- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Does anyone have an issue with threesomes? (This has become a holy war)
Posted on 8/24/20 at 4:29 pm to FooManChoo
Posted on 8/24/20 at 4:29 pm to FooManChoo
quote:Can you give examples?
There are times when lack of consent is actually a net positive and times with adverse affects on one person may not morally bad.
quote:But it's not an example, it has a net positive effect on them, as you called it. There also children, it's obviously a complete different scenario as a parent you actually have to make decisions for children, unlike talking about 2 random adults. But nonetheless, every decision you make for your kids is done with the intent of it having long term positive effects, unless you're just a shitty parent or make an unintentional mistake.
I just did. Coercing my children to eat foods they don't want to eat is an example.
quote:You keep saying this, it's not so. It's an arrogant opinion, to be honest.
Without God, there is no rational basis for objective moral reasoning.
And to be fair, i'm ok if you say my viewpoint is arrogant, that's fine, i'll take it. But let's not act like you saying if you don't use God as your moral arbiter, you're illogical, that's pretty darn arrogant as well.
quote:Again, this is nonsense. There is literally nothing logical about that. That argument is basically saying we should have the Purge 24/7/365, it makes no sense and is the complete opposite of what I've told you about 10 times now, but you're still missing the simplest part of it.
If A and B then C
If A is "that which provides me the most benefit is moral"
and B is "harming others without their consent provides me the most benefit"
Then C (the logical conclusion) is that harming others without their consent is moral.
quote:It's not. You saying it is doesn't make it so. Your only real argument against this so far is that it's not what God thinks.
I'm showing you how your premise is irrational because it is based on pure opinion
1
Posted on 8/24/20 at 4:30 pm to CFFreak
Came to read about threesomes, left very Disappointed
Posted on 8/24/20 at 4:31 pm to Knight of Old
quote:
As long as you are not hurting yourself, someone else, or a child, I do not want to know or hear about your sex kinks...
This is my motto..
Posted on 8/24/20 at 4:31 pm to shel311
quote:Yes it is.
No, that is not logical...at all
Objective moral reasoning requires a standard that exists outside of the subjective experience of humanity. If morality is derived from the human mind then it wouldn't exist without a human mind existing and it would be entirely unique from mind to mind as each mind is unique. A human-based moral standard, by definition, would be subjective.
Morality is conceptual and immaterial, which can only truly exist in a world where the immaterial exists. This is a problem for those that reject God because they are materialists (only that which is material exists within the universe).
Morality is personal and applies only to persons (rocks can't be immoral and neither can viruses or lions). Morality, therefore, must come from a personal being.
God is personal, immaterial, and outside of the human experience and therefore the only possible basis for objective moral reasoning.
Without God, all we would have are our personal opinions, none being objectively better or worse than any other.
quote:No. People change their opinions over time for all sorts of reasons, but usually because they've acquired some new information or experience. The Bible doesn't change.
Would that be comparable to picking and choosing the parts of the Bible to live by and teh parts to ignore?
quote:I'm not saying that your opinion will change, only that it's common that it does change based on knowledge and experience based on the standard that you choose.
Your arrogance is showing again. You seem to get to decide how my opinion will change, all the while still ignoring how people's opinions of the BIble and their own morality change as well, no different.
It appears that your standard is your own personal feelings, knowledge, and experience. All those things can and do change over time, which is why I assume your moral preferences will change over time; it does for most people who think like you do. Since your standard for morality is wholly subjective, your standard can change over time.
Since my standard is objective as it comes from God rather than my own mind or preferences, that standard won't change. How I interpret it or understand it might change, but the standard, itself, won't be different when I'm 80 versus when I'm 8.
This post was edited on 8/24/20 at 4:49 pm
Posted on 8/24/20 at 4:37 pm to Knight of Old
quote:
As long as you are not hurting yourself, someone else, or a child, I do not want to know or hear about your sex kinks
Thats all fine and good until your wife's boyfriend wants to advertise to the world.
