Board index › Coping in life › Love and Dating

Why are people agiants prostitution?

Page 7 of 10 [ 147 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

jc6chan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,257
Location: Waterloo, ON, Canada

20 Jan 2011, 9:17 am

Bethie wrote:
jc6chan wrote:
I can't change your views but it looks as though people who came up with regulations for the international community wouldn't necessarily agree with you.

I don't know how well-versed diplomats are in philosophical ethics,
but even an idiot will acknowledge that there is NO universal standard of moral conduct among human beings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism
Read the last sentence in the link (of course you can read the whole thing too). Just because the belief in moral relativism is increasing in Western society doesn't mean no one believes in moral universalism.
Bethie wrote:
jc6chan wrote:
Humans choose not to follow these morals for various reasons such as anger, greed, etc...

You haven't been paying attention. People commit acts because those acts are WITHIN their moral code at the time, not in SPITE of it. The people who are executing gays in Sudan and burning people ALIVE as witches in Kenya genuinely and fervently BELIEVE their actions are just.

I believe that they are ignoring their moral conscience or its been distracted by their upbringing. They may not realize that but that doesn't make it so. That being said, I'm not going to just point the finger at them and be a hypocrite. There could be many things in Western society that the culture is distracting from a person's conscience. Its like just because you believe the answer to a math problem is a certain one doesn't mean you're right. So societies in the world is like writing a math test. A perfect math test would be a perfect following of morals. Of course I don't believe the standards of any society is perfect. but that doesn't mean that a correct set of answers to a math test doesn't exist. It still exists.



hyperbole
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,208
Location: my desk

20 Jan 2011, 10:15 am

menintights wrote:
Quote:
Consider (oh god, I hate to use this as an example but.....) Islamic extremists who believe that according to the quoran (sorry if I misspelled no disrespect intended) he is to kill all infidels......


And yet you brought it up anyway. I wonder what that says about you and your views on Muslims as a group?

Most of the people who support terrorism usually support it because they hate westerners, period, and not because they really believe they're doing anything the Qur'an tells them to do. So when people randomly bring up "Islamic extremists" to illustrate a point that could've been illustrated with an example that's closer to home, one has to wonder if that isn't just subtle bigotry rearing its ugly head.


I have a bunch of wonderful Muslim friends who agree that any religion taken to an extreme is a v. negative thing. I prefer them to Christians for sure. I figured it was something most people have heard off. But good try at a personal attack inside a very generalized discussion.


_________________
"Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" ...WS Burroughs


hyperbole
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,208
Location: my desk

20 Jan 2011, 10:21 am

chiyoko wrote:
menintights wrote:
Quote:
Consider (oh god, I hate to use this as an example but.....) Islamic extremists who believe that according to the quoran (sorry if I misspelled no disrespect intended) he is to kill all infidels......


And yet you brought it up anyway. I wonder what that says about you and your views on Muslims as a group?

Most of the people who support terrorism usually support it because they hate westerners, period, and not because they really believe they're doing anything the Qur'an tells them to do. So when people randomly bring up "Islamic extremists" to illustrate a point that could've been illustrated with an example that's closer to home, one has to wonder if that isn't just subtle bigotry rearing its ugly head.


Muslims as a group are entitled to their religon. I don't think hyperbole said he supported terrorism. (Excuse me for jumping in here) I think this is going in an entirely different direction. As everone hates to have their statements twisted around you are doing the exact same thing. He gave an example to support his side of a debate. He did not claim to support the views of Islamic terrorists.


Thank you! I knew it was a bad example gooing in, but figured it was general enough every one was familiar with things...... My bad. :wall:


_________________
"Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" ...WS Burroughs


chiyoko
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 13 Nov 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 95

20 Jan 2011, 10:44 am

jc6chan wrote:
Bethie wrote:
jc6chan wrote:
I can't change your views but it looks as though people who came up with regulations for the international community wouldn't necessarily agree with you.

I don't know how well-versed diplomats are in philosophical ethics,
but even an idiot will acknowledge that there is NO universal standard of moral conduct among human beings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism
Read the last sentence in the link (of course you can read the whole thing too). Just because the belief in moral relativism is increasing in Western society doesn't mean no one believes in moral universalism.
Bethie wrote:
jc6chan wrote:
Humans choose not to follow these morals for various reasons such as anger, greed, etc...

You haven't been paying attention. People commit acts because those acts are WITHIN their moral code at the time, not in SPITE of it. The people who are executing gays in Sudan and burning people ALIVE as witches in Kenya genuinely and fervently BELIEVE their actions are just.

