| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
>
> > If it feels good, do it, is a claim of moral reletivism. I know that it's
> > too simplistic, so lets dispense with that 'cause I think we all agree that
> > having that as a driving force in your life could lead to all sorts of things.
>
> Not only do I think "if it feels good, do it" is a grand philosophy, I think
> it's the only philosophy. It's the one that we all follow every day, every
> time we make any kind of decision. You make the assumption that it must be
> short-sighted, but that's just a contrivance. I'm typing right now because I
> enjoy it. I've informally weighed all things and this is what I'm choosing to
> do. So I'm not willing to dispense with it.
Skin heads feel better if there are no coloured people around. 'If it feels
good, just do it' is *not* a grande philosophy.
I'm debating in this thread now because I enjoy it--the second I stop
enjoying it is the second I'm outta here, but until such time, 'woe unto you
to deal with me.'
I much prefer that wich was stated earlier, 'Do not do unto others that
which you do not want done unto you.' It pretty much covers my
libertarianist views.
> > My moral absolutes come from what can be best described as 'russian
> > roulette' philosophy--I can either play and hope I 'dodge the bullet', or I
> > can not play at all. For me, weighing what is 'won' by playing, i.e.
>
> That doesn't sound like morality to me, and certainly not absolute morality.
> it sounds more like an avoidance strategy. Which is fine. But not morality.
It's an allusion as to why I believe what I believe. My morals run parallel
what keeps me safe and happy. I am reminded of 'peer pressure' when I was
oh so much younger than I am now. I don't drink, but I don't care if other
people do drink. I tasted beer a long time ago and didn't like it. 'But',
they said, 'beer is an acquired taste'. Well, let me think--did I have to
acquire a taste for apple pie and ice cream? Out of all the things I
haven't tried, do I really have to acquire a taste for that which I have and
didn't like? I'll reiterate, I don't care if you drink--drink all you want,
that has *no* bearing on my life.
Further, more appropriate to this particular thread, why would I want to do
something that I feel is wrong for me? I have said you can do whatever you
wish with your life--it's *your* life. I believe that, since I have this
overwhelming ideal that my eros love, combined with my agape an the other
one that i can never remember how to spell properly, should be directed at
*one* person, to show her that, 'boy I care about you... boy I love you...
boy I think you're the greatest...', and if it's my belief that looking
elsewhere to satisfy my physical yearnings does not demonstrate that love,
why would I want to sleep around, even if she says it's okay?
My choice. My option not to. My allusion to put a vague concept into
concrete terms--Russian Roulette.
>
> > instant gratification of banging your neighbours wife, against what can
> > potentially be lost, i.e. your marriage, is no contest.
>
> that could be turned around thus: "Choosing not to swap partners, against the
> chance of losing your marriage when things grow stale, is no contest."
You could say that, and if you think that by sleeping around will inject
life into your relationship, again, all the power to you. I don't forsee my
relationship with my (future) wife (dating now) growing stale. How do I
know this? Well, first, I'm a pretty exciting guy (I create with LEGO all
the time and I enter robot competitions once in a while... oh, and I do
woodworking, love scuba diving, and I own my own submarine...) and I'm
dating a pretty exciting woman (loves camping, canoeing, hiking, biking...)
so I don't *foresee* too much staleness in our lives. If it happens, we'll
deal--as I'm sure if a marriage falls apart you'll deal. We'll all deal
with life as it happens, for if we can't, we don't move on.
> > No one can say to me that sleeping around has *no* consequenses, and even if
> > we rationalize it with 'Well, it's okay for all parties involved and we're
> > all virus free', we still cannot rationailize the impact of this lifestyle
> > over the course of our lives. Do we know how we're going to 'feel' when
> > we're 60? Are we 'better' people for sleeping around compared to those that
> > stayed in a faithful relationship?
>
> You can't say what the ramifications of _not_ boffing the neighbor's wife will
> be after 60 years either. You can't rationalize the impact of your lifestyle
> over the course of your life. Are we 'better' people for not sleeping around
> compared to those that did?
I can probably understand and handle the ramifications of *not* more than I
can understand *yes* to boffing--first, less variables involved, two people
instead of three, more time together developing a deeper bond, mor focus on
each other instead of distraction due to a third party. I mean, raise the
kids issue, that's just going to factor into the eq'n--for my way, then
couple + kid, your way couple + companion + kid. I mean, still less
variables my way.
Logic says the couple not sleeping around is a more solid relationship--less
external factors working into the eq'n.
>
> > The number one cause of broken? More than all the rest combined? 'He (or
> > she) cheated on me.' Yes then it's *not* consenting by all parties, but
> > just 'cause you can keep your willy in your pants unless your wife gives you
> > the 'go ahead', well, whatever... Dodging bullets. That's moral relativism.
