Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Well?

*Edited in the hope that mattador will stop posting randomness.*

Gold stars are overrated.

I like 'em.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I like 'em.

Platnium is in, haven't you heard?

*flashes grill and exposes platinum stars on his teeth*

BooYah!

Man.

Ignoring that.

There is obviously a subtext to this thread, which I'm sure someone (else) will notice.

Rape? of course it is wrong.
I can't really see how could anyone see it otherwise.


and mesliteral so if i got the topic wrong, sorry. and not gonna bother anyone anymore

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Well?

*Edited in the hope that mattador will stop posting randomness.*
Man when I saw this thread title I HAD to come. Asking if rape is wrong is like asking if murder is wrong..and in few, but some cases...even rape is fatal.
Asking a question like this makes me wonder about the thread poster...VVD...

So far nobody has noticed this subtext thing

Care to give us a hint?

What do you mean by "rape"?

Originally posted by BackFire
What do you mean by "rape"?

Ooh, so close. Half a star.

I was thinking about 'wrong'.

Im still waiting to understand...surely it doesnt mean what it seems to mean...

Okay...what do you mean by "Wrong"?

Originally posted by BackFire
Okay...what do you mean by "Wrong"?

That's actually more what the thread is about. It would have been a boring title though.

Ethics.

What do you mean by "ethics"?

Now I'm just ****ing around.

Dude, come on. A little maturity. You're a mod.

Why are you being one of the people who are purposefully ruining this thread? Talk about setting a bad example.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Dude, come on. A little maturity. You're a mod.

Why are you being one of the people who are purposefully ruining this thread? Talk about setting a bad example.

-AC

Oh, well excuse me all to hell for joking around. I guess I forgot mods weren't allowed to mess around in any way.

Lol, lmao, and various other meaningless laughter-conveying acronyms.


Anyway, by calling the thread that, someone was bound to reply:

Originally posted by DanieLs_4_Ever
Man when I saw this thread title I HAD to come. Asking if rape is wrong is like asking if murder is wrong.

Of course Clovie replied literally too, for which I'm thankful (for once).

These kind of views seem correct, but why is rape (or other crimes) wrong?



Note in advance, 'it just is' isn't an acceptable counter.

Typing 'it just is' humourously, because I said that, is also unacceptable.

This, of course, was not implied in my post.

What was implied was the fact that after posting three times in reply to VVD you could at least make an attempt to contribute to the thread instead of "f*cking around".

Anyway: I personally think the wrong aspect of rape is the forced intercourse, the physical attack. I don't think it's wrong to find forceful sexual behaviour arousing.

-AC

I wouldn't like being raped, so it is wrong. (subjective opinion)
and as well it is both a sin and a crime.


I guess I was literal and idiotic again

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri


Anyway: I personally think the wrong aspect of rape is the forced intercourse, the physical attack.



Yes, obviously.

What makes it 'wrong' though?

Sins don't apply to athiests or agnostics.

There are many things that don't make a rape court case straight forward. Like was the man lead on etc. More or less, the only thing I have a problem with is the forced physical attack and the mental upset that follows (or can follow). Some men, or even women, fantasise about rape without ever wishing to experience it.

Edit to VVD: In my opinion, the common aftermath of the event, the forcing of a human to partake in something that some believe to be quite a personal act, against her/his will.

-AC

It depends if the victim wanted to be raped.

It doesn't, because then rape doesn't exist.

-AC

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Well?

*Edited in the hope that mattador will stop posting randomness.*

Like I clarified, the thread isn't about 'rape', it's about 'wrong'.

We will get there sooner or later, though.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Well?

*Edited in the hope that mattador will stop posting randomness.*

Yes it is....

Originally posted by Solo
It depends if the victim wanted to be raped.

I wouldnt call that rape

Rape is forced against someone's will

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Like I clarified, the thread isn't about 'rape', it's about 'wrong'.

We will get there sooner or later, though.

What is your view on this then

My initial two posts were contributing to the thread by trying to deduce what the said subtext was. My last post was just a harmless joke, which I made clear. You insinuated that my joke was "ruining the thread" even though it took nothing away from it. Don't like a response that had nothing to do with you? Tough shit, your pointless knee jerk response took far more away from the thread then my admitted joke and only further contributed to off topic discussion. Next time, try ignoring the response you don't like unless there's actually something wrong with it or unless your statement has some validity or relevence in some way or another.

