Happy Atheist Forum

Religion => Religion => Topic started by: iplaw on July 28, 2006, 09:13:35 PM

Title:
Post by: iplaw on July 28, 2006, 09:13:35 PM
QuoteHey, if I don't know about it, it can't hurt me.
Something tells me you're making this argument to win a debate.  If not you have the most pragmatic view of love and sex I have ever heard from a woman; something not very romantic at the very least.

My wife always tells me I'm not romantic enough.  I should have married someone who thinks like you and I could be my primal male pig self without a second thought. :wink:

Wallow in tons of pornography because those fantasies are good, waste my time at strip joints for the same reason, and not even have to worry about desiring my wife cause I can think about all of that other stuff when I'm in bed with her.

No thanks. Singularly desiring my wife above any other woman sounds better to me and probably to her too, not to mention it's a tad more respectful on my part.
Title:
Post by: Court on July 28, 2006, 09:22:01 PM
I'm really not making that argument to win. I'm not that competitive. :)
Title:
Post by: iplaw on July 28, 2006, 09:28:27 PM
QuoteHonestly, how am I going to know if my boyfriend or husband is thinking about someone else in bed...Of course it wouldn't make me feel good to know about it, but I never would, so it doesn't matter...
People don't usually find out until it's too late and their partner has moved on either mentally or physically which usually means dealing with rejection on top of heartbreak.

QuoteMy boyfriend and I are very similar and we both avoid mushy, "romantic" crap because it's insincere and stupid.
My wife and every other woman who loved the movie "The Notebook" would probably want to slap you for that comment. :wink:
Title:
Post by: Asmodean Prime on July 28, 2006, 09:29:02 PM
court, I don't think of women as a 'different' species, just more suited to some roles in society than men.  Come on, even in nature - if a woman carries a child in her womb for nine months, surely she is going to be more 'connected' to her offspring than a man?   Agree with it  or not, there are certain roles that are more suited to women, and some that are suited to men.   anyone who denies this , I think, is just blinkered and pursuiing their own agenda, and I would like to hear your views on this.
Title:
Post by: Court on July 28, 2006, 09:31:31 PM
You already have heard my views on it. You're just not a good listener. I've told you how I felt about your stereotypical views towards women and their "roles" in society. Feel free to peruse my earlier posts, but I'm not stating it again.
Title:
Post by: Court on July 28, 2006, 09:50:45 PM
Quote from: "iplaw"
QuoteHonestly, how am I going to know if my boyfriend or husband is thinking about someone else in bed...Of course it wouldn't make me feel good to know about it, but I never would, so it doesn't matter...
People don't usually find out until it's too late and their partner has moved on either mentally or physically which usually means dealing with rejection on top of heartbreak.

Oh, geez. We're never going to come to a compromise on this one. :))
When I think back, I don't wish it had happened any differently, but I know it would have been much healthier for me to dwell on this relatively immoral thought, because I would have realized much faster that it was real. I couldn't know that I was in love with him when I wouldn't let myself contemplate it.
Those aren't the only two examples, just the biggest. Sometimes, we need to be able to ponder the immoral thoughts to find out who we really are.

In the situations we've been discussing, if a person finds themselves constantly fantasizing about someone other than their partner, they need to dwell on it. If they do, they may realize that they don't belong with that person or aren't sexually attracted to them. And it's much kinder to break something off earlier than later.

Quote from: "iplaw"
QuoteMy boyfriend and I are very similar and we both avoid mushy, "romantic" crap because it's insincere and stupid.
My wife and every other woman who loved the movie "The Notebook" would probably want to slap you for that comment. :wink:

Yeah, I know. I liked The Notebook, too, but I wouldn't want all of that "romance" in my own life. It's just cute to watch.
And, as I said, it's unique to every person. For your wife, that kind of romance isn't insincere. If I were to be that kind of romantic, though, I would have to be faking it. :)

edited for typos
Title:
Post by: iplaw on July 28, 2006, 09:59:20 PM
Needless to say I see your position on relationships as quite mechanical and unpleasant. I could offer a response, but it would be a waste of both of our time so I'm just going to let what I have said previously stand.  That's it for me this week.
Title:
Post by: MommaSquid on July 28, 2006, 10:00:09 PM
Sorry this is late; I had things to do.

