you come back here as "ignatius". when he gets banned, you start "ethics", claiming to not be "prophex". "ethics" get's banned. you post as MOO (a second time), referring crash to a post by "ethics" by saying "I wrote".
why not just use your real account? And why try to hide who you are?
quote:I may have had one or two one night stands in my entire life. If I said I didn`t enjoy them, I would be lying. So why haven`t I had any more? simply put, I enjoy long term relationships even more. But other people may have different inclinations. I don`t feel the need to label their behaviour as immoral, though. If a couple decides to have a one-time-fling, how does that hurt me or anybody else? How could I honestly lable their behaviour as immoral?
That behaviour is immoral for a variety of reasons. You destroy any self-worth you had. You fulfill a basic animalistic tendency which is not of any worth. Mill calls these type of pleasures that all animals enjoy "lesser pleasures". I elaborate on that by saying they are indeed, lesser because he in fact did not refer to them as lesser in regards to their value. You do not actually love the person that you use. This degrades the value of love. By having a "one-time-fling" solely for immediate gratification and not founded on love you only hurt yourself. You make yourself sick. Someone told me ignorance is not bliss and for the sake of humanity I must believe it.
quote:No more than ice cream degrades the value of food. An occasional one-scoop stand isn't the end of the world.
This is not true at all. Granted, it takes a great deal of reasoning to understand this it is no excuse for this peddling of perversion. It is not okay for man to do good and bad. A truly good man has the knowledge, can measure the good and the bad and can never do wrong.
That`s not ut to you to decide. Every person has to decide by themselves what gives them self worth.
You fulfill a basic animalistic tendency which is not of any worth
Just your opinion. I, for instance, am very proud of being an animal.
Mill calls these type of pleasures that all animals enjoy "lesser pleasures". I elaborate on that by saying they are indeed, lesser because he in fact did not refer to them as lesser in regards to their value.
I couldn`t care less about Mill`s (who the heck is him?) opinion.
Besides being an instance of "appeal to authority" fallacy, what you said makes no sense.
You do not actually love the person that you use. This degrades the value of love.
There are many forms of love. Besides, love is stronger then you are implying.
By having a "one-time-fling" solely for immediate gratification and not founded on love you only hurt yourself.
Who are you to decide what`s hurtfull to other people? That`s their prehogative, not yours.
You make yourself sick
Someone told me ignorance is not bliss and for the sake of humanity I must believe it.
A completely irrelevant conclusion to your post. (which, by the way, is not entirely surprising...)
quote:Appeal to Authority- We often try to support our views by citing experts. This sort of appeal to authority is perfectly valid provided that the person cited really is an expert in the field in question.
"appeal to authority" fallacy? Judging that J.S. Mill is an authority on morality having fathered utilitarianism I guess I'm not guilty. Is this a joke? This is a joke. I'm discussing morality with people that are wanton about knowledge.
Your immorality will catch up on you.
Maybe, if you have time, you can mix the study of human knowledge in with your memorization of fallacies. Especially because you can't reason out the fallacy you incorrectly memorized.
I'm sorry fallacy cop I didn't mean to hurt your feelings if you were hurt. My tone in the previous post was a little judgmental. I'm not sure why I became so defensive. Well, you will see the flaw in your memorization.
I think I'm going to stop posting now at this point. Thanks for listening.
Mill is an authority on morality having fathered utilitarianism I guess I'm not guilty.
Sorry, but I just don`t buy that. Your arguments in these fora must stand on their own. Besides, as I pointed out, what you said made no sense. No external "Authorities" will change that. (May be you just misstyped?)
Is that all you could come up with against my previous post?
I'm discussing morality with people that are wanton about knowledge.
Your immorality will catch up on you.
Unecessary prsonal attacks. Your debating style isn`t doing much to further your points, in case you haven`t noticed...
The man that has the knowledge cannot do wrong. For the man that has the knowledge of pleasure and pain, good and bad will be able to measure the good and the bad of an action. This man will not succumb to the illusion of immediate gratification because he can measure the good from the bad wholly.
So, what you're saying is... as long as one knows what's good from bad, they won't do bad? That doesn't sound very correct.
And this "knowledge" that one needs to learn. You seem to be of the stance that everyone learns the same knowledge. I would agree that this is theoretically possible. Yet, in practice, I don't see how it could possibly work with any level of normally functioning society.
I mean, yes... if two people have the same knowledge, if they've learnt the same things... then yes, of course they are going to make the same decisions with that knowledge. That seems... trivial.
But, that's really the whole point. There are no two people who have the same knowledge. And it's that knowledge that shapes what we think is good and bad in the first place.
There cannot be more than one truth. If a culture believes good of the practice of suttee and another doesn't, it cannot be both right to some and wrong to others. Knowledge lends a discerning eye to man. Relativism destroys tolerance and the meaning thereof. Relativism is bullshit.
I agree that knowledge lends a discerning eye to man. But which man's knowledge is better, or true, as you put it? Is it only true when two or more people agree on it? That's the whole problem. Some people's knowledge will tell them something's wrong, another's will tell them something's right.
Maybe you're correct, and only 1 of them is true. Yet, how do we tell which one? More knowledge? Who's knowledge says which is correct?