Rape is wrong because it's a brutal act that forces one person to submit to the will of the other in a sexyal manner, sex is something that should be consentual, not forced and violent.

Originally posted by BackFire


Rape is wrong because it's a brutal act that forces one person to submit to the will of the other in a sexyal manner, sex is something that should be consentual, not forced and violent.

Ignoring (hopefully as others will) the off-topic part:

That does sum up our opinions towards the wrongness of rape.

What I am nudging towards is more like 'what makes something "wrong", when "wrong" is clearly a subjective moral judgment'.

is the premise of this thread that some are turned on by a rape scenario? well there is a difference in cases.

in most cases the turnon is forcing someone to release their inhabitions.
you see this alot in movies and novels. the woman has reason to not have sex but really wants to, so the guy grabs her and forcefully kisses and gropes her until she gives up trying to resist. but the problem: thats not really rape imho. sure some courts would consider it rape, and i think its wrong to behave in such a manner, but the point is that the end result is mutual stimulation. i never found that shit to be a turnon, but some do and who's to stop 2 consenting adults from acting that out?

but to me, true 'rape' is the forcing of one willing party onto another who is completely unwilling....a violation. completely evil.

is that where you're loonking for the line?

and please, to anyone who is tempted, lets please not turn this into yet another "morality is just made up, so it doesnt exist, so nothing is really immoral" thread, because that shits getting way too old and pointless.

I don't believe wrong is always subjective in a valid way. Some people may not find murder of the innocent "wrong", though it is. I believe there are extremes that ARE wrong according to any sense of valid human logic. Rape is one such extreme where, no matter what, using any form of sound reasoning, it is wrong.

I didnt think Id be thinking on such a deep level tonight ...I see what it is but Im having a hard time putting into words what makes 'wrong'...be wrong.

maybe its because....we as humans have a 'heart' and dont want something bad happening to ourselves or orthers...and we see the said crime as ...wrong

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom

What I am nudging towards is more like 'what makes something "wrong", when "wrong" is clearly a subjective moral judgment'.

When someone does something that compromises someone else's physical and/or mental state.

I agree but even then it is subjective. It's not absolute by any means (and I'm not condoning rape, for idiots reading this).

Though many rape court cases aren't just "You raped her. I sentence you to 5 years in prison." Because there are other factors. As always, mental state, provocation etc.

Whilst I can only express extreme puzzlement and be disturbed by someone who calls straight forward rape anything other than wrong, it is still up to them in their mind to decide what they believe is wrong or right.

-AC

There are other factors which contribute to HOW wrong it is. But, regaurdless of other possible factors, the act of rape is still an act of wrong doing. The degree may be subjective, but I think the act will always be wrong by use of any sound reasoning or logic.

I do agree with you. Just saying that all we will be able to do, ever, is say "It's just wrong. Here's why *loads of reasons*". To which case someone COULD (despite it being rather disturbing) just say "It's not wrong."

I think that's what VVD meant by asking what makes something 'wrong' when 'wrong' is subjective moral view. The closest we can get is, as with murder and rape, a worldwide agreement that it is wrong, with laws against it. It will never be factual.

-AC

Well, someone could say that, but unless they're able to back it up in some reasonable way, or by use of valid logic, then they would be just as wrong as the act is.

Is there a logical argument for rape being right?..I seriously doubt it...there is something so wrong about rape, on a deeper level than just a moral one...

Originally posted by BackFire
Well, someone could say that, but unless they're able to back it up in some reasonable way, or by use of valid logic, then they would be just as wrong as the act is.

It doesn't make us any more able to prove them factually wrong though.

Fi, that's the idea. Why? Nobody can say, or so it seems.

-AC

WHAT KIND OF QUESTION IS THAT IS RAPE WRONG

I gave my opinion and other then that...I cant put into words why its wrong. seems like its one of those ideas you can merely think on and try to explain which in turn looks like a verbal dance.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It doesn't, because then rape doesn't exist.

-AC

It was merely a joke.

Originally posted by Fianna
Is there a logical argument for rape being right?..I seriously doubt it...there is something so wrong about rape, on a deeper level than just a moral one...

