We Are Straying from the Path that was Laid out Before Us

[Interceptor]

I think that having a real moral Code, and a real code of Honor, and being a hypocrite are two entirely different things.
Having morals does not mean one is a hypocrite. They are not synonymous.

I do think it is hypocritical for someone ammoral to think that they are entitled to being treated morally and humanely though.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

It's time for real men to stand up for morality and good old-fashioned values. If that means being celibate in protest, so be it. Men are no longer going to have sex with married women, we're no longer going to cheat, and we're not going to deceive.

Be reclusive if necessary, be rocks, be men and be proud of yourselves. There's a certain peace that comes over all of us when we realize our actions do not hurt others. We feel it because we've done right. If we want our women to be moral, we have to set the example; it's our job as men to do so.

Here's a link for you. Have fun.

My problem isn't necessarily with morals or ethics in and of themselves, but rather men chumpishly clinging to them when in actuality they really had no other options. You're just making your necessity a virtue. Saying you're remaining celibate in order to hold to some higher ideals is just trying to prove a negative if you don't really have any valid options. It's unassailable; I can't doubt the merit of your convictions when nothing is what's required prove them. Anyone would sound like an idiot for trying to convince you not to be moral, drop your integrity or demean yourself - but that's the reason appeals to moralism sound good. Being resolute is admirable, but until your virtue is significantly tested they're just excuses that look nice on your sleeve.

 

[Jeffst1980]

Here's a link for you. Have fun.

My problem isn't necessarily with morals or ethics in and of themselves, but rather men chumpishly clinging to them when in actuality they really had no other options. You're just making your necessity a virtue. Saying you're remaining celibate in order to hold to some higher ideals is just trying to prove a negative if you don't really have any valid options. It's unassailable; I can't doubt the merit of your convictions when nothing is what's required prove them. Anyone would sound like an idiot for trying to convince you not to be moral, drop your integrity or demean yourself - but that's the reason appeals to moralism sound good. Being resolute is admirable, but until your virtue is significantly tested they're just excuses that look nice on your sleeve.

I don't think a lack of options implicitly follows from an appeal to morality. That's just an assumption you are making here. You could offer what you wrote as a caveat and that would be perfectly acceptable to me, because it IS true of many moral hypocrites; but there's no reason to blindly accuse LEFTY of being one of these types.

"Old fashioned values" to me simply means that the man leads and the woman follows in a relationship. No fire and brimstone.

 

[Luthor Rex]

The problem with talking about morals or ethics in the modern world is that for far too long they have been tied to religion. Too many people cannot conceive of an ethic which doesn't start with "God said...".

But it wasn't always like this in the Western world. Before Christianity swallowed Europe whole ethics and religion were separate things. Religion answered the question "what is our proper relationship with the gods". Ethics on the other hand was a branch of philosophy which answered the question "how should we live".

During the age before Christianity, it was an accepted fact that human nature was driving us all to achieve our own happiness. But the happiness that comes from human nature isn't the happiness that comes from a drug high or tagging azz, rather it is the happiness which comes from our flourishing as human beings.

This happiness comes first from the fulfillment of our natures first as human beings, then as men or women, and finally as individuals. As human beings we typically all crave certain things such as being part of a family and a community and having our accomplishments recognized by those around us. As men we crave building our own worlds in the way Pook talked about in some of his old posts. As individuals we pursue our specific talents as artist or scientists or musicians, etc. These things are not up to our conscious mind to want, rather the choice we have is to either actively pursue them or not.

Weather we consciously know it or not we are all craving our own happiness and as human beings we have no free will to choose otherwise. We do have the free will, however, to choose weather or not we actively chase these things, and how we go about chasing them.

Ethics is our way of asking questions about the world, and finding the answers which show us the path to our own happiness. Morals are the good habits which lead us to that happiness.

Yes I know I've left a lot out of this picture, but I'm trying to post on a forum, not write a book.

Saying you're remaining celibate in order to hold to some higher ideals is just trying to prove a negative if you don't really have any valid options.

If a man looks around himself and says "I am remaining celibate because I have no valid options" (maybe he is low status, or because he finds the women unacceptable isn't important), the only "higher ideal" he is holding on to is self-preservation.

I've noticed that, for whatever reason, people seem to think that low status men (and fat girls) should automatically have no standards and accept anything that comes along. But accepting anything that comes along is just plain self-destructive. As though that will somehow help their situation!