Quote from: "MommaSquid"How are the lusting and the act equal?

Quote from: "iplaw"WHERE did I make that argument? NOWHERE!!!

Umm…here:

Quote from: "iplaw"...Christ explicitly stated that if you committ adultery in your heart with a woman it's as if you did it in the flesh.  

And I believe your dear and fluffy lord took care of it in this manner:  

Matthew 5:28 (New International Version)
28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart

Link (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=5&verse=28&version=31&context=verse)

I don't see how the thought is the same as committing the act.  

Quote from: "iplaw"How many women here like the thought of their husbands or boyfriends thinking of other women when the have sex?

It is preferable to cheating.  Sometimes I pretend my husband is Brad Pitt, that doesn’t mean I’d actually sleep with Brad.
Title:
Post by: iplaw on July 28, 2006, 10:05:31 PM
QuoteAnd I believe your dear and fluffy lord took care of it in this manner:
Again, my time here is going to be short if we can't begin to show a little more respect for each other's beliefs.  I think you can agree I have been cordial and thoughtful in my responses to virtually everyone here.  

The key point is "looks at a woman lustfully" re-read my previous post to Jassman.  The equivalence argument was never made.
Title:
Post by: MommaSquid on July 28, 2006, 10:07:24 PM
The "dear and fluffy lord" part was a movie quote.

You have my humble apologies.
Title:
Post by: MommaSquid on July 28, 2006, 10:19:07 PM
Quote from: "iplaw"…show a little more respect for each other's beliefs.  

I respect your right to have whatever religious beliefs you want, but I don’t respect your religious beliefs.
It’s a subtle difference, but one worth noting.


Quote from: "iplaw"The equivalence argument was never made.

I believe it was.

Matthew 5:28 (New International Version)
28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart

That seems pretty equivalent to me.
Title:
Post by: Court on July 28, 2006, 10:29:19 PM
Quote from: "iplaw"Needless to say I see your position on relationships as quite mechanical and unpleasant. I could offer a response, but it would be a waste of both of our time so I'm just going to let what I have said previously stand.  That's it for me this week.

Really? I find that pretty interesting. How, exactly, is my position mechanical? I honestly want to know; I don't often get the chance to talk about relationships with people who don't think love should simply consist of jewelry, flattery, and sex.
I think you may be getting the wrong impression about me. What about my views on relationships is unpleasant? Perhaps I can clarify. (I don't expect a response until Monday, but I usually skip the weekends as well. :))

Alright, people, I'm ready for the truth. Do I have dysfunctional views on relationships? You're not going to offend me (unless you're onlyme, because he manages it constantly)...
Title:
Post by: Jassman on July 29, 2006, 07:18:21 PM
I think that your view on relationships is dead on. I can't seem to see it any differently... I'd like to actually post something of substance, but I'm really tired right now and should quit while I'm ahead (no spelling errors yet I don't think).
Title:
Post by: MommaSquid on July 29, 2006, 11:26:09 PM
Quote from: "Court"Do I have dysfunctional views on relationships?

Not from where I stand.  I'm not high maintenance in the "romance" department.  For example, I don't understand women who pitch a fit when they don't get flowers for Valentine's Day.  I want my husband to give me flowers when he wants to give them to me, not just because the calendar says he should.  

Romance means different things to different people.  The ability to be myself is the most romantic thing my husband can give me.  Luckily, I get that on a daily basis.  Open, honest communication is sexy.




Maybe we should split this topic again.
Title:
Post by: Big Mac on July 30, 2006, 04:24:55 AM
Quote from: "MommaSquid"
Quote from: "iplaw"…show a little more respect for each other's beliefs.  

I respect your right to have whatever religious beliefs you want, but I don’t respect your religious beliefs.
It’s a subtle difference, but one worth noting.


Quote from: "iplaw"The equivalence argument was never made.

I believe it was.

Matthew 5:28 (New International Version)
28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart

That seems pretty equivalent to me.

We interrupt this discussion (the term usage here is quite loose like Pam Anderson) to bring you a joke.

What do you call 20,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?

A GOOD START!
Title:
Post by: Court on July 31, 2006, 02:48:57 PM
Quote from: "MommaSquid"Maybe we should split this topic again.
Probably, but I'm running out of ideas for titles...

