If I were in a relationship (miracles do happen, people), I'd most certainly place some value on the signals I send. However, being the cool-headed, way too rational person that I am, I'd probably confront someone about not responding to my signals before I make any more decisive moves. I'd imagine it can be quite frustrating, though, if you keep sending signals and they get no response whatsoever. Kind of a downer.
I don't know how many signals I'd expect from the other person, but a few every now and then would be nice, you know. It's really very difficult, and can be frustrating (or so I imagine) if you had to guess everything about the relationship, you know. Sometimes, a little signal here and there just makes it that much clearer to you what would be a good or better thing to do rather than groping around in the dark (not that groping is a bad thing...mostly).
Hah, bluntness can be nice just as well as signals. There's a difference between 'I want to go see a movie' and 'I want sex'. I'd rather prefer a signal for the latter one. The first one could well be a signal, but I wouldn't be bothered if you just spat it out :P. Being blunt can come off as cold and unsympathetic, but then I always believed you shouldn't judge someone by the first few minutes you spend with them. If you're being blunt on purpose, that's a turnoff, but if you're 'blunt' because that's just the way you are, then I could hardly hold it against you (though, admittedly, it can be very difficult to talk/be with someone who's always 'blunt' about things. It varies from person to person, of course).
And there's always redeeming factors to get you back into the game, as with most things :). Don't asl me what those redeeming factors might be...I don't knwo you all that well :P.
I guess I just need to find people as blunt as me. It seems that the best relationship I could hope for is a completely open honest blunt and straightforward "I know what I want and I aim to get it and here's what I want" kind of thing. Sex would be the byproduct of the friendship. I guess I'm just not that into sex. ... yet. (I know those seem like non-sequiturs but that's only cuz they are.)
As for my other reeeming factors, I'm the Hulk. And.... I'm awesome? Duh
I don't like signals; I prefer bluntness. But I think it makes me come off as cold and unempathic. What do you guys think?
I can understand what you're saying. Though sometimes a little well used subtlety can be much more rewarding than bluntness. Use bluntness and subtlety when they're needed rather than setting up a policy of using one over the other.
this is slightly related to subtlety and bluntness: My friend Chris needed my advice about a friendship that was in trouble. Steve, a guy I've grown to like alot, wrote a fairly vicious post on Pojo(its the Yu-Gi-Oh equivalent of MTGS) lampooning the people there and then blatantly pointed the finger at Chris as one of the reasons he quit YGO. My feelings were hurt because I knew how badly Chris would take Steve's words and when we talked about it the first time I told him that Steve was becoming a young man(he's 20) and that growing up means letting go of some of the things you hold dear. I'd hoped he'd get the message that he too was still growing and that he had to change with the times. Yesterday I talked to Steve and learned everyone who read his rant took it out of context. He admitted he'd wanted to hurt Chris' feelings but that was all. He still wanted to be friends, as long as he and Chris came to an understanding about some things. I conveyed this message to Chris, who'd deleted Steve's number from his cell phone and uninstalled AIM to thwart any further communications, and he immediately said he had nothing to say to Steve. Which of course wasn't true. *lol* It became apparent to me that while Steve had moved on Chris was still upset about Steve's words and was not going to let it go. So I did what I seldom do, I gave him blunt advice. Chris is a really nice guy but is emotionally immature and extremely self-centered and I spelled that out for him. In Chris' world everyone is constantly thinking about him and judging him on everything he does. I told him flat out that most people, even people who love him, aren't immediately concerned with his every action. I told him not to view people as potential judges of his rights and wrongs but just as people. He seemed surprised but thoughtful. He actually thanked me for my advice. I know he likes me but due to some of the above circumstances it will never happen. Plus, he's too easily henpecked for my taste. I like my men with some sass and my women with no cloths.
Starring Lou Diamond Phillips and half of the supernatural super squad Jensen Ackles. Think I should go?