I believe this is true. I think many people may have numerous thoughts and beliefs as to why, beyond a moral level, it is wrong. I'll give a shot at why I think it is.

There is something eerily animalistic about the act of rape. It's a human giving in to his deepest, darkest primal and evilurges of rage, hate and sometimes, sexual desires. It's shitting on everything civilized humans like to think we stand for. It throws human dececy to the wind, it shits on society by shunning it's commonly accepted standards, and it destroys the life of another human being in ways that are arguably worse then death. All in one fast, cruel and ever living moment of pure animal hatred and fury.

Then someone could say "It's just me wanting to get laid, nothing more."

I would call them morally wrong, but I can't prove it.

-AC

I can't think of a solid argument of why rape is wrong without relying on opinion.

I think an understanding of the word 'wrong' can be deduced by (hypothetically) applying the particular action to yourself. If the action is deemed painful, intrusive, absuive and therefore undesirable, then it is safe to say that it is 'wrong'. A general maxim to live by is one even 'God' got right: "Do unto others as you would have done to yourself"...Obviously, this doesn't apply to masochists.

As a side note, I love the condescending nature of most of your threads. It tickles me.

There's nothing wronge with rape. It's just another kind of music, like rocke, countrye, jazze, even classicale.

Quite funny, must admit.

-AC

'a_e' = Long 'a', which has the phonetic sound . Therefore, your pronounciation is all 'wrong', kid.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
I think an understanding of the word 'wrong' can be deduced by (hypothetically) applying the particular action to yourself. If the action is deemed painful, intrusive, absuive and therefore undesirable, then it is safe to say that it is 'wrong'. A general maxim to live by is one even 'God' got right: "Do unto others as you would have done to yourself"...Obviously, this doesn't apply to masochists.

That's the problem with that view, some people would have it 'done unto' them.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo

As a side note, I love the condescending nature of most of your threads. It tickles me.

Are you sure you know what that word means? It's pretty long.


I'm not normally being condescending, I just like to layer things. It usually works like a mirror.

A lot of people seem to espouse the view that things are just wrong because they are. This tends to end up in circular logic.


By the way, this isn't referring to rape specifically, but anything deemed 'wrong'.

It's an interesting area because concepts of right and wrong are as faith-based as religion, yet they are viewed as unimpeachable.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
That's the problem with that view, some people would have it 'done unto' them.

In the context of rape, someone couldn't want to have it done to them. I think the label of something being 'wrong' is judged by a consensus.



Are you flirting with me, boy?



I don't believe you! You just like to sit back and enjoy the moron show. I've noticed you explicitly highlight what you're looking for, yet still the clowns parade...

This thread is about society and its conventions...

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
In the context of rape, someone couldn't want to have it done to them. I think the label of something being 'wrong' is judged by a consensus.

True, rape requires lack of consent. I'm not really referring to rape specifically though, just general 'wrongness'.


Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo

Are you flirting with me, boy?

So very wrong.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo

I don't believe you! You just like to sit back and enjoy the moron show. I've noticed you explicitly highlight what you're looking for, yet still the clowns parade...

If you build it, they will come.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
It's an interesting area because concepts of right and wrong are as faith-based as religion, yet they are viewed as unimpeachable.

Only from within a specific society. From an anthropological perspective, shared ethics are the glue that holds the world together. However, as globalisation continues, the friction between the different ethics of particular societies threatens to tear the world to pieces.

Like I said earlier, 'wrong' and 'right' are based on a universally agreed idea. Which, regardless of how widespread, doesn't result in an absolute.

-AC

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Only from within a specific society. From an anthropological perspective, shared ethics are the glue that holds the world together. However, as globalisation continues, the friction between the different ethics of particular societies threatens to tear the world to pieces.

Maybe it'll be the death of globalisation.

If it is universally agreed, then it is an absolute. I don't agree with that, rather I believe it is a consensus within a society.



It would seem incredible if it did result in this, but what other alternative is there? The death of the world? Probably not...

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo

It would seem incredible if it did result in this, but what other alternative is there? The death of the world? Probably not...

I think the socio-cultural barriers will prove impenetrable, even though economic elements seem to continue unbridled.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I think the socio-cultural barriers will prove impenetrable, even though economic elements seem to continue unbridled.

This could be true, but I think the lust for lucre will prove to be irresistible.