 

[ketostix]

The problem with talking about morals or ethics in the modern world is that for far too long they have been tied to religion. Too many people cannot conceive of an ethic which doesn't start with "God said...".

But it wasn't always like this in the Western world. Before Christianity swallowed Europe whole ethics and religion were separate things. Religion answered the question "what is our proper relationship with the gods". Ethics on the other hand was a branch of philosophy which answered the question "how should we live".

During the age before Christianity, it was an accepted fact that human nature was driving us all to achieve our own happiness. But the happiness that comes from human nature isn't the happiness that comes from a drug high or tagging azz, rather it is the happiness which comes from our flourishing as human beings.

This happiness comes first from the fulfillment of our natures first as human beings, then as men or women, and finally as individuals. As human beings we typically all crave certain things such as being part of a family and a community and having our accomplishments recognized by those around us. As men we crave building our own worlds in the way Pook talked about in some of his old posts. As individuals we pursue our specific talents as artist or scientists or musicians, etc. These things are not up to our conscious mind to want, rather the choice we have is to either actively pursue them or not.

Weather we consciously know it or not we are all craving our own happiness and as human beings we have no free will to choose otherwise. We do have the free will, however, to choose weather or not we actively chase these things, and how we go about chasing them.

Ethics is our way of asking questions about the world, and finding the answers which show us the path to our own happiness. Morals are the good habits which lead us to that happiness.

Yes I know I've left a lot out of this picture, but I'm trying to post on a forum, not write a book.



If a man looks around himself and says "I am remaining celibate because I have no valid options" (maybe he is low status, or because he finds the women unacceptable isn't important), the only "higher ideal" he is holding on to is self-preservation.

I've noticed that, for whatever reason, people seem to think that low status men (and fat girls) should automatically have no standards and accept anything that comes along. But accepting anything that comes along is just plain self-destructive. As though that will somehow help their situation!

Luthor Rex I think you are knocking out homeruns in this thread. I know a lot of people are down on morals and ethics and Christanity. They think they're all one in the same. But like you said ethics stand or fall on their own merit and it's not even about that ethics equals religion. If you take Jesus himself he was a religious philosopher but a philosopher. Most of his enemies were the Church. He depised the Pharisees (religious scholars) the most and they despised him. They're the ones that had him executed. Good ethics is all about how can you make an enviroment win-win for the parties involved. If you choose an anything goes ethic that's still a choice in ethics. But what's really happened is women have stepped in and placed their "ethics" in the vacuum. Women have the sexual genetic advantage and will always win and men will lose under this scheme.

 

[Luthor Rex]

A "celibacy protest" (God - how did those words find their way on SS?) isn't going to tip the values system in your favor any more than going vegetarian will cause the rest of the world to give up red meat. If it makes your life easier, more power to you.

When it comes to celibacy I look at it like this:

It's been my experience that when toxic people self destruct they have a tendency to bring down those around them. If, for whatever reason, you find yourself surrounded by such people then it's better to be alone than to have bad friends or lovers.

This may very well make you end up celibate for a while but the point of doing this isn't celibacy, the point is to avoid people who are going to bring you down.

 

[LeftyLoosey]

My problem isn't necessarily with morals or ethics in and of themselves, but rather men chumpishly clinging to them when in actuality they really had no other options.

I agree 100% with this and with the rest of your post. There are definitely men out there who do not have other options and disguise this as "virtue."

This is not what I'm saying at all. I'm preaching from the perspective of someone who DOES have options. I've had lots of options and took advantage of them until recently when I decided that the quality of the women I've been fu*king was directly proportional to the esteem to which I hold myself. Not only that, but if I'm willing to deceive and manipulate women for my benefit, why should I expect any less from them?

Someone has to stop the endless cycle of what I'm referring to as "immorality." If men didn't give immoral women the time of day, they would have no choice but to adapt to the demands of men, and this cultural holocaust would finally end.

 

[ketostix]

I do think there is something to the idea that women are always trying to date/hook up out of their "league" and are very hesitant to get with a guy below their league, while men will just about try to win over and fvck most any girl. I don't have to go on and explain how this creates a huge inbalance in women's favor. But in effect really men are playing into women's hands and women's agenda while they believe they are not

 

[Interceptor]

It IS kind of weird when self professed immoral men want virtous and moral women.
And when some of these men then choose to let go of integrity to morals directly because "ALL" women are inherently Immoral.
It IS pretty easy for some to say "Fvck Morals!" when thet KNOW that when they call 911 the police and paramedics WILL respond to them....