I hate you. I'd give my left nut to be within a hundred feet of Jensen Ackles. I'd be lying if I said that my drive to one day relocate to Vancouver had nothing to do with the fact that that's where that pretty, pretty man spends most of his year.
Go, take pictures, let me know if his clothes come off or anyone spontaneously combusts.
And I can't believe I missed a two-page conversation about promiscuity, one of the few subjects I could write a research paper on without ever cracking a book.
Needless to say, I'm promiscuous but I don't really beat people over the head with it. I don't go gloating to my friends when I score (in fact, several of my friends probably aren't even aware of just how often I have sex), I don't keep a running tally in my head of how many people I've slept with (it's just not something I put a lot of value on), and I don't see my promiscuity as a major character-defining trait (as I've noticed some do).
I think the morality of multiple sexual partners is kind of a sticky issue.
Already, we have two patterns of behavior under discussion. One is when someone meets up with a date/friend/other liaison and the two of them agree to have sex with no strings attached. They're both prepared to deal with whatever emotions or repercussions they might face afterwards, if any, alone, and are fine to just have that encounter together and leave it at that.
The other scenario is when someone hunts for sexual conquests (i.e. sexual partners as a matter of status).
Kraj actually mentioned a third one much earlier, in which someone manipulates potential sexual partners into having sex just to gain some pleasure, and then leaves their target to deal with what's left over with no responsibility paid to their own actions. But that's more like an added layer of context to the second scenario.
What makes the two different? It was implicated that the key was honesty - that as long as the partners are open about what they want from the beginning, there's nothing wrong with it. That is putting a moral stricture on having multiple partners - only do it so long as you are up front about it.
I think it's much deeper and more elemental than that. I think it's always wrong to use people - and as there are those who connect briefly, and simply do not have anything more afterward, there are also those that obtain sexual partners as if they were moving sex toys, elaborate masturbatory aids to get off on, then throw away. Certainly this is more basic than looking at sexual conquests as status symbols, and probably more common, and more likely to take multiple forms, only one of which is conquest-hunting.
Is is true that if you are sexually promiscuous, you must be treating your sexual partners as objects? No, not necessarily. Kraj, it strikes me that this is essentially the point you are trying to make.
I think much of the contention that is held against sexual promiscuity, dangers of pregnancy and diseases notwithstanding, is based on the observation that it's more common for people to callously use others for a thrill that it is for them to have open, respectful one-time encounters and not ask any more of each other (probably because it's more common for people to be callous than open and respectful).
Keep in mind, this also incriminates monogamous relationships in similar cases. Politically arranged marriages, couples wedded in order for one to get a child, for one to gain money, influence, etc, would also be excellent examples of people using others for their own ends. Long-term relationships certainly aren't good in their own right, as they too can be bad relationships and be full of manipulation and objectification.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
Are we starting a new thread when we reach 100 pages?
In the interest of brevity, since I'm tiring of this and I don't wanna clutter up the thread more than I have to, I'm not going to respond to everything, but mainly just the most important points...
Then it's also a subjective statement to say that science better describes reality than superstition - after all, measured values versus intuition.
Not all measured values are necessarily scientific. That's why I make that statement but I don't actually think any of the things you suggest I might as well think about science.
Just because you have a measured value doesn't make it more objective than an intuitive one, or better, etc. Now, it might be the case that it is, but there are other reasons for thinking that. Just as an example of a way in which someone might wrongly privilege measured values, you might take album sales to be a measure of how good an album is. But I think you would probably agree with me that that's just not true. And even if we were going to argue for an objective aesthetics, I think we would find that to be incorrect as well.
And so my point is that morality, like aesthetics, is not one of those things that can be equated to measurements. Whereas the things that science studies generally involve things that can properly be measured (and is descriptive, whereas morality is not descriptive).
I can't, and have not, said that my conclusion that we ought not to harm people is objective, merely that it is based on objective observations.
I guess you didn't read the part addressed to Mamelon, but I basically said that while you can make decisions within a framework based on objective information, it does not follow that the framework itself ought to be called "objective".