I told my boyfriend that I was told I have a mechanical, unpleasant position on relationships and he laughed. :D
Usually, I get labeled cynical and bitter, so I don't find it too unsurprising, I guess.
Title:
Post by: Big Mac on July 31, 2006, 03:54:10 PM
Hey don't feel bad Court, I find the cynical and bitter title on you kind of hot.

To me there's nothing more mechanical than following some stupid movie formula where you HAVE to get this and that in order for the woman to be with you. It's kind of retarded nowadays but some people enjoy it so hey, whatever.
Title:
Post by: Whitney on July 31, 2006, 04:24:51 PM
I don't find Court's view of romance mechanical or unpleasant.

In my view, a mechanical approach to romance would only be doing things for the other person because it's a holiday or you're trying to follow some cinematic view of romance.  Actions done out of perceived obligation are more mechanical than a couple expressing romance in a way that works best for them.  It's the little everyday things that matter, not if the guy can remember flowers on holidays or buys jewelry for anniversaries.  What most view as romantic means absolutely nothing if there isn't any thought behind the action.

Couples should just do what is best for them, in some cases this includes the sharing of fantasies which other couples may view as relationship thought crimes (hence the thread title).
Title:
Post by: Court on July 31, 2006, 04:59:28 PM
Quote from: "Big Mac"Hey don't feel bad Court, I find the cynical and bitter title on you kind of hot.
Gee, thanks. :D

Quote from: "Big Mac"To me there's nothing more mechanical than following some stupid movie formula where you HAVE to get this and that in order for the woman to be with you. It's kind of retarded nowadays but some people enjoy it so hey, whatever.

Exactly. I'm glad I'm not alone on this.

I think that "thought crimes" are simply something invented by jealousy. Jealousy is one of the most useless emotions on the planet. I have experienced it, but I have never voiced any concerns, because I think it merely reflects self-doubt, insecurity, and a lack of trust. Which is exactly what I think is behind the idea that thinking about cheating is equivalent to actually cheating. But, then again, the bible authors sound like they would get jealous pretty easily.
Title:
Post by: Big Mac on July 31, 2006, 05:05:42 PM
Jealousy just seems like a parasite to me. The point of getting jealous makes no sense. Besides, "God" is jealous, you really wanna be like that dickhead?
Title:
Post by: Court on July 31, 2006, 05:07:56 PM
Quote from: "Big Mac"Jealousy just seems like a parasite to me. The point of getting jealous makes no sense. Besides, "God" is jealous, you really wanna be like that dickhead?

Fabulous point.  :lol:
Title:
Post by: iplaw on July 31, 2006, 05:26:07 PM
Interesting to read some of the responses from over the weekend.  First I want to say that after much afterthought, attempting to have a discussion on this topic was probably an exercise in futility on my part.  

This discussion probably would have been more fruitful if the topic of religion would have never been interjected so early on.  I feel that the introduction of my personal christiocentric viewpoint muddied the waters.

I think the discussion would have gone in a different direction entirely had religion not been brought up.  I assume most here are biased against religion prima facie, so even simple points that may have been conceded to on both sides were argued just because they were tied to a religious argument.  I.E. People were even having a hard time agreeing with a statement as simple as "Ideas preceded action," but when asked to give examples of situations where this doesn't apply I was ignored.

I think the topic was partially/correctly restated as "thought crimes."  Fundamentally, where is the only place to stop behavior before it manifests itself physically?  The only place is in the mind.  Period.  

Tell me where I am wrong here:

1.  No one cheats on a spouse without thinking about cheating first.
2.  Thoughts always precede the action.
3.  Stopping the action therefore requires a modification of thought.

It doesn't matter that some thoughts never generate cheating, but it does matter that ALL cheating started with thougths of cheating.  

Someone earlier made the rediculous argument that if you are thinking about cheating maybe you should nurture those thoughts because it means you possibly aren't sexually interested in your partner any longer and you should move on.  That absolves 100% of mid-life men who leave their wives and children to chase that young thing in the office because they just aren't interested in the old thing at home anymore.  If women believe this crap then they deserve what they get.