Look at the relationship between China and 'The West'...Here is a communist, authoritarian state dealing with capitalistic democracies. You have the US president exposing the virtues of freedom and his crusade to defend it, while at the same time he refuses to actively promote Taiwan independence.

Bringing the thread back into focus, I think I'm saying that shared ethics are dilluted by economic increase. However, some radical factions within these countries can cause large-scale disruptions. Therefore, what is considered 'wrong' can evolve through prosperity and greater integration with the wider world, but resistance can be all too turbulent.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
This could be true, but I think the lust for lucre will prove to be irresistible.

Look at the relationship between China and 'The West'...Here is a communist, authoritarian state dealing with capitalistic democracies.



Maybe. Capitalism always seems to be the logical apotheosis of economic systems. However that's a whole other topic.



Do people think 'right' and 'wrong' exist independently of our conceptions of them, or do we imbue them with their value?

it is wrong overall

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Do people think 'right' and 'wrong' exist independently of our conceptions of them, or do we imbue them with their value?

I think that it will always come right down to independent conceptions unless it is something reasonably clear cut. In which case there will still be the people who believe the opposite.

(I just got your text. Mug, actual mug)

-AC

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Yes, obviously.

What makes it 'wrong' though?

It's forced, non-voluntary. It's a form of slavery.

IMO, when people start to question whether or not "right" and "wrong" exist as moral absolutes, they are engaging in (among other things) moral relativism (one of those "other things" could be rationalization). "There are no moral absolutes." But then, they've just contradicted themselves by stating one. In other words, there is no such thing as moral relativism.

The physical world has absolutes (eg, conservation of mass, speed of light); the biological world has absolutes (self-preservation); so does the mental-symbolic world (principles of math and logic). It would seem inconsistent to state that there are no moral absolutes.

(Of course, if you believe in a spiritual dimension to reality, then to stay consistent there are spiritual absolutes, in which case there exists - among other things - a "Higher Authority" which establishes what is right and wrong. But, with respect to atheists, we don't have to go there at the moment).

One could argue that moral absolutes (independent of Spiritual Authority) are defined as those by which a society prospers, not just in terms of material wealth (perhaps least of all in material wealth), but in compassion, adaptation, longevity, between its members and with other societies as well as with its physical environment. "Murder is wrong" would be an obvious example. Any society which sanctions murder will bring perhaps short-term material gain, but also eventual extinction. I'm no historian, but I think history does bear this out. Witness most recently the extinction of the Soviet Union, the second most powerful politico-military entity ever to exist.

True, nothing lasts forever. But respect for What Is Not Me brings us closer to that than anything else.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled program...

I pretty much agree with Mr. Ship here. The thread starter is clearly just trying to assert the idea of moral relativism, which is one that I, and many others, simply reject.

But if you want to be literal about it- the view of society and democratic judicial pricess is what makes it wrong.

If you want to define 'wrong' purely as a concept then I'll move this to Philosophy.

BTW, that was a very awkward start to the thread and a poor way to introduce the idea. I recommend not making potentially offensive thread titles like that again, thankyou.

Actually, during most of human history, rape was acceptable during war, for example when enemy city was conquered.

Accepted is different from acceptable, odd as that may seem.

But in any case the question refers to today.

Well, there are still some countries in Africa where rape is not a crime, I heard, by some customs you can marry a woman by raping her.

And there is the matter of Islam countries- in large number of them raped woman can be killed for bringing the family dishonor.

Morality is based on society, though some values are universal.

Moral relativism..oh great..another one of those everything is "shades of gray" arguments. What the hell have you people been smoking. There is right and wrong. Black and White. We don't live in a world that's full of "relativity." We live in a world full of "absolutes."

What makes something wrong, well from a Christian Philosophical perspective..I believe it's self indulgence. Anything done by an individual for the purpose of pleasing one self..and not helping or pleasing others is wrong. Simple as that. Now stop the daydreaming people...and get that 70's hippie hazelike-demonic mentality, out of your heads.

Damn ellitist spoiled little rich people..don't have anything to worry about, so they make up stupid philosophies about "moral relativism" to justify any type of inhumane/evil action that their heart desires. How about I put one of you in an inner city prison, and have you get a-raped by some big Brotha. Then maybe you'll be drawn into reality..and realize the silliness behind the concept of "moral relativism".