If I have this right, you are saying that "Morality" is utilitarian, and since utility can be objectively measured, Morality is objective. But yet it is subjective whether we should be moral.
But the problem is that if it's moral, then we should do it. That's why it's moral! Wouldn't it be nonsensical to say that there is an action that is moral, but yet we should not do it? How would that make any sense? By saying that it's a moral action, you are saying that we ought to do it (but it's not necessarily obligatory that we do it, that depends). If an action is immoral, then we shouldn't do it. It is likewise ludicrous to say that an action could be immoral but that it is the case that we should do it.
Morality is composed of ought statements. Which is why I brought up the is-ought problem. Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics are both trying to tell us what we should do.
Maybe you don't think that (altho I can't see for what reason), but in that case, the whole source of the disagreement is that you are just using the word "morality" in a way that disagrees with common usage. Maybe the reason you have the impression that your philosophy about morality is so unique is because you are using a definition that nobody else uses, eh?
Based on, what seems to me, is the most likely intent of the word (to refer to the consequences of actions), I've concluded that the objective definition of morality would most likely refer to an objective system of observing the impact of actions on others.
For one, that's merely an appeal to popularity, and can't be used to say much about the objective fact of the matter.
But here's a scenario:
There is a train speeding towards a group of five people, who can't move out of the way. You can change the path of the train, but if you do, it will hit another person. Most people (and I mean that a study found that most people, cross culturally, would say this) would say that you should kill just the one person. That is based on the consequences of course.
However, another scenario:
Still a train speeding towards five people. You can stop the train, but only by pushing another person into the path of the train (let's say that he's a really huge guy, and so he can stop it, but if you jumped in front of the train yourself, you wouldn't stop the train). Most people (from the same study) would say that it would be wrong for you to push the person in front of the train even if it would save those 5 people. This does not seem to be based on consequences, since you still have the choice between 5 people dying vs. 1 person dying.
So I can equally say that most people do not make moral judgments purely on consequences, as you are suggesting.
But morality doesn't necessarily tell us what we ought to do; ethics does. Morality is simply a description of the things that we do.
No, both morality and ethics are both concerned with things we ought to do. The difference can be defined in a couple ways, either ethics is a reflection on morality (e.g. the study of morality) or ethics is more societal/professional and morality is more personal. For example, ethics is commonly used in the context of professions, such as legal ethics, business ethics, etc. whereas morality would be used in the contexts of personal interactions outside of those situations where we have formally defined roles. So even tho it might seem immoral for a lawyer to defend a criminal he knows is guilty, legal ethics require that he defend him to the best of his ability because that is necessary for maintaining the justice of our legal system.
I have seen multiple ways to define the difference in different places. But nowhere have I ever heard it claimed that morality is not concerned with what we should do, while ethics is, and that is the difference. You are the only person who I've ever heard say that. Which is unsurprising, since you are the only person who've ever heard say that morality does not define what we should and shouldn't do.
Is assigning those impacts as "beneficial" or "harmful" subjective? No.
Ummmm... first you need to define "beneficial" and "harmful". You can give me a definition that relies on criteria that can be objectively measured, but I don't think that what those criteria are is necessarily objective.
Which is why, for example, we have hedonistic utilitarianism and desire utilitarianism - because the two basically disagree on what is "beneficial".
No, the phrasing is not off, which is what you seem to not get.
I just meant that the phrasing seemed awkward to me. I understood the sentence, and yet I still did not agree.
Really? You haven't shown how it's not.
Because simply there are other moral systems, and you haven't shown any objective reason to think that yours is correct. You have a greater burden of proof than I do in this case, I'm afraid.
You're trying to get away with this by using a wonky definition of morality, but if that's what it comes down to, then you're welcome to use your own nonce definitions, but I find it kinda stupid to win your argument that morality is "objective" by redefining "morality" and "good" and "bad" so that they no longer have anything to do with what we should do, which is contrary to the way everyone else uses the word.