 

[Tazman]

It's also weird when people label themselves "moral" as if it's some tangible law written in stone that they always obey, pointing fingers at those who don't follow their definition (religion?).

Morals are also black and white, so either you ARE or you AREN'T. Those of you who are go ahead and give yourselves a pat on the back, you deserve it.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

If you had a GF who was smoking hot, well adjusted mentally, loyal, would make a good mother, came from a good family, etc. etc., but would only ever begrudgingly have sex with you, in missionary position only, never consider giving you head, and only once a month because she thought that sex was dirty and she didn't want to be thought of as a slut, would you marry her?

Every man wants a slut. He just wants her to be HIS slut.

What I find interesting about the conflicts of focusing on an idealized woman is that guys have similar parallels with women in this respect. Look at what we're discussing here - the trade off between loyalty, fidelity, motherly nurturing, 'moral' character etc., basically a list of prerequisites for the albino unicorn called a 'quality woman' - contrasted by physical arousal, sexual availability, sexual adventurousness, playfulness, etc. When I read threads on this topic (and there are a lot) I can't help but notice how conflicted many, otherwise DJ, guys really are. They want a wonderful, churchgoing, respectable, feminine woman who ƒucks ONLY THEM like a porn star 5 nights a week. It's not productive to think in such extremes, but it's like women wanting a Bad Boy AND a Nice Guy in the same guy. We'd love a soccer mom and Jenna Jameson in the same girl, without really thinking that the necessary characteristics of one contradict those of the other. And just like women striving for both the Jerk and the Nice guy by 'fixing' him to her ideal, we also try to fix women to conform to our ideal depending upon which profile she seems to fit - Mother to Porn Star or vice versa.

 

[ketostix]

If you had a GF who was smoking hot, well adjusted mentally, loyal, would make a good mother, came from a good family, etc. etc., but would only ever begrudgingly have sex with you, in missionary position only, never consider giving you head, and only once a month because she thought that sex was dirty and she didn't want to be thought of as a slut, would you marry her?

Every man wants a slut. He just wants her to be HIS slut.

What I find interesting about the conflicts of focusing on an idealized woman is that guys have similar parallels with women in this respect. Look at what we're discussing here - the trade off between loyalty, fidelity, motherly nurturing, 'moral' character etc., basically a list of prerequisites for the albino unicorn called a 'quality woman' - contrasted by physical arousal, sexual availability, sexual adventurousness, playfulness, etc. When I read threads on this topic (and there are a lot) I can't help but notice how conflicted many, otherwise DJ, guys really are. They want a wonderful, churchgoing, respectable, feminine woman who ƒucks ONLY THEM like a porn star 5 nights a week. It's not productive to think in such extremes, but it's like women wanting a Bad Boy AND a Nice Guy in the same guy. We'd love a soccer mom and Jenna Jameson in the same girl, without really thinking that the necessary characteristics of one contradict those of the other. And just like women striving for both the Jerk and the Nice guy by 'fixing' him to her ideal, we also try to fix women to conform to our ideal depending upon which profile she seems to fit - Mother to Porn Star or vice versa.

But Rollo aren't you suggesting that a woman can only be good sexually if she had x number of different partners? To me experience is experience. I do think the dymanics for a woman to abstain until she's only in a relationship can cause her inhibitions with sex. But I also believe that it doesn't take long for an attractive woman to find a relationship and she can feel much more sexually liberated within that scenario. So even a woman who is very sexual and has a high libido needn't have many sexual partners. On the flipside a woman who's a "serial dater" could be a sexual dud.

When you say, "Every man wants a slut. He just wants her to be HIS slut", isn't that playing with semantics? What if you said, "Every man wants a freak. He just wants her to be HIS freak." Arent you just replacing the word "sexual" with "slut", as if they are interchangable when they're really not? I mean a slut sleeps with a lot of different partners so if a man doesn't want a woman that does that then he doesn't really want a slut in the first place.

I mean I do get the idea that men want a woman to be as easy to get as a slut yet want her to not be possible to get for any other guys. That's not realistic, but I don't think I agree with slut=great sexual performance.

 

[Interceptor]

It's also weird when people label themselves "moral" as if it's some tangible law written in stone that they always obey,


Being moral, or having morals is a tangible law, it need not be written in stone. It is carried inside one'sSelf.
And having integrity to follow their moral virtue IS something they will always want to obey. Thats called having integrity and moral character. I find nothing weird in that myself.




pointing fingers at those who don't follow their definition (religion?).

