(March 23, 2015 at 7:51 pm)Pandemonium Wrote: Everything up to and including personal beliefs, interactions within a social contract and 'society' per se, the law, friends, family.

We're not born with a set of morals, we learn them, and they are almost always informed by the context we live in. A hypothetical Christian town in western Europe 1000 years ago would have displayed vastly different behaviour concerning decisions on morality than the same town today, even taking the % of christians within that town as a given. That's not necessarily good or bad, it's just the context of the moment. Retrospective analysis can certainly bring light to a situation but it doesn't always enable us to understand it. Certain societal customs that existed then were different of those that exist today, and any analysis can often be clouded by today's perception of those actions. Again, doesn't make those actions right, it's just how it is.

Which I find it curious that some Judge the morality of the lifestyle of people that lived in 1500 b.c. by their modern context.

(March 23, 2015 at 7:51 pm)Pandemonium Wrote: You mentioned the milligram experiment. Do you think the results would be different between religious and non-religious demographics?

I don't know, what I can say however is that it is against the teachings of Christ to inflict pain upon a fellow human being. Someone participates in activities that are against their beliefs are what we call hypocrites.

(March 23, 2015 at 8:09 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: I don't know, what I can say however is that it is against the teachings of Christ to inflict pain upon a fellow human being. Someone participates in activities that are against their beliefs are what we call hypocrites.

So....are YOU saying the soldiers that fought in ww2 (who surely inflicted pain on others) were going against the word of Christ?

(March 23, 2015 at 8:09 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(March 23, 2015 at 7:51 pm)Pandemonium Wrote: Everything up to and including personal beliefs, interactions within a social contract and 'society' per se, the law, friends, family.

We're not born with a set of morals, we learn them, and they are almost always informed by the context we live in. A hypothetical Christian town in western Europe 1000 years ago would have displayed vastly different behaviour concerning decisions on morality than the same town today, even taking the % of christians within that town as a given. That's not necessarily good or bad, it's just the context of the moment. Retrospective analysis can certainly bring light to a situation but it doesn't always enable us to understand it. Certain societal customs that existed then were different of those that exist today, and any analysis can often be clouded by today's perception of those actions. Again, doesn't make those actions right, it's just how it is.

Which I find it curious that some Judge the morality of the lifestyle of people that lived in 1500 b.c. by their modern context.

Well that's where it's important to introduce some scope into it. Would I say that, say, raping a child is always bad. Yes, I wouldn't have any hesitation in defending it and neither I assume would many people who lived 1500 BC. there are many instances I think where a set of behaviours can seem universal, though naturally I still wouldn't infer a higher cause for that universalism but another common denominator (us, for one).

(March 23, 2015 at 8:09 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(March 23, 2015 at 7:51 pm)Pandemonium Wrote: You mentioned the milligram experiment. Do you think the results would be different between religious and non-religious demographics?

I don't know, what I can say however is that it is against the teachings of Christ to inflict pain upon a fellow human being. Someone participates in activities that are against their beliefs are what we call hypocrites.

Funny because really aren't you just conforming to the results garnered in the milligram experiment? The expierment's aim had nothing to do with the pain itself, which I'm sure you know.

(March 23, 2015 at 7:56 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: No idea how you figure that, Huggy, but expecting you to be able to accurately analyze anything at all is a stretch I suppose.

And to answer your question: no, you unbelievably black-hole-caliber-density motherfucker.

Wait, so a soldier is not immoral, yet they go against what you define as moral.

(March 23, 2015 at 8:11 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(March 23, 2015 at 8:09 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: I don't know, what I can say however is that it is against the teachings of Christ to inflict pain upon a fellow human being. Someone participates in activities that are against their beliefs are what we call hypocrites.

So....are YOU saying the soldiers that fought in ww2 (who surely inflicted pain on others) were going against the word of Christ?

Nothing wrong with fighting in a war, or defending yourself, were talking about purposefully inflicting pain on someone because you were told to.

I don't know why I even bother engaging with huggables anymore.

(March 23, 2015 at 8:19 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: were talking about purposefully inflicting pain on someone because you were told to.

-like soldiers do. Hell, that could be a brilliant working definition of soldiering right there.

Was gonna try pursuing that point Rhythm, but I just don't feel like wasting the effort.

I know, I know, I don't expect any more from this little diversion than the last.

(March 23, 2015 at 8:28 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(March 23, 2015 at 8:19 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: were talking about purposefully inflicting pain on someone because you were told to.

-like soldiers do. Hell, that could be a brilliant working definition of soldiering right there.

Soldiers engaging the enemy is actually the last resort, A soldiers purpose is to achieve the objective not kill people. it would be ideal If a soldier could take an objective without firing a shot.

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

(March 23, 2015 at 4:29 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: foxe's book of martyr's might be a good read for you then.

You clearly haven't faced death.

---

(March 23, 2015 at 4:35 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

(March 23, 2015 at 4:09 pm)Smaug Wrote: By the way, you only don't fear death in four cases:
- you're so old that you don't really care any more

Well, I'm only 35, so that can't be it.

(March 23, 2015 at 4:09 pm)Smaug Wrote: - you don't actually face it

I stared it down and welcomed it, so that can't be it.

(March 23, 2015 at 4:09 pm)Smaug Wrote: - you're a fool

Despite my history of stupid decision making, I'm pretty sure that's not it.

(March 23, 2015 at 4:09 pm)Smaug Wrote: - you're a fanatic or a berserk or otherwise brainwashed

Nope, nope, and nope, so that's not it, either.

Fear of death isn't as hard to override as you seem to think. All it takes is the devaluing of one's existence. Constant struggle can do that easily.

But what do I know. They tell me I'm mentally ill(probably another category for you).

There's actually another instance, as well: when you know that the lives of those you love, admire, and respect are in the balance.

There are some people in my life I will give my life for, and fearlessly -- my son, first and foremost.

Courage is often simply acting before thinking. That's as much as I know about the subject, too.

---

(March 23, 2015 at 4:42 pm)Smaug Wrote:

Quote:Fear of death isn't as hard to override as you seem to think. All it takes is the devaluing of one's existence. Constant struggle can do that easily.

Well, it's obviously not a normal, median state. And it depends on what struggle do you mean. If we're talking of a terminally ill patient or a deeply depressed person that may be it. But if we're talking about, say, people at war (that I've mentioned above) it's not a general rule. Even after months in wet, rat-infested trenches literaly filled with a smell of death people still wanted to live. And note that I don't as much mean some abstract fear death but more an almost animalistic fear of immediate death.

And then, too, when you serve in a life-threatening situation with brothers who you love even as they annoy the living shit out of you, with whom you share cigarettes and secrets you haven't told your brother or girlfriend back home -- that is a powerful bond, and it can and does inspire self-sacrifice up to and including putting your ass on the line for them.

I was never a combat troop, but as a firefighter, I would have died before letting down my brother firefighters. I feared the shame of facing them after failing them more than I feared dying. And I've never been fond of the idea of dying.

Rhythm was infantry, if I'm not mistaken -- ask him, he'll tell you the same goddamned thing, I bet.

---

(March 23, 2015 at 7:56 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Are you saying that soldiers that fought during world war 2 for example, were immoral? Because they would go against YOUR definition of being moral.

Sure, soldiers can be immoral. Even in WWII. Would you like a list of atrocities committed in that war?