Not to mention, that it seems nonsensical that morality doesn't say what we should do, but ethics does. Then you'd be supporting such ludicrous conclusions as that it is possible for it to be ethical to commit out only immoral actions.
A lot of the gay people I know are like that, too, so I imagine it's nothing new. It seems to me to be that they're just desperate to prove and reprove their sexuality-usually out of insecurity-so they try and collect 'em all.
Eh? Who sleeps with lots of people to prove their sexuality? I don't think that makes any sense - nobody sleeps with tons of guys to prove how gay they are, as far as I know.
On the other hand, I have heard of that with straight guys sleeping with tons of women to show how straight they are (in some cases, doing this because they might have homosexual desires themselves)... but that's a result of societal values on heterosexuality vs. homosexuality, I guess.
I've found this to be frequently the case. In fact, I'd almost say that the non-promiscuous homosexual is the exception to the rule.
I don't know whether to disagree with this since I'm not sure what counts as promiscuous. What counts as promiscuous with all you people?
Is it sleeping with a certain number of people in total? Or in a certain period of time? Is it when you sleep with people in a certain way? Is it a combination of the two? And of course, how many people does it have to be, etc.?
*is secretly trying to figure out whether he'd be considered promiscuous under people's definitions*
Are we starting a new thread when we reach 100 pages?
*is secretly trying to figure out whether he'd be considered promiscuous under people's definitions*
If we are then I have another 70 pages to go
and I wouldn't know if you're promiscuous or not. I feel that there are different levels of promiscuity to judge on. In the moment promiscuity and sexual behavior viewed as a whole are different for me. I think someone else might call you promiscuous if you've had sex with 20 guys in the past 2 years but the timelines matter and each sexual encounter matters for me. So maybe. Maybe not. But my opinion doesn't matter
Mike: Fine I'll go. I'll see if we're allowed to take pictures though I doubt it. If I do take pictures it'll probably be on my phone so you'll have to be able to accept multimedia messages from your phone. If I get his number I'll let you know
i just kinda skipped that whole discussion on being promiscuous. 'cause...i don't really have an opinion, haha.
I've been teaching my friend Molly how to drive. She took drivers ed in high school, but never took her test. so now she's re-learning everything, and doing extremely well. I'm so proud of her, 'cause she used to be afraid of driving.
Peter IMd and said he owes me a "serious apology". Lemme guess, he's sorry he led me on the other night when he made out with me? He'll probably treat me like i'm some kind of fragile thing, emotionally. I used to be. I'm not anymore. Yeah, i was confused as to why he did that even though he said he didn't see me that way, but i figured it was just something we both needed, and i've moved on.
I wouldn't object to it happening again, but it's not the end of the world if it doesn't.
I have his sweatshirt, though. He let me have it last night, 'cause it was cold as **** after it rained. It makes me smile, and i can't stop smelling it...Peter always smells so good.
and now i'm off to shower, take my brother to school real quick, drop him off, get my friend emalee, and go to a party. whew. busy day! plus my parents got a new mattress. it's way comfortable. i want!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know it seems that I don't care, but something in me does I swear.
[gaymers]
founder of the MTGS Forum Pirates
'tar/banner by R&Doom.
I am sick. My voice has died a horrible, miserable death.
Due to this, I have not been posting that much. Also, my grandmother is in town from Nova Scotia and I have been organizing university stuff, as well as my performance for Winnipeg Pride's coffeehouse.
I am sick. My voice has died a horrible, miserable death.
Due to this, I have not been posting that much. Also, my grandmother is in town from Nova Scotia and I have been organizing university stuff, as well as my performance for Winnipeg Pride's coffeehouse.
Busy busy busy....
And playing pokemon I've got 190 something pokemon now!