Some people confuse 'pointing fingers' versus identifying a phenomenon. It can happen.
But they are not the same.
However, there can be times when people who proclaim to be virtuous instead look down upon others in a condescending manner not to bring to light or to educate, or to wake his fellow man up , but to put him down.

There are many people on this board who believe in morals and dont care to put people down.
Their presentation of their views is in relation to bringing his fellow man UP, not down and shaming him.

It is instead to help someone become Aware.


Since we all have to share this ONE planet, we all have to find ways to get along.
Being immoral is not one of them.


No one likes to be judged.Sure. But none of us are beyond examination. And the gift we have as human beings with reason, is the gift to examine our beliefs, and actually CREATE a certain lifestyle.

But no one likes their intelliegence insulted when presented with false idols and smoke and mirrors either.

I can see how some people are passionate in their beliefs and their desire to inform others of their views, but that doesnt always mean they are intentionally insulting, demeaning, and belittling others.
But I can see also how strange it can be for some people to look at others' choices and think "How can they NOT know this is wrong??"
I dont agree in using religion as a method to shame others into submission (into following particular ideas and beliefs).
I am against that. There should be no "Cultism" here IMO. And relgion and God are very personal things that I believe are far too controversial to present in a manner that can help every single person out there.
I dont wish to be indoctrinated by religious fantatics, nor atheists either.
Im pretty sure many of us here dont either. My ideal is to be able to acknowledge a so called 'bible thumper' and his beliefs, yet not be sucked into his reality or made to feel shame for my beliefs I have arrived to after much self reflection.

However, I am also against the shaming of otherwise good people who truly want to help and make a difference in life for their beliefs that are rooted in self empowerment, and self suffieciency, and freedom. That has happened as well.

No one here posts to get shushed.
No one here has the right to silence another.
And no one here determines what we can and cannot do.
This goes for all of us.

But there does need to be honest reflection on what are healthy and realistic attitudes to hold in life.
There are always people who look at the glass as half full, and people who look at it as always half empty.
Which one we want to pick is always up to us.

All anyone can and should do is present a good reason to choose one or the other.
And I have to admit that the ultimate reason , at least for me, and I believe everyone should reflect on this, is to have a BETTER Life than we have now.
So if we tend to see many of the same recurring themes here on the board (there are people out there really suffering), it is only morally virtuous to try to present at least SOMETHING to help one's fellow Man in this life.
We dont have to beat anyone's head over with it though.
AND this also goes for those who bring in any counter argument or point.

If the POINT is to HELP one another, I cannot see how use of methods of shaming, belittling, insulting, emasculating is working in any way to gain followers to one's thought.
And there's my personal point...
my point is not to gain followers, but to help enlighten and awake my fellow man. (I may be hamfisted once in a great while, but it does not take away from my personal original intent.)
And if this is how I look at it, I am sure there are many others who do so as well.
Trying to educate one another is vastly different than trying to indoctrinate...


Morals are also black and white, so either you ARE or you AREN'T.

True. If our foundation, our operating system is one of Health, and connection to Humanity, we will choose Morality. Morality is ultimately built upon compassion and consideration. Two things that are lacking in many areas of life.

If not, we simply wont.

This is why Integrity of Character is important.
Why? Because of the higher consciousness and awareness one can live in due to one's healthy and just choices. Trying to create Win/Win scenarios is an ideal.
However, just because an ideal is diffcult to obtain, doesnt mean we should stop trying.
I believe as humans, our current nature is imperfect, thus, our goal is to reach a stage where all our areas where we need growth in are addressed. A sort of shedding of the 'skin'. Basically, removing all layers that hinder growth, expansion, and enlightenment.
And we may not like it, but we are all in need of looking for that stage. We all have growing to do.
There simply ARE areas we need to improve on. It s just how it is.
And the more selfish, rude, callous, and uncaring people ,the more difficult the journey can sometimes be....

See, IMO as much as one can point out the 'virtues' of being immoral and in a often described immoral planet, shame will always be present because to be immoral is to hurt another human being, or at best, to be completely indifferent to another's suffering and circumstances. And that is nothing to be proud of.

