My english is better than that of conservative Americans

[Violet]

He's our new Pippy.

Every major forum has one..

I still miss pippy

We've gone too long without.

---

Sex is good for you. Gay sex, straight sex, it's all burns lots of calories. It's the best form of exercise. Also, lesbian sex really helps me with my upper body strength, which has never been my strong suit. And my stamina, because lesbians can go on literally all day.

So basically, I should never have sex... my body fat is on the line here!

---

Do you think there is any connection between ethics and correct human functioning? If not, doesn't that make your understanding self refuting and relavastic? Why not?

Depends on what 'correct' human functioning entails. Obviously... 'ethical' human functioning would require ethics... albeit: is this 'ethical' as in 'good' or 'ethical' as in 'possession of (any) moral principles'?

Why is health disconnected with moral goodness? Isn't the wrongness of murder connected to its effect on physical health? Do you think it is morally wrong to commit suicide? What about to intentional decrease the health of others?

Moral goodness as in 'being one's nature' or moral goodness as in 'X arbitrary observation of morality'? In the first case, it is not necessarily psychologically healthy to be not you. In the latter case, possessing moral goodness might go against oneself, which is psychologically unhealthy in many cases (though not necessarily all... depends on how 'health' is defined).

Murder isn't wrong, unless you make it wrong. If you have made it wrong, then it may or may not have an effect on physical health... though the impact is likely to be larger upon the psyche than upon the body.

I do not think it is morally wrong to commit suicide, although it is a selfish decision: it is sometimes the right one. Just as murder is sometimes the right decision. Value subjective, interpretations of 'right' and 'wrong' vary, foresight and knowledge pseudoscience and hindsight more of a murky 'I wish' than an observant answer.

In short: morality depends more upon on goal and presentation than anything else, and will vary within a single person as their situation changes.

If human life is intrinsically valuable, doesn't human life contain in it human health and make human health intrinsically valuable?

Not necessarily: depends upon the extent of 'life' you refer to. Immobile, unconscious, braindead, and sustained *just* enough to remain alive... and human health doesn't mean squat. If it's live human activity which is valuable, then their 'health' is likely to impact this. Cybernetics largely circumvents this.

Not that I'd agree that human life is intrinsically valuable, of course...

I think if you disconnect ethics from biology, you get something relativistic, unless you can define ethics on something unrelated to human physical characteristics.

Everything is relativistic, so it would make sense to not connect ethics to biology.

I can define ethics wholly separate from humanity... infact: I do.