@: Tuatha: lol, I was just saying that it was kinda weird Kraj was taking pictures of random guys.
a.) I really only took the picture to show my boyfriend, sharing the fun of gawking and all. He wasn't there, so we couldn;t share our usual shameless drooling.
b.) ...why? Don't you look at pictures of hot guys? What's weird about it?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
a.) I really only took the picture to show my boyfriend, sharing the fun of gawking and all. He wasn't there, so we couldn;t share our usual shameless drooling.
b.) ...why? Don't you look at pictures of hot guys? What's weird about it?
The entire idea is just kind of cute slash humorous to me. Although maybe I'm just an outlier.
I was about to do a HGotW, but then it turned out really cheesy so I didn't >_>
srsly guys. the guy in that picture isn't terrible looking.
i've noticed over the past few days that i've become somewhat emotionally numb to everything going on around me. Like i've removed myself from the group without actually...removing myself.
I was at peter's for two hours last night, with molly. Peter has these little episodes where he's weirder than normal for a short while [a week, a month]. Molly decided to get under his skin about it for whatever reason....and then be a complete *****.
she made him cry. I was and still kind of am pissed at her. Driving him to the point of tears was completely immature and uncalled for, in my opinion. Seeing peter crying broke my heart, honestly. It's not because i like him, it's because i care about him, a LOT, and i hate to see him upset. I just want peter to be happy. I want molly to be happy.
so yeah. being angry and a little sad last night are really the only emotions i've felt in a while.
and i think i'm getting sick, instead of my allergies being worse than usual this year. hmm.
also, my recent addiction is this band called +44.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know it seems that I don't care, but something in me does I swear.
[gaymers]
founder of the MTGS Forum Pirates
'tar/banner by R&Doom.
Quote from blue »
Penes for everyone!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I guess I just need to find people as blunt as me. It seems that the best relationship I could hope for is a completely open honest blunt and straightforward "I know what I want and I aim to get it and here's what I want" kind of thing. Sex would be the byproduct of the friendship. I guess I'm just not that into sex. ... yet. (I know those seem like non-sequiturs but that's only cuz they are.)
As for my other reeeming factors, I'm the Hulk. And.... I'm awesome? Duh
I can understand what you're saying. Though sometimes a little well used subtlety can be much more rewarding than bluntness. Use bluntness and subtlety when they're needed rather than setting up a policy of using one over the other.
this is slightly related to subtlety and bluntness: My friend Chris needed my advice about a friendship that was in trouble. Steve, a guy I've grown to like alot, wrote a fairly vicious post on Pojo(its the Yu-Gi-Oh equivalent of MTGS) lampooning the people there and then blatantly pointed the finger at Chris as one of the reasons he quit YGO. My feelings were hurt because I knew how badly Chris would take Steve's words and when we talked about it the first time I told him that Steve was becoming a young man(he's 20) and that growing up means letting go of some of the things you hold dear. I'd hoped he'd get the message that he too was still growing and that he had to change with the times. Yesterday I talked to Steve and learned everyone who read his rant took it out of context. He admitted he'd wanted to hurt Chris' feelings but that was all. He still wanted to be friends, as long as he and Chris came to an understanding about some things. I conveyed this message to Chris, who'd deleted Steve's number from his cell phone and uninstalled AIM to thwart any further communications, and he immediately said he had nothing to say to Steve. Which of course wasn't true. *lol* It became apparent to me that while Steve had moved on Chris was still upset about Steve's words and was not going to let it go. So I did what I seldom do, I gave him blunt advice. Chris is a really nice guy but is emotionally immature and extremely self-centered and I spelled that out for him. In Chris' world everyone is constantly thinking about him and judging him on everything he does. I told him flat out that most people, even people who love him, aren't immediately concerned with his every action. I told him not to view people as potential judges of his rights and wrongs but just as people. He seemed surprised but thoughtful. He actually thanked me for my advice. I know he likes me but due to some of the above circumstances it will never happen. Plus, he's too easily henpecked for my taste. I like my men with some sass and my women with no cloths.
I hate you. I'd give my left nut to be within a hundred feet of Jensen Ackles. I'd be lying if I said that my drive to one day relocate to Vancouver had nothing to do with the fact that that's where that pretty, pretty man spends most of his year.