Just as there are people who choose Morality as their "cloak" to disguise themselves because they have no other Options, so too can people choose Immorality as their disguise, because they too are powerless and have no other options. Neither is better or more virtuous than the other. They both will suffer the same fate of living an inauthentic life. A life wasted....



Those of you who are go ahead and give yourselves a pat on the back, you deserve it.


This sounds condescending and sarcastic. And this is the kind of thing that is not necessary when trying to explain one's point of view. I think everyone can afford to take a step back and look at their choices.

...

 

[Luthor Rex]

If you had a GF who was smoking hot, well adjusted mentally, loyal, would make a good mother, came from a good family, etc. etc., but would only ever begrudgingly have sex with you, in missionary position only, never consider giving you head, and only once a month because she thought that sex was dirty and she didn't want to be thought of as a slut, would you marry her?

Every man wants a slut. He just wants her to be HIS slut.

What I find interesting about the conflicts of focusing on an idealized woman is that guys have similar parallels with women in this respect. Look at what we're discussing here - the trade off between loyalty, fidelity, motherly nurturing, 'moral' character etc., basically a list of prerequisites for the albino unicorn called a 'quality woman' - contrasted by physical arousal, sexual availability, sexual adventurousness, playfulness, etc. When I read threads on this topic (and there are a lot) I can't help but notice how conflicted many, otherwise DJ, guys really are. They want a wonderful, churchgoing, respectable, feminine woman who ƒucks ONLY THEM like a porn star 5 nights a week. It's not productive to think in such extremes, but it's like women wanting a Bad Boy AND a Nice Guy in the same guy. We'd love a soccer mom and Jenna Jameson in the same girl, without really thinking that the necessary characteristics of one contradict those of the other. And just like women striving for both the Jerk and the Nice guy by 'fixing' him to her ideal, we also try to fix women to conform to our ideal depending upon which profile she seems to fit - Mother to Porn Star or vice versa.

The West has lived for too long under a church that used guilt and shame under the guise of morality.

Do you eat right and exercise because you feel guilty and hate it or because you know it's the right thing to do and you like the results?

Do you understand that a woman may remain virginal not because she feels guilty and hates it but because she knows it's the right thing to do and likes the results? No apparently you don't, you're still too wrapped up in the false dichotomy of sexually repressed / liberated that reared its ugly head in the 60's.

Not feeling guilt about sex does not automatically mean a woman (or man) is going to run around sleeping with everyone they find the least bit attractive. That's not liberation, that's enslavement to the animal within us. Whatever you can't say no to is your master and you are its slave. Under the guise of "liberation" there are many men enslaved to poon. These Citizen Dildos are not in any way free because they will be happy or sad based on how much azz they get.

Actual sexual liberation would mean you are liberated from the oppressive master of sexual desire. It means that not only do I realize that I can live without it, but it also means I don't suffer when I don't get it.

The church girl / porn star is another false dilemma. It shouldn't take much reflection to realize that it's more important to find someone who has a sexual appetite similar to your own. If you want it once a day find a girl who wants it once a day, if you want it once a week find a girl who wants it once a week. If you want whips and chains... well you get the idea.

 

[STR8UP]

It's time for real men to stand up for morality and good old-fashioned values.

THe funniest thing in the world for me to hear someone say is that "there is only ONE morality" hahahahaha

The first question I have is "Whose morality should I be following?"

The morality of the church that tells me that I'm going to hell if I have premarital sex?

The morality of government that tells me that I can't smoke pot?

The morality of my neighbor that tells me that it's wrong to have a jack and coke after a long day at work?

NO dude, enough of your mindless crAp.. You have a long history of forcing your own meaning into people's posts and them attacking them for it. YOu create targets just to take shots

Who needs to create targets when the original post is about morality? I could shoot holes in the concept all day long (see above).

Once you see the Matrix, you have two choices:

a) Use your knowledge to keep yourself safe while continuing on your path of virtue; or

b) Use your knowledge to take advantage of others for personal gain, leaving a trail of used carcasses and broken hearts behind you for others to follow, all the while proclaiming that your path is the best of the two, because getting revenge for the 25 years you spent as an AFC means "no holds barred." And every time you hurt someone along the way, they in turn say "fu*k it, I'm not going to get hurt again, and I'm going to fu*k over the next man I date before he gets a chance to do it to me." Contempt breeds contempt... and at the end of the day you get: American women.

