(March 23, 2015 at 5:03 pm)Faith No More Wrote: None of which gets you any closer to proving I'm a fool.

Well, it wasn't my goal to start with.

Huggy74
Enjoy your popcorn while you can. It's a rare ocasion for you, I tell you

I know right, a real discussion cropped up and now you don't have to flush your turd Huggy. Bonus. Hand me that popcorn.

O'Kay. Let's sort it out now. I've improvidently made a general statement and had missed some important special cases in process. Thus I admit that my initial statement is inacurate and needs to be adjusted. How 'bout that

Maybe it could be incorporated into the first category. You don't put an overall positive value on your life anymore, this could be old age, illness, mental illness or any other reason.

(March 23, 2015 at 5:34 pm)robvalue Wrote: Maybe it could be incorporated into the first category. You don't put an overall positive value on your life anymore, this could be old age, illness, mental illness or any other reason.

Yes, I'd agree thaе it fits in along with terminal illnesses. There's another case that is kind of separate from those four which is that some people are less and some are more impulsive and sensitive and some can fall into the state of affect and do harm to themselves.

(March 23, 2015 at 3:55 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(March 23, 2015 at 3:53 pm)Judi Lynn Wrote: I prefer to die when my ticket at the deli counter of life is called. As for the accountability comment from another post...belief in a god has absolutely nothing to do with accountability. That's like saying that only religious people have morals.

It would seem someone missed the point.

How am I missing the point? The discussion seems to be wrapped up around several things including accountability, for one and death for another.
You're just being mean now.

(March 23, 2015 at 5:29 pm)Smaug Wrote: O'Kay. Let's sort it out now. I've improvidently made a general statement and had missed some important special cases in process. Thus I admit that my initial statement is inacurate and needs to be adjusted. How 'bout that

I'd say Huggy should take note.

Seriously, though, that's a refreshing rarity here.

(March 23, 2015 at 6:35 pm)Judi Lynn Wrote:

(March 23, 2015 at 3:55 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: It would seem someone missed the point.

How am I missing the point? The discussion seems to be wrapped up around several things including accountability, for one and death for another.
You're just being mean now.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to come across that way, the point I was trying to make is that spiritual people in general believe they are accountable for their actions to a higher power.

Not to say you don't have morals, you were just privileged to be brought up in a society governed by law and order. If for some reason an apocalypse happened and it's everyman for himself, do you hold onto what you deem moral? After all, when it comes to survival, who's to say what's moral? Is it immoral for a lion to kill a gazelle? why then would you consider it immoral to kill to ensure your own survival?

isn't that just survival of the fittest?

If you believe we evolved from the animals, then it was always intended for the weak to be rooted out.

Which means if you think you'll remain moral during an apocalypse, then you'll be among it's first victims.

Also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

Quote:The Milgram experiment on obedience to authority figures was a series of social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram. They measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts conflicting with their personal conscience

In this example, it doesn't take an apocalypse for people to abandon their morals.