Go, take pictures, let me know if his clothes come off or anyone spontaneously combusts.
And I can't believe I missed a two-page conversation about promiscuity, one of the few subjects I could write a research paper on without ever cracking a book.
Needless to say, I'm promiscuous but I don't really beat people over the head with it. I don't go gloating to my friends when I score (in fact, several of my friends probably aren't even aware of just how often I have sex), I don't keep a running tally in my head of how many people I've slept with (it's just not something I put a lot of value on), and I don't see my promiscuity as a major character-defining trait (as I've noticed some do).
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Already, we have two patterns of behavior under discussion. One is when someone meets up with a date/friend/other liaison and the two of them agree to have sex with no strings attached. They're both prepared to deal with whatever emotions or repercussions they might face afterwards, if any, alone, and are fine to just have that encounter together and leave it at that.
The other scenario is when someone hunts for sexual conquests (i.e. sexual partners as a matter of status).
Kraj actually mentioned a third one much earlier, in which someone manipulates potential sexual partners into having sex just to gain some pleasure, and then leaves their target to deal with what's left over with no responsibility paid to their own actions. But that's more like an added layer of context to the second scenario.
What makes the two different? It was implicated that the key was honesty - that as long as the partners are open about what they want from the beginning, there's nothing wrong with it. That is putting a moral stricture on having multiple partners - only do it so long as you are up front about it.
I think it's much deeper and more elemental than that. I think it's always wrong to use people - and as there are those who connect briefly, and simply do not have anything more afterward, there are also those that obtain sexual partners as if they were moving sex toys, elaborate masturbatory aids to get off on, then throw away. Certainly this is more basic than looking at sexual conquests as status symbols, and probably more common, and more likely to take multiple forms, only one of which is conquest-hunting.
Is is true that if you are sexually promiscuous, you must be treating your sexual partners as objects? No, not necessarily. Kraj, it strikes me that this is essentially the point you are trying to make.
I think much of the contention that is held against sexual promiscuity, dangers of pregnancy and diseases notwithstanding, is based on the observation that it's more common for people to callously use others for a thrill that it is for them to have open, respectful one-time encounters and not ask any more of each other (probably because it's more common for people to be callous than open and respectful).
Keep in mind, this also incriminates monogamous relationships in similar cases. Politically arranged marriages, couples wedded in order for one to get a child, for one to gain money, influence, etc, would also be excellent examples of people using others for their own ends. Long-term relationships certainly aren't good in their own right, as they too can be bad relationships and be full of manipulation and objectification.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
I'm feeling better!
Cute boys and Seattle for me tomorrow, with a paycheck! :xd:
Just because you have a measured value doesn't make it more objective than an intuitive one, or better, etc. Now, it might be the case that it is, but there are other reasons for thinking that. Just as an example of a way in which someone might wrongly privilege measured values, you might take album sales to be a measure of how good an album is. But I think you would probably agree with me that that's just not true. And even if we were going to argue for an objective aesthetics, I think we would find that to be incorrect as well.
And so my point is that morality, like aesthetics, is not one of those things that can be equated to measurements. Whereas the things that science studies generally involve things that can properly be measured (and is descriptive, whereas morality is not descriptive).
I guess you didn't read the part addressed to Mamelon, but I basically said that while you can make decisions within a framework based on objective information, it does not follow that the framework itself ought to be called "objective".
If I have this right, you are saying that "Morality" is utilitarian, and since utility can be objectively measured, Morality is objective. But yet it is subjective whether we should be moral.
But the problem is that if it's moral, then we should do it. That's why it's moral! Wouldn't it be nonsensical to say that there is an action that is moral, but yet we should not do it? How would that make any sense? By saying that it's a moral action, you are saying that we ought to do it (but it's not necessarily obligatory that we do it, that depends). If an action is immoral, then we shouldn't do it. It is likewise ludicrous to say that an action could be immoral but that it is the case that we should do it.