Path "b" is EXACTLY the same as the AFC path, because you're sacrificing your very nature simply to be with more and more women. The only difference is that this time the "F" in AFC is more mysterious. You're not sexually frustrated, but morally frustrated. The next day when you roll out of some strange chick's bed before her husband comes home from his business trip, do you REALLY feel satisfied?

Who do you want to be?

It doesn't surprise me to hear someone claiming to be able to "see the matrix" talking about "paths of virtue" and "trails of used carcasses" as if they are mutually exclusive, black and white, one or the other concepts.

If you were truly able to see the matrix, you would be able to recognize the fact that we all manipulate each other for personal gain, every day of the week. We are not perfectly virtuous nor perfectly evil. We move back and forth on a scale. We act, and then we justify and rationalize.

There's nothing wrong with a 42 year-old man bangin' 20 year-olds either.

Case in point- LOTS of people, men and women DO have a problem with a 42yr old banging a 20 year old.

Anyone would sound like an idiot for trying to convince you not to be moral, drop your integrity or demean yourself - but that's the reason appeals to moralism sound good. Being resolute is admirable, but until your virtue is significantly tested they're just excuses that look nice on your sleeve.

Werd.

An employee of mine claims to be a devout christian. But hand him a video camera and tell him to film a couple of strippers showing their t!tties and he's in hog HEAVEN!

People talk smack. Anyone who claims to be a virtuous being is LYING. That's why I don't even bother talking sh!t about it. I don't want to be a hypocrite.

Being a good man is one thing. The problem I have with the "old fashioned morals" notion is that it sounds disturbingly like the female shaming argument that men have to behave a certain way, or they are "immature," "immoral," "a player," what have you.

Make no mistake about it- a large part of what we are talking about here IS shaming.

Morals, ethics, etc. are the PERFECT way for a group to push an agenda. The government would like for you to believe that it is noble to die for your country. The church would like for you to believe that everything they do not approve of is bad. Older women would like for you to believe that dating women half your age is "dirty". Other men would like you to believe that you have an obligation to avoid married women because "bro's come before h0's".

By blindly following all of these guidelines other people have set for you to live your life by, you are doing nothing but helping someone else achieve THEIR own agenda, often at your expense.

Me? I try to treat people fairly. I've never cheated on a g/f. I don't steal. I cooperate with others to achieve common goals. But I am smart enough to realize when one of these stupid "bro's before ho's" things is being thrown in my face by the same guys who would bang the snot out of my girl if they had the chance.

It's also weird when people label themselves "moral" as if it's some tangible law written in stone that they always obey, pointing fingers at those who don't follow their definition (religion?).

Morals are also black and white, so either you ARE or you AREN'T. Those of you who are go ahead and give yourselves a pat on the back, you deserve it.

You either missed some very important words in this post, or that's the most hypocritical thing I've ever heard in my life.

 

[Tazman]

I believe as humans, our current nature is imperfect, thus, our goal is to reach a stage where all our areas where we need growth in are addressed.

Given that, what could be described as a "perfect" nature? I believe if it was at all possible to achieve growth in all areas that need it, we would cease to exist.

All of what you wrote is certainly understood, but a lot of the fundamentals you believe in are what causes these kinds of debates. Which isn't a bad thing, it makes for good discussion (to a point I guess).

Being moral, or having morals is a tangible law, it need not be written in stone. It is carried inside one'sSelf.

Which is the very reason why I said it was intangible. For the sake of argument, lets say to be moral is basically not to inflict harm on anyone for personal gain. Can you honestly say that nothing you do inflicts harm on someone (something) else somewhere to your own benefit? This can be taken to infinity if you wanted to go deep enough, so where do you stop, where's the limit? Are you immoral if you don't put forth enough "effort" to investigate the effect of all the decisions you make or can you take days off when you're tired or ill?

Are you immoral based on the level of guilt you feel after doing something you feel remorseful for? If Jim feels ten times worse for cheating on his wife than I do mine does he have stronger morals? What is the definition of a moral person, someone who does no wrong and/or who puts more conscious effort into doing what he believes is right?

People use morals just like religious scriptures, they pick and choose when and where they're going to "obey" them. However, I don't see this as a bad thing because I don't believe it's possible not to.

Those of you who are go ahead and give yourselves a pat on the back, you deserve it.

This sounds condescending and sarcastic. And this is the kind of thing that is not necessary when trying to explain one's point of view. I think everyone can afford to take a step back and look at their choices.

It was meant to be, but it was also obvious, there are other comments people make that could be construed as such but they're much more subtle. I would generally agree it isn't necessary though.

