Hot married babe, would you do it?

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Francisco....I think this might be your best post to date.
..

Oh btw, you're just impressed that I knew how to spell the sound "Pfffffttttt..."

 

[Mr.Positive]

Tell me where in your premise that you took my feelings into consideration. Have you? No?

Francisco, we care about your feelings here. I think it's time for a sosuave group hug.

 

[ketostix]

And therein lies the one indisputable truth, it's easy and practical. Not that it's proven, not that it's true, not that it's fulfilling, it's just easy. It's people's nature to take the path of least resistance, less effort, what's practical to the masses. It takes no effort, no necessity to prove because it's believed by most people and will seldom be challenged. It couldn't be more practical than that, now could it?

So you're saying that because you would like to be treated a certain way, I should naturally feel that I should feel or be treated the same way because you personally believe it's right. That would definitely be practical but c'mon, is it realistic?

Tell me where in your premise that you took my feelings into consideration. Have you? No? Seems selfish to me but usually people who are truly selfish don't realize that they are (this is not meant to be a personal dig toward you, just a generality). At least their definition of "selfish" doesn't match that of the other person. But if it did, that would mean that he would have taken their perception into consideration, but that wouldn't be practical.

Ah, selective enforcement. Very practical.

Not once in your explanation you ever mention the other person except for putting yourself into his situation. No need to find out specifically what he wants. That would neither be easy nor practical.

Perhaps, but wouldn't moving toward a positive thing be more enjoyable?

No, not really. I was just following the path of those who called it a moral code or even equated it to religious laws. It would be easier if its meaning wouldn't change between posts; but that would be practical.

Define malice; define innocent; by the way, define individual and what makes him so.

Is it really? Didn't someone else (I think Edger) posted something about why nice guys do what they do? That they have a hidden agenda themselves and in fact (in a situation dealing with a married woman) have an ulterior and undisclosed motive?

If I said that, I didn't mean to. The "moral majority" typically need very strict rules so that they can adhere to them; it makes things easy and practical. No need to make things complicated by deviating from the norm.

So you're saying that the only thing that differentiates a deed is intent?

You're just arguing for the sake of argument now. You're making theorectical arguments that are full of holes now, and offering no better alternative to a common sense rule of do unto others as you'd have done unto you. To accept your arguments would be to accept people don't generally have good common sense. You're drawing conclusion from what I said that aren't even reasonable.

 

[Phyzzle]

Hey Francisco, does this sound like your attitude toward the Golden Rule?

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.html

To paraphrase Atlas Shrugged, "I can't put cream in my coffee until the Cambodians are put through college? WTF?"

After all, what's really more important? Your daily luxury? Or the poor starving people on the other side of the planet you never think about? The Golden Rule is a tough nut to crack. I don't think the human heart is big enough.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Francisco, we care about your feelings here. I think it's time for a sosuave group hug.

Awwww, group head butt!!! :rockon:

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

You're just arguing for the sake of argument now. You're making theorectical arguments that are full of holes now, and offering no better alternative to a common sense rule of do unto others as you'd have done unto you. To accept your arguments would be to accept people don't generally have good common sense. You're drawing conclusion from what I said that aren't even reasonable.

Nope just looking for substantiation for your argument. Like it was said earlier, it's easier and more practical to belive in the common beliefs of the masses until someone challenges your assumptions (especially when the challenge uses their own statements).

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Hey Francisco, does this sound like your attitude toward the Golden Rule?

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.html

Some of the later points resonate. Do I dare say which ones and piss more people off? I'll have to think about that one.

To paraphrase Atlas Shrugged, "I can't put cream in my coffee until the Cambodians are put through college? WTF?"

Now you're talking my language...

"If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man's only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a 'moral commandment' is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments."
--Ayn Rand

​

After all, what's really more important? Your daily luxury? Or the poor starving people on the other side of the planet you never think about? The Golden Rule is a tough nut to crack. I don't think the human heart is big enough.

Are our personal lives and whats contained therein really a luxury? Perhaps to outsiders without what they consider a luxury looking in, it's the value that they give to that thing.

Is the freedoms that we take for granted a luxury? Being about to say what we feel (no matter how irate it makes others), being able encroach on the seeming livelihood of others by subjecting them to second hand smoke? How about our ability to choose who we elect into office. Not everyone possess these abilities but are they luxuries?

Don't get me wrong, the Golden Rule does have a purpose to those who need it, such does religion, marriage, political parties, drugs and alcohol. What I challenge isn't the rule itself per se, but its how some attempt to impose it upon others to fit their moral code.