Morality is composed of ought statements. Which is why I brought up the is-ought problem. Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics are both trying to tell us what we should do.
Maybe you don't think that (altho I can't see for what reason), but in that case, the whole source of the disagreement is that you are just using the word "morality" in a way that disagrees with common usage. Maybe the reason you have the impression that your philosophy about morality is so unique is because you are using a definition that nobody else uses, eh?
For one, that's merely an appeal to popularity, and can't be used to say much about the objective fact of the matter.
But here's a scenario:
There is a train speeding towards a group of five people, who can't move out of the way. You can change the path of the train, but if you do, it will hit another person. Most people (and I mean that a study found that most people, cross culturally, would say this) would say that you should kill just the one person. That is based on the consequences of course.
However, another scenario:
Still a train speeding towards five people. You can stop the train, but only by pushing another person into the path of the train (let's say that he's a really huge guy, and so he can stop it, but if you jumped in front of the train yourself, you wouldn't stop the train). Most people (from the same study) would say that it would be wrong for you to push the person in front of the train even if it would save those 5 people. This does not seem to be based on consequences, since you still have the choice between 5 people dying vs. 1 person dying.
So I can equally say that most people do not make moral judgments purely on consequences, as you are suggesting.
No, both morality and ethics are both concerned with things we ought to do. The difference can be defined in a couple ways, either ethics is a reflection on morality (e.g. the study of morality) or ethics is more societal/professional and morality is more personal. For example, ethics is commonly used in the context of professions, such as legal ethics, business ethics, etc. whereas morality would be used in the contexts of personal interactions outside of those situations where we have formally defined roles. So even tho it might seem immoral for a lawyer to defend a criminal he knows is guilty, legal ethics require that he defend him to the best of his ability because that is necessary for maintaining the justice of our legal system.
I have seen multiple ways to define the difference in different places. But nowhere have I ever heard it claimed that morality is not concerned with what we should do, while ethics is, and that is the difference. You are the only person who I've ever heard say that. Which is unsurprising, since you are the only person who've ever heard say that morality does not define what we should and shouldn't do.
Ummmm... first you need to define "beneficial" and "harmful". You can give me a definition that relies on criteria that can be objectively measured, but I don't think that what those criteria are is necessarily objective.
Which is why, for example, we have hedonistic utilitarianism and desire utilitarianism - because the two basically disagree on what is "beneficial".
I just meant that the phrasing seemed awkward to me. I understood the sentence, and yet I still did not agree.
Because simply there are other moral systems, and you haven't shown any objective reason to think that yours is correct. You have a greater burden of proof than I do in this case, I'm afraid.
You're trying to get away with this by using a wonky definition of morality, but if that's what it comes down to, then you're welcome to use your own nonce definitions, but I find it kinda stupid to win your argument that morality is "objective" by redefining "morality" and "good" and "bad" so that they no longer have anything to do with what we should do, which is contrary to the way everyone else uses the word.
Not to mention, that it seems nonsensical that morality doesn't say what we should do, but ethics does. Then you'd be supporting such ludicrous conclusions as that it is possible for it to be ethical to commit out only immoral actions.
On the other hand, I have heard of that with straight guys sleeping with tons of women to show how straight they are (in some cases, doing this because they might have homosexual desires themselves)... but that's a result of societal values on heterosexuality vs. homosexuality, I guess.
I don't know whether to disagree with this since I'm not sure what counts as promiscuous. What counts as promiscuous with all you people?
Is it sleeping with a certain number of people in total? Or in a certain period of time? Is it when you sleep with people in a certain way? Is it a combination of the two? And of course, how many people does it have to be, etc.?