Fin..or is it?

A tiny bit of moral relativism may be healthy, since it teaches us distance towards ideology, especially fanatical ideology. But we need to follow the fundamental values of our society, otherwise we will suffer. People are rational on some level, those rules exist for a reason.

Completely wrong.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Moral relativism..oh great..another one of those everything is "shades of gray" arguments. What the hell have you people been smoking. There is right and wrong. Black and White. We don't live in a world that's full of "relativity." We live in a world full of "absolutes."

Claiming there is right and wrong, black and white and a world FULL of moral absolutes is almost as bad as claiming nothing is wrong or right. Because at least it can be discussed. If you created a thread saying "There is no relativity to morals" it would be killing itself wouldn't it? Yes.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
What makes something wrong, well from a Christian Philosophical perspective..I believe it's self indulgence. Anything done by an individual for the purpose of pleasing one self..and not helping or pleasing others is wrong. Simple as that. Now stop the daydreaming people...and get that 70's hippie hazelike-demonic mentality, out of your heads.

Perfect. Another one of "those". Your view of wrong and right is heavily based on the belief that pleasing yourself is wrong (one of the worst logic patterns ever) and pleasing others before yourself (not your responsibility) is right. I don't believe that. So your "simple as that" theory now doesn't seem so simple. It's my life, why should I not indulge myself? Why should I spend my time trying to please others? By no means am I saying rape is right or murder is right or anything like that, just trying to show you how silly your point is. Because let's not be confused into believing it's anything other than silly to say "wrong" is self indulgence.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Damn ellitist spoiled little rich people..don't have anything to worry about, so they make up stupid philosophies about "moral relativism" to justify any type of inhumane/evil action that their heart desires. How about I put one of you in an inner city prison, and have you get a-raped by some big Brotha. Then maybe you'll be drawn into reality..and realize the silliness behind the concept of "moral relativism".

Fin..or is it?

Stop being a moron. He wasn't trying to justify anything evil, he stated his purpose multiple times.

You have no place talking about "reality" or realistic views Mr. You aren't allowed to indulge yourself without indulging others first.

-AC

People playing and juggling words.....nothing more.

I don't remember Deano's David Icke lizard men threads ever getting as much negative feedback. Perhaps people would prefer those threads.

-AC

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Well?

*Edited in the hope that mattador will stop posting randomness.*

Depends is it wrong when a bunch of English noblemen rape Scots who have just been married if there is a law giving them the right?

What about the Romans?

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
Depends is it wrong when a bunch of English noblemen rape Scots who have just been married if there is a law giving them the right?

What about the Romans?

Well then if there is a law that permits forced intercourse, it's not legally wrong. I'd still think it's morally wrong because of reasons already stated.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Well then if there is a law that permits forced intercourse, it's not legally wrong. I'd still think it's morally wrong because of reasons already stated.

-AC

morally wrong? There is no such thing different people can have different morals!

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
morally wrong? There is no such thing different people can have different morals!

What? You just....wait what?

Of course different people can have different morals.

-AC

Err explain the "What? You just....wait what?" spasm.

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
Err explain the "What? You just....wait what?" spasm.

You just made a nonsense post. I was very baffled as to what you meant.

"morally wrong? There is no such thing different people can have different morals!"

-AC

Yup i Can see how that could be interpreted wrong.

I didn't interpret it wrong, I didn't interpret it at all.

Did you mean:

"Morally wrong? There is no such thing. Different people have different morals"

Or something else? Because if it IS the latter, you countered yourself.

-AC

Originally posted by Ushgarak


BTW, that was a very awkward start to the thread and a poor way to introduce the idea. I recommend not making potentially offensive thread titles like that again, thankyou.

I felt people would discuss it with some perspective, having a difficult idea foregrounded within the debate.

Point taken though. If people can't see beyond the obvious, I guess it's up to everyone else to indulge them. Seriously though, I could have used 'crime', I admit.

I was touching on moral relativism, so move it if you wish. I forgot about the philosophy forum.

I do feel it is interesting how fervently moral relativism is opposed, with few actual refutations bar 'there is right and wrong'.

I don't really subscribe to moral relativism, but I'm not fully convinced by the opposing argument either. It's too nebulous for my liking.