Posted on 8/24/20 at 4:38 pm to FooManChoo
quote:And yet you kept using cancer as a point while now pointing out that a virus can't be moral or immoral thus totally blowing up your point. Cancer can't be moral, so why use it as an example to compare to humans who can be moral?
Morality is personal and applies only to persons (rocks can't be immoral and neither can viruses or lions).
quote:We're literally there now, no one person's opinion is any better or worse than the next person objectively speaking. You seem to be doing the arrogant thing by saying your opinion is objective better than mine, which again, is nonsense.
Without God, all we would have are our personal opinions, none being objectively better or worse than any other.
quote:1. That means my standards are based on real, tangible things that I can prove. You can't say the same, hence illogical.
It appears that your standard is your own personal feelings, knowledge, and experience. All those things can and do change over time, which is why I assume your moral preferences will change over time; it does for most people who think like you do. Since your standard for morality is wholly subjective, your standard can change over time.
2. Generally speaking, people's morals should change over time based on your life experiences. Again, that is logical. As you live you gain more knowledge, more knowledge should help you in determining what's right or wrong.
quote:1. It's not as objective as it comes
Since my standard is objective as it comes from God rather than my own mind or preferences, that standard won't change. How I interpret it or understand it might change, but the standard, itself, won't be different when I'm 80 versus when I'm 8.
2. It should change based on your experiences.
Posted on 8/24/20 at 4:39 pm to CFFreak
Posted on 8/24/20 at 4:39 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Is it self-admittedly saying it shouldn't be followed as an absolute? Pretty sure it claims to be the very word of God, and says that God can't lie, so therefore it must be truth.
Who wrote that part?
Posted on 8/24/20 at 4:41 pm to shel311
quote:
You seem to be doing the arrogant thing by saying your opinion is objective better than mine, which again, is nonsense.
Arguably a sin.
Posted on 8/24/20 at 4:42 pm to CFFreak
quote:
This assumes all parties are ok with it.
Man thinks many things are ok, that aren’t.
Posted on 8/24/20 at 4:43 pm to CFFreak
quote:
Does anyone have an issue with threesomes?
What consenting adults do in their own homes is nobody’s business and I don’t know why anyone would care.
It’s not something I’d engage in, but if the 3 involved are ok with it, good for them.
Posted on 8/24/20 at 4:44 pm to CFFreak
I'm wondering why the OP cares what I think about it. Even if I was against it for whatever reason, religious or otherwise, the law of our country prevents me from doing anything about it.
So how about you mind your own fricking business OP, if I wanted you to know what I thought about it I would tell you at my convenience
So how about you mind your own fricking business OP, if I wanted you to know what I thought about it I would tell you at my convenience
Posted on 8/24/20 at 4:46 pm to OverseasBengal
quote:
I'm wondering why the OP cares what I think about it. Even if I was against it for whatever reason, religious or otherwise, the law of our country prevents me from doing anything about it.
So how about you mind your own fricking business OP, if I wanted you to know what I thought about it I would tell you at my convenience
fwiw I think that's his entire premise of asking the question.
Posted on 8/24/20 at 4:46 pm to CFFreak
This is the difference between people like you and the ones you’re arguing with. They can disagree with your decision but not want you “stoned to death” or in “jail”, you on the other hand believe people who don’t agree with you should be eliminated.
Posted on 8/24/20 at 4:47 pm to shel311
quote:Taxes. Forced house arrest. Forced institutionalization. Capital punishment / sterilization for a serial rapist/murderer. Any number of things where doing something adverse to one person may be a net positive in the long run, either for that person or for others.
Can you give examples?
quote:Yes, it's an example of what you asked for (coercing someone without doing harm). Now you're changing the paradigm by adding that it must be a consenting adult. To that, I'd say, depending on your view of it, forcing people to pay for social security (assuming it remains solvent into the future) is a way of coercing an adult to do something that will help them in the future.