 

[azanon]

I an not "implying" that I have been "faithful in marriage" , I and flatout telling you. I have been married twice Anazon, and I never cheated - not even close !
I have had numerous LTRs also and I never cheated (thought about it,flirted and so on, but never acted )
So who are you calling "full of sh*t " ? You are out of line.

Maybe you have some guilt there somewheres ????

I said "many of you"... In other words, not all. So why did you take offense when you weren't singled out or even implicated?

I'm not out of line calling it as things are. If you can't handle the truth, maybe you should seek therapy. 50-60% of married men have or will commit infidelity. If that's married men, how much more often would unmarried men do it?

Guilt is for rule followers; in other words, not me. I have regrets on occasion, but they are entirely based on choices I made that simply resulted in undesirable consequences. I think strictly choices vs. consequences, cause and effect. There's no logic in guilt. Guilt is a weakness.

 

[azanon]

KARMA...the topic of Karma, Curses, etc. I've known people who swear by this sh*t, that it exists and is out there. I've known practicing Pagans who have personally testified to the 'Three Fold Rule'; that if you do a bad deed to someone, it will come back to you "Three Fold". Like I said, I've known people who swear by it. I personally don't understand why something would come back to you "Threefold" though, which would mean you'd suffer more than the suffering you had caused. I've also known people who swear that "Curses" are real. These are people who are very experienced with the spirit world and the occult. I've also read up on this stuff and have watched numerous documentaries relating to it. Sure some people's stories I'm sure are made up, but I'm definitely not one to believe that they're all made up, as I personally believe many such stories and testimonials are very real. Anyone who is of Carribbean origin(Haiti in particular) can also testify to this.

Someone who performs "bad" deeds definitely doesn't want to believe in Karma. The placebo effect is well documented and that documentation has shown repeadidly, that the effect is both consistent and profound.

If you think or believe something bad is going to happen to you.... for whatever reason... there's a good chance that it will. In fact, just having that fear or inner turmoil is already something bad. I wrote a blog once on "belief" which supported the notion that, in a nutshell, belief is at least half of knowing and probably at least half of reality too.

So, do I believe that there are documented examples of Karma being carried out in a people that believes in it? Of course I do! Placebo effect alone could account for all of it.

What do I believe? Well, for one thing, I believe its possible to have more than your fair share. And, interestingly enough, I seem to often get just that. Want to adopt a powerful (but unpolitically correct) belief? Believe in self-entitlement. Believe you're extra special and you deserve extra special things.

 

[azanon]

I am glad that I live in a world where many believe in and try to adhere to things like Karma, the Ten Commandments, Christainty rules, or what-have-you. If this weren't the case, how else am I supposed to have an advantage over the masses? My life would become a heck of a lot more challenging, that's for sure!

Princes and kings make rules in a variety of ways to control the masses and to create more power for themselves. Personal power can only be measured from a relative standpoint. Therefore, you can gain power by either becoming more powerful yourself, or by causing those around you to be less powerful*. Those in the secret club are constantly trying to do both.

* Exception of course being if you're a boss and you all belong to the same company. Of course you want to empower those who work towards the same common goal.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

...If you think or believe something bad is going to happen to you.... for whatever reason... there's a good chance that it will. In fact, just having that fear or inner turmoil is already something bad. ...

I'll add that it isn't necessarily Karma that's causing those bad things. There are bad things happening around you at least as often as there are good things. What happens to you depends on what you are looking for. Look for consequences guess what you'll find? Look for opportunities, guess what happens?

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

I am glad that I live in a world where many believe in and try to adhere to things like Karma, the Ten Commandments, Christainty rules, or what-have-you. If this weren't the case, how else am I supposed to have an advantage over the masses? My life would become a heck of a lot more challenging, that's for sure!...

Advantage over the masses???!!! SHAME ON YOU!!!! :nono:

 

[Mr.Positive]

I am glad that I live in a world where many believe in and try to adhere to things like Karma, the Ten Commandments, Christainty rules, or what-have-you. If this weren't the case, how else am I supposed to have an advantage over the masses?

Of course some might look at it this way...which is a scary thought in this day and age.

If I recall, a certain historical figure had this same philosophy, and to add, a high amount of charisma...or "leadership" if you would like to call it. (think late 30's, Germany)

 

[Victory Unlimited]

Of course some might look at it this way...which is a scary thought in this day and age.

If I recall, a certain historical figure had this same philosophy, and to add, a high amount of charisma...or "leadership" if you would like to call it. (think late 30's, Germany)

...

 

[azanon]

Of course some might look at it this way...which is a scary thought in this day and age.