Originally posted by Mindship

One could argue that moral absolutes (independent of Spiritual Authority) are defined as those by which a society prospers, not just in terms of material wealth (perhaps least of all in material wealth), but in compassion, adaptation, longevity, between its members and with other societies as well as with its physical environment. "Murder is wrong" would be an obvious example. Any society which sanctions murder will bring perhaps short-term material gain, but also eventual extinction. I'm no historian, but I think history does bear this out. Witness most recently the extinction of the Soviet Union, the second most powerful politico-military entity ever to exist.


Interesting. I think that this is a potentially fruitful route towards proving moral absolutes.

Although, it does presuppose the importance of society, which is another matter.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Dude, come on. A little maturity. You're a mod.

Why are you being one of the people who are purposefully ruining this thread? Talk about setting a bad example.

-AC

Look! It's Mr. 3 Times Banned In A Year!

So it is!

Originally posted by Inspectah Deck
Look! It's Mr. 3 Times Banned In A Year!

A) That's funny, coming from Mr. Owned by AC 5 times in a week, then bail out and make excuses!

B) Don't speak on that which you have no clue about.

C) I've only ever been banned twice, for that matter. So let this be a lesson, child. Off with you.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
A) That's funny, coming from Mr. Owned by AC 5 times in a week, then bail out and make excuses!

B) Don't speak on that which you have no clue about.

C) I've only ever been banned twice, for that matter. So let this be a lesson, child. Off with you.

-AC

That was not needed and off topic AC.

So was his, what happened to your comment there? Oh you did.

If he replies, I'll PM him. It's done on my part.

-AC

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Interesting. I think that this is a potentially fruitful route towards proving moral absolutes.

Although, it does presuppose the importance of society, which is another matter.

IMO, the route can be more direct: "There is no such thing as a moral absolute," contradicts itself.

Less direct: there are absolutes in every other sphere of reality, why not with moral reality?

And as for "a little bit of moral relativism" (that like being "a little bit pregnant"?), perhaps "moral tolerance" might be a better term.

Keeping an open mind to promote tolerance of others who think differently is an admirable quality. We do need more of it in the world. But as the Zen saying goes (something like this, anyway), "A mind too much like a sieve holds nothing" (great for meditation, but hey, that can be another thread).

Hell yes rape is wrong.

Originally posted by Mindship
IMO, the route can be more direct: "There is no such thing as a moral absolute," contradicts itself.

Less direct: there are absolutes in every other sphere of reality, why not with moral reality?



I'm not sure the statement does contradict itself.

Less direct route- I don't disagree. I just don't see many convincing arguments for the case.

Yes. The fact that we're even discussing the morality of such an action speaks volumes for how much humans suck at being.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Yes. The fact that we're even discussing the morality of such an action speaks volumes for how much humans suck at being.

That's what I find interesting. We all (for the most part) hold that strong belief. It is a belief, though.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
A) That's funny, coming from Mr. Owned by AC 5 times in a week, then bail out and make excuses!

B) Don't speak on that which you have no clue about.

C) I've only ever been banned twice, for that matter. So let this be a lesson, child. Off with you.

-AC

Didn't Ush teach you a lesson nono

If you reply to that AC I'll report you faster than you can say reported!

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
That's what I find interesting. We all (for the most part) hold that strong belief. It is a belief, though.
See, that's where I, as a crazy Christian, get off easy with stuff like this--I get to say that certain things are right and wrong no matter what and I don't have to buy into the bullshit idea of moral relativism.

Originally posted by FeceMan
See, that's where I, as a crazy Christian, get off easy with stuff like this--I get to say that certain things are right and wrong no matter what and I don't have to buy into the bullshit idea of moral relativism.

Raising another interesting point- do you think morals exist independently of God, or did He decide them?

If independently, where are they from?

If He decided them, does that mean he could change the meanings of right and wrong?

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Raising another interesting point- do you think morals exist independently of God, or did He decide them?

If independently, where are they from?

If He decided them, does that mean he could change the meanings of right and wrong?
God decided them, and, no, He should not change them.

Originally posted by FeceMan
God decided them, and, no, He should not change them.

Presumably if He did, the new ones would then be correct?

would they be incorrect ?

I think that's what he was asking...if God changed them, would they then remain correct?

