(May 27, 2015 at 10:00 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(May 27, 2015 at 9:39 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: ... still waiting for an answer  ...

Has time to shit-talk a moderator, but won't answer posts made an hour ago ...

There are numerous posts in the thread to which he has not replied.  If your post was too pointed and troublesome for him, you may be favored with being ignored like others.

Of course, there are too many posts in the thread to expect him to respond to them all, which means that he has a ready excuse for not bothering with the most troublesome ones for him to deal with.

(May 27, 2015 at 10:05 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(May 26, 2015 at 10:41 pm)Kitty Galore Wrote: I believe I have morals, to be kind to other and that golden rule, I didn't get that from the bible. I was raised to treat people the way I would like to be treated. I help people when I can, sometimes I help too much, that could be considered bad by some. It is a pretty loaded question with too many directions to sum up, and it changes. I try to do no harm. That is as simple as it gets. Now, why? I don't want to do things that give me negative feelings, guilt, remorse, and anxiety. That is broken down to the most simple explanation. I don't need a book, but you can get all of the same moral stories from Grimm's fairy tales and My Little Pony. No god required.

The question is: How did we get this sense of right and wrong? Evolution doesn't suggest that males should be polite with females...it suggests that the strongest and most aggressive mate when and where they please. That's just "survival of the fittest", isn't it?

So, in light of that, WHY should men be good on their dates with women v. taking what they want simply because they can like our ancestors might have done a few thousand years ago?

Why does it have to just be men being good to women? Why can't the reverse also happen?

Every time i see OP posts its just a post with nothing significant to add with nothing of importance to read.
More or less like everyone has been saying why bother posting if you are just going to post and dump and then when
we get your attention its just why bother.

(May 27, 2015 at 1:07 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: The answer is because it does not please me to be a shitty person. I have feelings and emotions and empathy. I do not want to cause harm. It makes me feel good to do good. So I try to do good as much as I can.

The question this begs is a big one, Randy, and one I'd like you to answer. Is the only reason you try to be a good person because of the fear of recompense? If you didn't fear hell, would you magically desire to rape and steal and lie all the time?

Mike-

Do you try to show up for work on time every day because if you don't you might get fired or lose a pay raise? We ALL act out of fear of the stick sometimes, don't we? Not always, but sometimes? Did you ever go to class to avoid failing even though you were hung over? Or take out the trash because you didn't want her going to bed mad at you when you had "plans"...if you get my drift?

I'm not dodging your question, but I think answering it on a personal level would take this thread in a very different direction.

So, I have to steer it back this way: if (hypothetically) if someone is going to scratch and claw his way to the top of the company ladder or get elected president or seduce the hottest woman in the room, etc., and these things are in his best interest, why shouldn't he prove or exert his dominance by taking that job, that woman, etc. regardless of how he does it?

Don't the strongest survive and weakest die off?

And if it is in the best interest of the strongest individual or society or nation, etc, to subjugate another individual or nation in some manner, so what? 

Why be good when outweighed by the advantages of being bad?

Quote:Why be good when outweighed by the advantages of being bad?

Where do your pervert priests and the hierarchy that enabled them fit into your little bullshit dissertation?  Are they supposed to be the moral "leaders?"

Methinks you are full of shit, Randy.

(May 27, 2015 at 10:53 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Why be good when outweighed by the advantages of being bad?

Where do your pervert priests and the hierarchy that enabled them fit into your little bullshit dissertation?  Are they supposed to be the moral "leaders?"

Methinks you are full of shit, Randy.

I'm agreeing with you on that. No one should really ask why be good its common sense why you should be. 

(May 27, 2015 at 10:09 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:

(May 27, 2015 at 10:00 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Has time to shit-talk a moderator, but won't answer posts made an hour ago ...

There are numerous posts in the thread to which he has not replied.  If your post was too pointed and troublesome for him, you may be favored with being ignored like others.

Of course, there are too many posts in the thread to expect him to respond to them all, which means that he has a ready excuse for not bothering with the most troublesome ones for him to deal with.

I expect an answer to my points, and I don't really care what excuses he might have for not doing so. The fact that he's going out of his way to write a couple hundred words taunting someone while ignoring substantive posts removes his excuse.

(May 27, 2015 at 9:46 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Jenny-

If morality is purely a social construct, would you have a problem with a society that requires that widows be burned on their dead husband's funeral pyres like the Hindus required? Would you object to Muslim society in which little girls are subjected to genital mutilation?

These practices were/are agreed to by the majority if not unanimity of these cultures. Who are we to impose our values on them?

You forget that I live in and have been educated in a particular society and largely share that societies morality.  So yes I have strong objections to both genital mutilation and burning widows on funeral pyres.  But the people who live in those countries might not, yet they consider themselves to be moral.  Obviously the standard is subjective.

However, a subjective standard does not mean one can't argue that one set of morals is better than another.  It's just the the appeal can't be made to a higher authority such as god.  By the way, you do realize that both of these objectionable practices are at their roots religious practices.

To make this more broader why shouldn't i punch you OP its pretty much the same thing as why be good.
So give me a reason why shouldn't i punch you or why you shouldn't punch anyone?

(May 27, 2015 at 10:53 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Why be good when outweighed by the advantages of being bad?

Where do your pervert priests and the hierarchy that enabled them fit into your little bullshit dissertation?  Are they supposed to be the moral "leaders?"

Methinks you are full of shit, Randy.

Oh, but he doesn't support them. He only continues to donate to the Church, and defend their practices online (and presumably in person), and ... uh ... never mind.