But it's not an example, it has a net positive effect on them, as you called it. There also children, it's obviously a complete different scenario as a parent you actually have to make decisions for children, unlike talking about 2 random adults. But nonetheless, every decision you make for your kids is done with the intent of it having long term positive effects, unless you're just a shitty parent or make an unintentional mistake.
The governments in many states are currently forcing people to wear masks in public to protect themselves from harm, regardless of whether or not they see the harm or whether or not they want to accept the risk upon themselves. There are countless examples where people act "morally" by coercing adults for their own good.
Even so, I'm trying to show you that "for their own good" is arbitrary. Even "good" is arbitrary. What one person thinks is good, another thinks is bad, and vice versa. There is no objective standard for goodness with subjective moral reasoning, which is my point.
quote:Nope. It's the logical conclusion of much intense studying. There are no other worldviews that can rationally provide a basis for moral reasoning. Go ahead and try it.
You keep saying this, it's not so. It's an arrogant opinion, to be honest.
The Biblical God provides one.
quote:I won't say yours is arrogant because I don't believe it is. I believe that you sincerely believe you are correct because experience has proven it to you. Arrogance would be that you believe you are correct because the opinion is yours; it is correct because you cannot be wrong.
And to be fair, i'm ok if you say my viewpoint is arrogant, that's fine, i'll take it. But let's not act like you saying if you don't use God as your moral arbiter, you're illogical, that's pretty darn arrogant as well.
This is not my position. I believe what I believe because I believe God is true and men are fallible, including myself.
quote:I don't think you know what "logical" means.
Again, this is nonsense. There is literally nothing logical about that. That argument is basically saying we should have the Purge 24/7/365, it makes no sense and is the complete opposite of what I've told you about 10 times now, but you're still missing the simplest part of it.
I provided a logical argument with two premises that lead to a rational conclusion. By definition, it is logical as the conclusion follows from the premises. I think you're equivocating on the word "logical".
My example was merely meant to show you that you can make a rational/logical argument from a competing moral framework because morality is not "logical" in the strictest sense of the word. You say your moral framework is based on logic. I was merely pointing out that you can have a pretty evil moral framework and justify it logically.
quote:I've provided the argument but you either don't understand it or you don't see how it fits in with what I'm saying.
It's not. You saying it is doesn't make it so. Your only real argument against this so far is that it's not what God thinks.
I'm saying this: you adhere to an arbitrary an subjective moral framework that can be combated simply by saying "well I believe differently" and you have no objective standard to point back to in order to say which of our opinions is right and which is wrong.
I'm saying that the only way we can have an objective standard to make such a comparison is if the biblical God exists.
Posted on 8/24/20 at 4:48 pm to CFFreak
quote:your post is very informative.
(This has been really useful because now I know who all the religious nuts are here)
now everyone knows you have little moral fiber and to keep there wives and daughters away from you.
tell us all what other immoral values you hold near and dear.
also, i am conducting a poll on party affiliation. so, where do you stand on that, Dem or Repub?
Posted on 8/24/20 at 4:49 pm to FooManChoo
I'm a little surprised at all the moral posturing from a board that posts IWHI at every photo of a woman.
Posted on 8/24/20 at 4:49 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I'm saying this: you adhere to an arbitrary an subjective moral framework that can be combated simply by saying "well I believe differently" and you have no objective standard to point back to in order to say which of our opinions is right and which is wrong.
Posted on 8/24/20 at 4:49 pm to PickupAutist
quote:Username REALLY does NOT check out.
I guess I’m naive and think marriage should mean something and be monogamous?
It also sounds like a good way to catch a lot of whore diseases and generally be perverted and degenerate.
Posted on 8/24/20 at 4:52 pm to CFFreak
IDGAF what anyone does in the privacy of their home/bedroom/swingers club.
But if they are uglies, I'd hope they would keep it to themselves and not share pics. That shite is gross.
But if they are uglies, I'd hope they would keep it to themselves and not share pics. That shite is gross.
Page 12 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News