This doesn't really apply to agnostics or atheists but I'm curious as to this also.

-AC

But why do we feel remorse ? Even if we commit, and dont get caught by society, we feel bad about what happened.

Is it cause it was instilled within us by our parents ?

Not all people do....

It is normal to have a part of our psyche which decides on the "rightness" or wrongness" of an act. This is so we can live in groups and prosper.

Whether or not one feels "society," as an entity, is right or wrong, the fact is, for humans to have clustered into societies proved to be an evolutionary advantage. Thus, to be able to all get along with one another, promotes this evolutionary advantage.

"If God changed morals, would they still be correct" is very abstract. It would be easier to discuss this, I feel, if we narrowed it down to specifics.

no offense, but what kind of question is that? "Is rape wrong?" it's like saying is it wrong to kill someone?

Originally posted by Lana
Not all people do....

I was refering to people who DO. bang

Originally posted by Mindship
It is normal to have a part of our psyche which decides on the "rightness" or wrongness" of an act. This is so we can live in groups and prosper.

Whether or not one feels "society," as an entity, is right or wrong, the fact is, for humans to have clustered into societies proved to be an evolutionary advantage. Thus, to be able to all get along with one another, promotes this evolutionary advantage.

I think this kind of exploration is definitely the right way towards finding an arguable basis for the assignment of agreeable or abhorrent actions or beliefs.

Originally posted by Mindship

"If God changed morals, would they still be correct" is very abstract. It would be easier to discuss this, I feel, if we narrowed it down to specifics.

This argument explores the concept of God as arbiter of morality. It delves a little too far into the theological though, so perhaps it's best left as a fringe concern.

Originally posted by Saratn
no offense, but what kind of question is that? "Is rape wrong?" it's like saying is it wrong to kill someone?

It is, isn't it?

well rape is against someone else's will, so duh of course it is wrong.

Originally posted by Saratn
no offense, but what kind of question is that? "Is rape wrong?" it's like saying is it wrong to kill someone?

First of all, you didn't really read through this thread, did you?

Second of all, if you are comparing rape to killing someone I have a question for you. I can think that of various situations where I believe that it would be acceptable to kill someone (i.e. self defence, the defense of others, etc.) but can you give me a single example where it would be acceptable to rape someone?

So, in a sense, it's nothing like saying, "is it wrong to kill someone?"

That being said, back on topic please.

their is never a time rape is acceptable. it is against someone's will. and i don't need to read the whole thread to get the general idea. question was is rape wrong? well again, duh. rape is against someone's will, so how the hell will that be acceptable?

Originally posted by Saratn
their is never a time rape is acceptable. it is against someone's will. and i don't need to read the whole thread to get the general idea. question was is rape wrong? well again, duh. rape is against someone's will, so how the hell will that be acceptable?

Nope, you have completely and totally missed the point of the thread.

Originally posted by GCG
I was refering to people who DO. bang

Didn't say that though not everyone feels remorse when they do something that is thought to be wrong.

a.) then what the hell is the point of this thread. it can be interpeted from many angles. never specific now was it?
b.) the question he/she asked was when is rape acceptable? and i had answered.

Originally posted by Saratn
their is never a time rape is acceptable. it is against someone's will. and i don't need to read the whole thread to get the general idea. question was is rape wrong? well again, duh. rape is against someone's will, so how the hell will that be acceptable?

You're not following this thread are you?

Read the thread and you'll see what it's really about. No one should have to explain it.

well, i'm going by what the question was asked in the title. the question that was just recently asked, i had answered. if you don't like it...tough.

Well, the question in the title is not really what the thread is about, it's just representative of what the thread is about.

Read the damn thread or look like a fool, the choice is yours.

ok ; HAVE A NICE DAY !

well actually, a.) where did it specify what the thread was about? huh? oh that 's right it didn't until it developed...so making things up as you go. i see it as a broad topic that has many angles. b.) if i cared about making a fool of myself, why do you think i'm still posting here?

Originally posted by Saratn
well actually, a.) where did it specify what the thread was about? huh? oh that 's right it didn't until it developed...so making things up as you go. i see it as a broad topic that has many angles. b.) if i cared about making a fool of myself, why do you think i'm still posting here?

If you bothered to read the thread, you'd see that VVD started it with a specific purpose, and that the title was just representative of the real topic. Nowhere is anyone 'making it up as they go'.

