User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2019-05-03 at 12:53 AM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator Then you're just being immoral. I.e. beyond "I want to and you can't stop me" you have no justification to offer and you couldn't supply any defence to someone who has you in the same position.
It's only "immoral" from the perspective of the person claiming he has a moral obligation contrary to his actions.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2019-05-03 at 1:07 AM UTCi like how he takes the time to set his profile pic every time
-
2019-05-03 at 1:31 AM UTC
-
2019-05-03 at 1:43 AM UTCIf there is an objective morality, it is utterly unprovable and thefor as silly to believe in as the Holy Trinity. Like the Holy Trinity, it was invented to keep the betamenschen in their lowly places and from revolting. It is popular, but irrational.
Originally posted by Obbe It's only "immoral" from the perspective of the person claiming he has a moral obligation contrary to his actions.
Yes Obbe, that would be called the person who is a "Moral Agent", which is nobody until they decide they want to be one. You are not a "moral agent" by default.A moral agent is a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held accountable for his or her own actions.
Objective rights and wrongs don't exist, so the one who lives without referencing them due to this knowledge knows that "moral agency" first of all, is absurd, and second of all, is a fabricated tool of control based on subjective opinions. -
2019-05-03 at 2:13 AM UTCYou don't need an objective right or wrong, just to have the notion of right or wrong.
-
2019-05-03 at 2:15 AM UTCFor whom?
-
2019-05-03 at 2:23 AM UTC
-
2019-05-03 at 2:39 AM UTCI reject the notion of it because it's irrational.
-
2019-05-03 at 2:52 AM UTCI reject your rejection on the same grounds and with the same level of substantiation.
-
2019-05-03 at 3:05 AM UTCok
-
2019-05-03 at 6:22 AM UTC
Originally posted by Nil If somebody told me I had a moral obligation to act in a certain way I would tell them to fuck off… At this point where people's abstract bullshit meets reality what is to be done? When being wrong has no real consequences of what significance is it to be moral or not?
then you had simply sealed your fate as a pariah, a someone in the minority group with unpopular way of life.
tue one group that, when pushes comes to shoves, get burned at the stakes. -
2019-05-06 at 11:10 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator … whether or not you want a cock in the ass determines whether or not a cock in the ass is bad or good.
Originally posted by DietYellow What does that have to do with an obligation?
Originally posted by Common De-mominator You can have a moral obligation whether or not you feel like it.
What is the specific moral obligation that follows from person A thinking a cock in their ass is good and person B thinking a cock in their ass is bad?
I imagine you might want to talk about consent, but consent is not specific to the scenario you laid out. Nobody is wanting to rape anyone in your scenario. All we know is that the goodness or badness of having a cock in your ass is relative to whether or not you like having a cock in your ass, ie your preference. We have both stated that is relative. You've stated that you believe there is an objective moral obligation that necessarily follows this scenario. What is the specific moral obligation that you believe is a necessary consequence of this scenario? -
2019-05-06 at 11:43 PM UTCYEah.'
and ALCOHOL IS EVIL AND IMMORAL FOR UTILITARIANS. Therfor, Lil' Empty is a bad person according to his own views.
and time is relative. -
2019-05-07 at 12:05 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe What is the specific moral obligation that follows from person A thinking a cock in their ass is good and person B thinking a cock in their ass is bad?
I imagine you might want to talk about consent, but consent is not specific to the scenario you laid out. Nobody is wanting to rape anyone in your scenario. All we know is that the goodness or badness of having a cock in your ass is relative to whether or not you like having a cock in your ass, ie your preference. We have both stated that is relative. You've stated that you believe there is an objective moral obligation that necessarily follows this scenario. What is the specific moral obligation that you believe is a necessary consequence of this scenario?
FUCK YOU SO MUCH -
2019-05-07 at 12:11 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe What is the specific moral obligation that follows from person A thinking a cock in their ass is good and person B thinking a cock in their ass is bad?
I imagine you might want to talk about consent, but consent is not specific to the scenario you laid out. Nobody is wanting to rape anyone in your scenario. All we know is that the goodness or badness of having a cock in your ass is relative to whether or not you like having a cock in your ass, ie your preference. We have both stated that is relative. You've stated that you believe there is an objective moral obligation that necessarily follows this scenario. What is the specific moral obligation that you believe is a necessary consequence of this scenario?
Listen, I will make this real simple. Why shouldn't I beat your ass and steal your money? -
2019-05-07 at 12:23 AM UTC
-
2019-05-07 at 1:13 AM UTC
-
2019-05-07 at 2:41 AM UTCwhatever he wants to
-
2019-05-07 at 2:46 AM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2019-05-07 at 10:40 AM UTC