*is secretly trying to figure out whether he'd be considered promiscuous under people's definitions*
If we are then I have another 70 pages to go
and I wouldn't know if you're promiscuous or not. I feel that there are different levels of promiscuity to judge on. In the moment promiscuity and sexual behavior viewed as a whole are different for me. I think someone else might call you promiscuous if you've had sex with 20 guys in the past 2 years but the timelines matter and each sexual encounter matters for me. So maybe. Maybe not. But my opinion doesn't matter
Mike: Fine I'll go. I'll see if we're allowed to take pictures though I doubt it. If I do take pictures it'll probably be on my phone so you'll have to be able to accept multimedia messages from your phone. If I get his number I'll let you know
Glad we all agree
Really? I don't see it O_o
I've been teaching my friend Molly how to drive. She took drivers ed in high school, but never took her test. so now she's re-learning everything, and doing extremely well. I'm so proud of her, 'cause she used to be afraid of driving.
Peter IMd and said he owes me a "serious apology". Lemme guess, he's sorry he led me on the other night when he made out with me? He'll probably treat me like i'm some kind of fragile thing, emotionally. I used to be. I'm not anymore. Yeah, i was confused as to why he did that even though he said he didn't see me that way, but i figured it was just something we both needed, and i've moved on.
I wouldn't object to it happening again, but it's not the end of the world if it doesn't.
I have his sweatshirt, though. He let me have it last night, 'cause it was cold as **** after it rained. It makes me smile, and i can't stop smelling it...Peter always smells so good.
and now i'm off to shower, take my brother to school real quick, drop him off, get my friend emalee, and go to a party. whew. busy day! plus my parents got a new mattress. it's way comfortable. i want!
I know it seems that I don't care,
but something in me does I swear.
[gaymers]
founder of the MTGS Forum Pirates
'tar/banner by R&Doom.
Due to this, I have not been posting that much. Also, my grandmother is in town from Nova Scotia and I have been organizing university stuff, as well as my performance for Winnipeg Pride's coffeehouse.
Busy busy busy....
And playing pokemon I've got 190 something pokemon now!
Cute boys were wonderous and plentiful.
This weekend is going well.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Ah, the magic of personal taste. Truly a marvellous thing.
I think they're mildy attractive. Not the hottest mine I've ever seen, but...
but the kind of thing that would make you turn around, take pictures, and gawk?
Maybe gawk a little, but not the other two.
I am not one to draw attention to myself.
Except by, er, randomly singing while I'm walking. But that's entirely different.
Maybe this will be mroe to your liking, then?
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
@: Kraj: Harsh
Because I'm like that.
Now I'm curious.
What sort of guy do you find attractive?
And what's unattractive about this guy?
a.) I really only took the picture to show my boyfriend, sharing the fun of gawking and all. He wasn't there, so we couldn;t share our usual shameless drooling.
b.) ...why? Don't you look at pictures of hot guys? What's weird about it?
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
The entire idea is just kind of cute slash humorous to me. Although maybe I'm just an outlier.
I was about to do a HGotW, but then it turned out really cheesy so I didn't >_>
Just out of curiosity, who has it going to be?
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
lol, it was about to be Eric Mabius, but I couldn't find any good pictures of him.
Ah, ok. I got the impression you were saying it was poor behavior for some reason. Cute/humorous works for me
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
i've noticed over the past few days that i've become somewhat emotionally numb to everything going on around me. Like i've removed myself from the group without actually...removing myself.
I was at peter's for two hours last night, with molly. Peter has these little episodes where he's weirder than normal for a short while [a week, a month]. Molly decided to get under his skin about it for whatever reason....and then be a complete *****.
she made him cry. I was and still kind of am pissed at her. Driving him to the point of tears was completely immature and uncalled for, in my opinion. Seeing peter crying broke my heart, honestly. It's not because i like him, it's because i care about him, a LOT, and i hate to see him upset. I just want peter to be happy. I want molly to be happy.
so yeah. being angry and a little sad last night are really the only emotions i've felt in a while.
and i think i'm getting sick, instead of my allergies being worse than usual this year. hmm.
also, my recent addiction is this band called +44.
I know it seems that I don't care,
but something in me does I swear.
[gaymers]
founder of the MTGS Forum Pirates
'tar/banner by R&Doom.