Originally posted by Saratn
well, i'm going by what the question was asked in the title. the question that was just recently asked, i had answered. if you don't like it...tough.

So do you often invest yourself in conversations or debates when you don't know what people are talking about? Interesting communications skills you possess there.


As for your response to Lana, "if you don't like it...tough." Perhaps you are more versed in the following techniques of debate:

.... I'm rubber you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.

yea, how many post was that later? certainly not on the first page.

Originally posted by Saratn
if i cared about making a fool of myself, why do you think i'm still posting here?

A sucker for punishment?

Originally posted by Saratn
yea, how many post was that later? certainly not on the first page.

Actually, it was. You must have not read down more than a quarter of the page if you missed it.

umm...nothing really all i saw was seeing if people got what he/she was saying or what not.

*smacks forehead*

Good lord, do you need everything spelled out for you?

Middle of the first page. Backfire posted it. Go read it, and then you can actually contribute to the thread.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Presumably if He did, the new ones would then be correct?
Yes...they would, I must reluctantly admit.

ok, what do you mean by "rape"? what do you mean by "wrong?" what do you mean by" ethics" what the hell is that supposed to mean really?

Originally posted by Saratn
what do you mean by "wrong?" what do you mean by" ethics" what the hell is that supposed to mean really?

Well damn, you've stumbled across what this thread is really about!

What makes something wrong?

Originally posted by FeceMan
Yes...they would, I must reluctantly admit.

The problem with that route- as regards this thread- is that it could be argued that there's no reason why He should change them, and that what has been designated is so for a reason.

As a result it doesn't really illuminate the secular debate.

and then that should be the title of the thread.

Or maybe people should actually use those organs that live in their skulls.

You know, your brain. Give it a little exercise and actually think a bit.

well, maybe it shouldn't have been called Is Rape Wrong? because generally people go by what a thread is called.

And sometimes people should bother to actually read more than the title.

Originally posted by Saratn
well, maybe it shouldn't have been called Is Rape Wrong? because generally people go by what a thread is called.

That's why tabloids are so successful.

a.) i did, and really it talked about rape for a bit.
b.)tabloids?

I think it's been quite proven elsewhere that you're not exactly a sponge when it comes to absorbing relevent info or explanations, Saratn.

Everyone, now, understands the thread. If you don't, leave.

-AC

Originally posted by Saratn
a.) i did, and really it talked about rape for a bit.
b.)tabloids?

Rape is simply an example used for the thread purpose.

And once again you completely missed the point of a post.

yea, and i responded to the example. and AC, this really doesn't have to do with you. Lana was kind enough to explain the thread for me, and i appreciate that a lot.

It took two pages. I interjected for the sake of the thread because I seriously doubt two is enough, given my previous experience in threads with you.

You now understand, things can move on can't they?

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It took two pages. I interjected for the sake of the thread because I seriously doubt two is enough, given my previous experience in threads with you.

You now understand, things can move on can't they?

-AC
sorry about that AC. i am not afraid to admit that a.) i'm not that bright. and b.) i jump into things before i honestly know what's going on. c.) way too many encounters AC about me and my stupidty.
now...carrying on...

Saratn : By what standard is rape wrong ?

Originally posted by Saratn
b.)tabloids?

Use a dictionary

well let's see here...ummm well the biggest thing is that rape is forcing someone to have sex against their will. not to mention that it is sick, and that it is illegal, and people can spend serious time in jail for that. people who are rapist may do this for multiple reasons. they have a bad sex life, want to feel good about themselves, childhood, uncontrolable urges, etc. people shouldn't be forced to do things like that if they don't want to. that's one of the bases of why i want to be a D.A. and that is mainly what SVU is about.

and IG, sorry for asking what it meant. i should have known that speds like me need to carrya dictionary everywhere i go.

Originally posted by Saratn
and IG, sorry for asking what it meant. i should have known that speds like me need to carrya dictionary everywhere i go.

Speds?

seeing how i feel generous...speds is special education

wow thats a dumb question. Lets see... Is ass raping a mongoose whilst on fire and licking children wrong? hmm toughy.

You do realise that people like you, coming into this thread and reacting in a way you think you should, just makes you look worse than dumb, right?

-AC