I believe that they are ignoring their moral conscience or its been distracted by their upbringing. They may not realize that but that doesn't make it so. That being said, I'm not going to just point the finger at them and be a hypocrite. There could be many things in Western society that the culture is distracting from a person's conscience. Its like just because you believe the answer to a math problem is a certain one doesn't mean you're right. So societies in the world is like writing a math test. A perfect math test would be a perfect following of morals. Of course I don't believe the standards of any society is perfect. but that doesn't mean that a correct set of answers to a math test doesn't exist. It still exists.


Your math reference doesn't really make sense to me.
As far as your wiki link, you might want to read the history and references attached. It doesn't really have a citation linking UN Human Rights to "moral universalism". Not only that, if you look at the Human Rights link you will see that it is not universal since it has been refused by other nations.



chiyoko
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 13 Nov 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 95

20 Jan 2011, 10:46 am

hyperbole wrote:
chiyoko wrote:
menintights wrote:
Quote:
Consider (oh god, I hate to use this as an example but.....) Islamic extremists who believe that according to the quoran (sorry if I misspelled no disrespect intended) he is to kill all infidels......


And yet you brought it up anyway. I wonder what that says about you and your views on Muslims as a group?

Most of the people who support terrorism usually support it because they hate westerners, period, and not because they really believe they're doing anything the Qur'an tells them to do. So when people randomly bring up "Islamic extremists" to illustrate a point that could've been illustrated with an example that's closer to home, one has to wonder if that isn't just subtle bigotry rearing its ugly head.


Muslims as a group are entitled to their religon. I don't think hyperbole said he supported terrorism. (Excuse me for jumping in here) I think this is going in an entirely different direction. As everone hates to have their statements twisted around you are doing the exact same thing. He gave an example to support his side of a debate. He did not claim to support the views of Islamic terrorists.


Thank you! I knew it was a bad example gooing in, but figured it was general enough every one was familiar with things...... My bad. :wall:


You're welcome. I hate to have my words twisted and taken out of context. It wasn't a bad example. People will twist things no matter how carefully you try to word things.



Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

20 Jan 2011, 9:59 pm

jc6chan wrote:
Read the last sentence in the link (of course you can read the whole thing too). Just because the belief in moral relativism is increasing in Western society doesn't mean no one believes in moral universalism.

Ethical subjectivism =/= Moral relativism.
I, for instance, subscribe to the former, as do most philosophical ethicists I've encountered,
but heartily object to the latter.
jc6chan wrote:
I believe that they are ignoring their moral conscience or its been distracted by their upbringing.

~facepalm~
This has already been addressed once. There's nothing to suggest an inherent universal code of morality.
jc6chan wrote:
Its like just because you believe the answer to a math problem is a certain one doesn't mean you're right.
So societies in the world is like writing a math test. A perfect math test would be a perfect following of morals. Of course I don't believe the standards of any society is perfect. but that doesn't mean that a correct set of answers to a math test doesn't exist. It still exists.

If this "correct" set of morals exists, where the hell is it?
Is it carved into a tree somewhere in Never, Never Land?
I can demonstrate that 6 is a factor of 30.
How can you demonstrate that crucifying kittens is immoral,
without referring back to your personal opinions about morality?


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


jc6chan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,257
Location: Waterloo, ON, Canada

21 Jan 2011, 4:05 pm

Bethie wrote:
If this "correct" set of morals exists, where the hell is it?
Is it carved into a tree somewhere in Never, Never Land?
I can demonstrate that 6 is a factor of 30.
How can you demonstrate that crucifying kittens is immoral,
without referring back to your personal opinions about morality?

Ok, I admit that people can't agree on exactly whats right and wrong but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Demographers may disagree on the population of the US at a certain instantaneous period of time, but that does not mean that an exact number did not exist. So you ask "How can you demonstrate that crucifying kittens is immoral?" but the problem is that since you already have an opinion on morality, that means that a true set of morality exists somewhere out there. Why else would you have an opinion on morality? If no definite morality exists out there, why would you form an opinion on it (you are making a guess about what you think is the true set)? Do you believe that morality is somehow "fluid" and that a definite truth about it does not exist?

In terms of where a correct set exists, different people say different things. Some turn to religion and others just "feel it". But just because people disagree does not mean that a correct set does not exist.



TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

21 Jan 2011, 4:17 pm

murphycop wrote:
shouldn't this be moved to the adult section? wah :cry:


I'm just pondering that. Or to move it to PPR! :lol:


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


murphycop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jan 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,134

21 Jan 2011, 5:03 pm

TallyMan wrote:
murphycop wrote:
shouldn't this be moved to the adult section? wah :cry:


I'm just pondering that. Or to move it to PPR! :lol:


Haha. I was saying that cause my thread about sex got moved to the adult section : P


_________________
'Ave we had a national f**king stroke!??


TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

21 Jan 2011, 5:07 pm

murphycop wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
murphycop wrote:
shouldn't this be moved to the adult section? wah :cry:


I'm just pondering that. Or to move it to PPR! :lol:


Haha. I was saying that cause my thread about sex got moved to the adult section : P


I guessed that. :lol:

I've left this thread here but it is borderline whether it should be in the Adult forum. I moved your thread as it discusses penetration in detail which is definitely an adult topic.


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


murphycop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jan 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,134

21 Jan 2011, 5:14 pm

What about sex education in schools?

It got locked :P


_________________
'Ave we had a national f**king stroke!??


Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

21 Jan 2011, 5:26 pm

jc6chan wrote:
Ok, I admit that people can't agree on exactly whats right and wrong but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

You admit it doesn't exist objectively in the human mind- where else, exactly, do moral concepts exist?
jc6chan wrote:
Demographers may disagree on the population of the US at a certain instantaneous period of time, but that does not mean that an exact number did not exist.

Yes, because simple quantification is analogous to ethical philosophy. :roll:
jc6chan wrote:
So you ask "How can you demonstrate that crucifying kittens is immoral?" but the problem is that since you already have an opinion on morality, that means that a true set of morality exists somewhere out there. Why else would you have an opinion on morality? If no definite morality exists out there, why would you form an opinion on it (you are making a guess about what you think is the true set)? Do you believe that morality is somehow "fluid" and that a definite truth about it does not exist?

We have opinions on morality for the same reason we have opinions on anything else-
we're indoctrinated with cultural concepts almost from birth, and aside from a few variations here and there,
we largely stick to them. I've explained this three times. Even with people like me, with more radical beliefs, conclusions are only true GIVEN your personal emphasis on this or that imperative. My moral opinions are not "guesses at the true set"- No such thing exists, and if it does, you've yet to give evidence for it.

Repeating that an objective set of morality exists over and over and over ad nauseum does not make it more likely. I'll ask one final time for evidence-where is it?


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Last edited by Bethie on 21 Jan 2011, 5:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.

murphycop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jan 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,134

21 Jan 2011, 5:29 pm

common sense :roll:


_________________
'Ave we had a national f**king stroke!??


Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

21 Jan 2011, 5:32 pm

murphycop wrote:
common sense :roll:


That ain't so common anymore, it seems. :D


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


murphycop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jan 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,134

21 Jan 2011, 5:37 pm

Bethie wrote:
murphycop wrote:
common sense :roll:


That ain't so common anymore, it seems. :D


Most laws and policies defy common sense nowdays. Especially with the health and saftey laws. Having a danger sign in a conker tree :hmph:


_________________
'Ave we had a national f**king stroke!??


jc6chan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,257
Location: Waterloo, ON, Canada

21 Jan 2011, 6:00 pm

Bethie wrote:
jc6chan wrote:
Ok, I admit that people can't agree on exactly whats right and wrong but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

You admit it doesn't exist objectively in the human mind- where else, exactly, do moral concepts exist?
jc6chan wrote:
Demographers may disagree on the population of the US at a certain instantaneous period of time, but that does not mean that an exact number did not exist.

Yes, because simple quantification is analogous to ethical philosophy. :roll:
jc6chan wrote:
So you ask "How can you demonstrate that crucifying kittens is immoral?" but the problem is that since you already have an opinion on morality, that means that a true set of morality exists somewhere out there. Why else would you have an opinion on morality? If no definite morality exists out there, why would you form an opinion on it (you are making a guess about what you think is the true set)? Do you believe that morality is somehow "fluid" and that a definite truth about it does not exist?

We have opinions on morality for the same reason we have opinions on anything else-
we're indoctrinated with cultural concepts almost from birth, and aside from a few variations here and there,
we largely stick to them. I've explained this three times. Even with people like me, with more radical beliefs, conclusions are only true GIVEN your personal emphasis on this or that imperative. My moral opinions are not "guesses at the true set"- No such thing exists, and if it does, you've yet to give evidence for it.

Repeating that an objective set of morality exists over and over and over ad nauseum does not make it more likely. I'll ask one final time for evidence-where is it?

I'm not gonna argue with you any longer. I don't see the point. However, I stand by my views.