrogance. Just know I work hard to try to stem it at all times.

Would it be fair to agree on one universal law? "And it harm none, so mote it be," in otherwords if you aren't hurting anyone, then go for it. Is that not fair? Does it not encompass morality and even more?

It seems to me, and I'm not flaming here, that you're confusing morality with ethics. I could be wrong, it would be unethical to leave a wounded person alone if they wanted and/or needed your help. I have to disagree with your one postive thing. 3.000000 is still equal to 3, 18/6 is equal to three. I guess the point I'm getting at is there is more than one solution to any problem. There is no divine truth. Also, you're not an idiot, although you could have picked a better site to hold a morality debate on.:) All for now.