>
> That's silly. You've essentially resorted to the argument: "well, because!"
No, I said that you sleep around and you run a greater chance of having
negative repercussions--not at all close to 'just 'cause'.
>
> > Teenage pregnancy, abortion issues, VD, STD's--moral relativism. I'm here
> > to help where I can.
>
> Me too! ;-0
>
> > Safe sex is a myth like the easter bunny and, what's more, everyone knows it
>
> That's absurd.
No, that's why they changed the name to safer sex. The HIV virus, it turns
out, can 'fit' thru the microscopic holes and cracks in latex. The sperm,
being so much bigger, is stopped, but not the AIDS virus--Doctors are now
using better gloves in surgery--why is that? And why hasn't that filtered
down to the condom manufacturer?
>
> > Y'know how *not* to get pregnant, wholeheartedly fer sure with no worries?
>
> Yeah, nail guys. Or women with hysterectomies. Or your preference, going
> without. But you could also nail just about anyone you please with a little
> caution and the chances of having children are damn near zero.
Damn near 0. I always like that--Well, this works 99 times out of 100.
Tell that to little melissa, who was the 100th, and who now, in grade 10,
has to deal with, what I consider, a fairly adult situation. And if you
want to reduce my point to just pregnancies, let me expand it for you so you
get my entire meaning...
Y'know how to *not* get pregnant *and* not run the risk of getting an STD
*and* not be considered easy *and* try to develop a deep respectful healthy
relationship with a significant other on top of all that?
None of that comes from Christian values. And all of that is subjective. A
woman who sleeps around *can* be considered easy. A person *can* get
pregnant from sex, even if the protection is used properly (studies show,
and as your point shows--unless operations, and I would like you to tell
little Mary at 16 that she should have a historectomy so she can have sex).
And *not* having sex may or may not lead to a more meaningful relationship
than having sex, I agree. That said, it's the law of averages and I choose
that which makes the consequenses nil and the gains the greatest.
>
> > Teach that to your kids along side the pill and condoms. I know I
> > will be mentioning it to mine.
>
> My son already knows where babies come from. His sister was born in our LEGO
> and game room.
Sex ed can be taught at a young age--I don't deny that--never said I did.
I'm going to be absolutely forthright with my kids about this very
subject--this is one thing we cannot cheat our kids on--teaching them and
giving htem *all* information so they can make their own decisions. My
point is that the second any school system, which seems to be forced to
teach sex ed 'cause it's statistially apparent that the kids are not getting
the talks at home, cannot talk about abstinence in the same manner as safer
sex 'cause 'dat dar smells of religin teachin's--we keep religin talk out of
our here schools now, y'hear?'
>
> > Can you imagine if, in this hypothetical world, say, somewhere down the
> > road, one of these women i slept with came knocking on my door with child in
> > tow? Well, I'm sure I'd love the child, but it shows that there are
> > consequenses, there are ramifications way down the road that we don't even
> > know about yet. None of this has *anything* to do with Christianity and God.
>
> There are possible negative consequences to every action or even to every
> inaction. You can't control them all. You just can't. Why do you think that
> the adverse posibilities of sleeping with many partners are worse or more than
> those associated with having a single parter?
You cannot understand and control all possibilities (which is something that
I have mentioned about a certain topic other than this), but don't you think
you should try to keep the risks down?
I did mention that you can sleep with whom you please. That said, there is
risk--you know there is--you don't deny there isn't. I don't say
unequivocably that you *will* have more consequenses if you sleep
around--but I don't need the bible, or Christianity, or anything else but
common sense to say that you will inherent more *risk* if you do. It's
already proven--the biggest cause of broken relationships--cheating, and you
might pose a hypothetical scenario where they don't exist, but in my reality
they do--STD's, and that little thing called the potential of pregnancy.
Those are the risks you face. Are they worth the instant gratification?
That ain't up to me to decide.
None of which bother me insomuch as walking up to my dad, or her dad, and
saying, 'Well, we're pregnant' before we walk down the aisle. That's *my*
big issue, is no one elses.
> Chris
This reminds me of the guy who wants to do something so badly, and you give
him a list of reasons not to, 9 of which are absolutely unequivocally
perfect, and one which you were just grasping. He says, 'oh that one is
false 'cause of this' so he writes off the other 9 *valid* reasons and goes
off and does what he wants anyway. Somehow I am reminded of the OJ Simpson
case right now.
I'm not stopping you. I say if it makes you happy... well, you know what I
believe. Just don't think your way is *better* than my way, that your
morals are superior to mine. That's what I want you to take away from this
discussion.
Dave
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) Not only do I think "if it feels good, do it" is a grand philosophy, I think it's the only philosophy. It's the one that we all follow every day, every time we make any kind of decision. You make the assumption that it must be short-sighted, (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