I think these types of arguments are either just semantics or strong differences in personal belief systems.

 

[Tazman]

It's also weird when people label themselves "moral" as if it's some tangible law written in stone that they always obey, pointing fingers at those who don't follow their definition (religion?).

Morals are also black and white, so either you ARE or you AREN'T. Those of you who are go ahead and give yourselves a pat on the back, you deserve it.

You either missed some very important words in this post, or that's the most hypocritical thing I've ever heard in my life.

lol, the last sentence was sarcasm, I guess it's not as obvious as I thought it was.

 

[LeftyLoosey]

Look, you're not going to find happiness in banging someone's wife. You're not going to find it in a 20 year-old's vagina, and you're not going to find it in a threesome. Likewise, women aren't going to find it with a dangerous biker or with a rich husband, or with a 6000 square foot mansion, three kids, and a dog... or with a Louis Vuitton purse.

We make decisions in life that hopefully send us down the path toward happiness. Unfortunately, as human beings, happiness HAS to be fleeting, because the moment we become satisfied with our situation, the environment changes and leaves us behind, and guess what, we lose the natural selection battle. The genetic code that allowed us to feel permanent happiness, if it ever existed, was removed from our DNA a long time ago.

We're all in pursuit of the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow that we can never quite get to.

I guess my whole point in making this thread was to point out that instead of becoming DJs in the Pook sense, AFCs have become angry and vengeful. They've been wronged and have chosen to right that wrong by doing the same things to women, and other men, that were done to them.

At the end of the day this is just going to generate even more bitterness among others.

As soon as you realize that this vengeance isn't going to make you happy EITHER, you'll realize you're wasting your time.

Maslow figured it out with his hierarchy. There was nothing about "banging 100 chicks" or "earning a million dollars."

I'm not saying stay single, and I'm not saying get married, or anything in between. Just don't hurt women or break up other relationships because it has happened or could happen to you. At the end of the day you won't gain anything from it anyway. The net result is NEGATIVE for humanity, and if there was ever such a thing as a universal moral code, it would advocate avoiding actions that were a net negative.

 

[ketostix]

When someone makes a statement like "whose morality should I follow..?" To me that's sort of akin to asking whose mathematics should I follow. It's not some organized religion that decides morals or the government or any other group or entitity. It's the concept of reciprocity that determines morals. It's abundantly clear that all humans have the ability to discern how they want to be treated. So is it really that hard to understand and all gray and fuzzy how you should deal with others?

I'm trying to wrap my head around how being amoral is any thing more than justifying to yourself that it's OK to screw everyone else over. In the big picture and in the long run, that's a game that you just can't win since there's only one of you and billions of other people to screw you over too.

If there really is no universal right and wrong then why isn't shoplifting, fraud, arson, vandalism and the list goes on also par for the course? What I don't get is why the people who advocate there being no moral standards should complain about women and modern society. They got what they wanted and the inevitable result of morals based on whatever's obstensibly expedient. They should be in paradise. Myself, I'd take 1956 to the present day mess we have.

 

[STR8UP]

When someone makes a statement like "whose morality should I follow..?" To me that's sort of akin to asking whose mathematics should I follow. It's not some organized religion that decides morals or the government or any other group or entitity. It's the concept of reciprocity that determines morals. It's abundantly clear that all humans have the ability to discern how they want to be treated. So is it really that hard to understand and all gray and fuzzy how you should deal with others?

You are kidding, right? Comparing an abstract and subjective concept like morals to mathematics?

So is it morally right for the used car salesman to buy you a coke in hopes that it will trigger your reciprocity mechanism?

Your friend borrows $2000 from you and promises to pay you back in a month, when you will need the money for the downpayment on your new house. One month later- no money. He KNEW you needed the money, and is now avoiding your phone calls. He had accidentally left his Rolex at your house last time you two were having a beer and he passed out on your couch. Is it morally right to pawn his Rolex?

Is it morally right for a guy to beat the sh!t out of the guy who raped and mutilated his daughter, leaving her for dead, only to be found two days later tied to a tree 1/2 mile off the freeway? Is it morally right for him to kill this man?

For the life of me I cannot figure out how some of you come up with this idea of a "universal rule book". Search Websters, Wikipedia, wherever you want and everything points to morality being fluid arbitrary, and subjective.

"Since you know how you want to be treated you should know how others want to be treated"? C'mon man....