If I recall, a certain historical figure had this same philosophy, and to add, a high amount of charisma...or "leadership" if you would like to call it. (think late 30's, Germany)

Perhaps fear or, more logically, respect of powerful people is well-placed fear/respect. So what are you going to do about it? Go find a hole to crawl into, try to actually oppose the powerful, or become powerful yourself? Choice #1 is sad, #2 isn't wise because there's plenty to go round for the few that actually are powerful, and #3 is the most logical. I recommend choice #3.

I'm just trying to get some of you guys to think. You can adopt a suplicating dogma for your life if you so insist, but don't expect it to make you powerful, because it won't.

If I recall, a certain historical figure had this same philosophy, and to add, a high amount of charisma...or "leadership" if you would like to call it. (think late 30's, Germany)

I have a personal moral code like most people. Technically, I might have adopted a rule or two that could limit some power from a certain viewpoint. But, in truth, all of them increase my power. Killing hundreds' of thousands of people is not exactly a wise thing to do to increase the likelihood that one will live a long life. I believe the person you're referring to caused the deaths of many people. I am mortal like any man, so I am going to tend to avoid actions that will get me killed.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

.... I am mortal like any man, so I am going to tend to avoid actions that will get me killed.

There 'ya go focusing on your own self interest again...

 

[azanon]

There 'ya go focusing on your own self interest again...

Ha! Ok, man I probably sound like the really evil guy. I'm not that bad, really. Besides, if you look at all of the modern day wars, I think it makes more sense to fear the devout religious (of any faith) than it does a man who worships logic and reason.

What was this thread about again; whether to take up the hot married woman's offer for sex? Oh, I dunno. If you're single, there's still practical risks with doing so. I would worry less about morals and more just about potential real consequences. So, I would look at it as on a case-by-case scenario, and evaluate it in terms of risk vs reward. "Strange" from a hottie is a really nice reward, but there's some significant risks there too. Besides, there are so many single women out there... right?

For the married? Even more risks. Risks are probably lower with another married person, than with a single person, because married with married each has a proverbial "nuke" to keep the other quiet (nuke = telling the spouse).

 

[Mr.Positive]

Killing hundreds' of thousands of people is not exactly a wise thing to do to increase the likelihood that one will live a long life. I believe the person you're referring to caused the deaths of many people. I am mortal like any man, so I am going to tend to avoid actions that will get me killed.

Azanon, read what you are saying here. This is very disconcerning.

The only reason you would oppose an action that gets (in this case millions) of innocent people killed, is because you might get killed? Don't you think that might be a little self-centered? What if there was a family member involved?

Here's a thought, how about just simply respecting life in general.

We're not talking about power here either. I'm not following your argument that morality has anything to do with "losing power".

Having morality that guides your decisions, is about personal control. Doing what you believe is right, is not supplicating, and will definitely not cause you to give your power to someone else. Quite the opposite actually.

 

[azanon]

Azanon, read what you are saying here. This is very disconcerning.

The only reason you would oppose an action that gets (in this case millions) of innocent people killed, is because you might get killed? Don't you think that might be a little self-centered? What if there was a family member involved?

I didn't say that was the only reason I wouldn't do that. Its one reason, and its enough.

Here's a thought, how about just simply respecting life in general.

I do respect life in general. However, I tend to prioritize my own life over others. Try not to fault me on that though because that's logical and rational, is it not?

We're not talking about power here either. I'm not following your argument that morality has anything to do with "losing power".

Having morality that guides your decisions, is about personal control. Doing what you believe is right, is not supplicating, and will definitely not cause you to give your power to someone else. Quite the opposite actually.

I'm not saying having morality equates to losing power. I already said and admitted I have a moral code for myself. What I'm saying is carefully consider adopting any creed that includes elements that call for you acting or behaving in such a way as to limit your options in maximizing your potential for success in this life. What if this is all there is? If so, then I am not aware of any modern religion that will maximize one's potential for success in this life. In fact, the one I am most familiar with, and just so happens to be the primary religion in the U.S., calls for its followers to "not love the world or anything in this world". Look, the bible agrees with me; you can't have both, so choose. So, I think they all do more harm that good, from a strictly "personal power" standpoint.

I'm for personal moral codes. I'm against organized dogmas. If someone else is making your rules, you are not a powerful person. You are a follower .... of something, or someone else. I think of a chess board. Followers are numerous, necessary and useful to the powerful, and can be found on the first row of a chess board.

 

[ketostix]

I'm against organized dogmas. If someone else is making your rules, you are not a powerful person. You are a follower

What about the government and all it's rules?