The only question left is whether you incubate thougths which make cheating more likely or less likely, the decision is ours to make, but let's not be so naive to think that sitting and dwelling on sexual ideas about other people make us less likely or ambivolent to cheating.
Title:
Post by: iplaw on July 31, 2006, 05:40:23 PM
QuoteThe point of getting jealous makes no sense.
Every emotion has a function and can be utilized for healty purposes, jealousy is not different.
Title:
Post by: Big Mac on July 31, 2006, 05:45:54 PM
Quote from: "iplaw"
QuoteThe point of getting jealous makes no sense.
Every emotion has a function and can be utilized for healty purposes, jealousy is not different.

Jealousy is just irrational anger, resentment, and bitterness. Those emotions are not exactly what you want to constantly have around.
Title:
Post by: Whitney on July 31, 2006, 05:50:30 PM
I agree that thought precedes action.  I think there are cases where those thoughts would fall under temporary insanity (not something that can be related to acting on thoughts related to cheating though...well, unless a person catches a spouse cheating), but are still thoughts.  Especially related to relationships, it's kinda hard to cheat if you haven't already knowingly put yourself in a situation to make it possible.  Even if a person had too much to drink they should already know if they have a tendency to go home with other people while drunk, before placing themselves in a situation where that could occur.

The extent to which thinking about something leads to action is entirely dependent on the individual.  Those who know they have a hard time not acting on their thoughts should take care to control their thoughts.  Those who know they won't act on inappropriate thoughts have no need to worry about having such thoughts.

I think that if an individual has constant thoughts about cheating that would be a pretty good indicator that something is wrong with the relationship.  In that case the person should evaluate why they have those thoughts so frequently to decide if they should seek couples counseling.  Personally, I've noticed I only have those thoughts when the relationship is going downhill...it's my subconscious trying to let me know that something is wrong or needs to change (I think this is kinda what Court was talking about before when she said it was better to acknowledge such thoughts rather than suppress them)
Title:
Post by: iplaw on July 31, 2006, 05:54:52 PM
What you describe is the misuse of the emotion.  Jealousy could as easily be descibed as an emotion that can create spousal intimacy and fidelity.  If someone showed an interest in my wife, jealousy triggers the opportunity for me to be attuned to her needs and motivates me to be a better husband.

Love is the supreme ethic and a wonderful emotion if used properly, but its misuse can be equally destructive.  A parent who refuses to discipline a child because they love them too much to offend them runs the risk of destroying them because they end up creating self-centered children with no understanding of social responisbility.
Title:
Post by: Court on July 31, 2006, 05:55:39 PM
Quote from: "laetusatheos"Personally, I've noticed I only have those thoughts when the relationship is going downhill...it's my subconscious trying to let me know that something is wrong or needs to change (I think this is kinda what Court was talking about before when she said it was better to acknowledge such thoughts rather than suppress them)

That is exactly what I meant. I don't think about cheating unless there's a reason, so I know that when I have thoughts about it, even if they seem harmless and innocent, I need to re-evaluate the relationship in which I'm involved.
Title:
Post by: iplaw on July 31, 2006, 06:02:13 PM
QuoteThe extent to which thinking about something leads to action is entirely dependent on the individual. Those who know they have a hard time not acting on their thoughts should take care to control their thoughts. Those who know they won't act on inappropriate thoughts have no need to worry about having such thoughts.
I agree with you.  Most up to this point have ridiculed the idea of thought control as something archaic.  It then comes down to whether you "think" you can handle it, which is why I said it's like russian roulette after you have established that the thought is what initiates the action.

QuotePersonally, I've noticed I only have those thoughts when the relationship is going downhill...it's my subconscious trying to let me know that something is wrong or needs to change (I think this is kinda what Court was talking about before when she said it was better to acknowledge such thoughts rather than suppress them)
This is nice in theory but ignores my entire argument about men who go through mid life crisis.  Simply allowing men this out because there must be something wrong in the marriage is inhumane for the spouse.  We could go through each instance and argument and all would die the death of a thousand qualifications, so it comes down to whether you are will to gamble or not.
Also, in passing I find it interesting that most here responding have been females.
Title:
Post by: Big Mac on July 31, 2006, 06:04:50 PM
Quote from: "iplaw"What you describe is the misuse of the emotion.  Jealousy could as easily be descibed as an emotion that can create spousal intimacy and fidelity.  If someone showed an interest in my wife, jealousy triggers the opportunity for me to be attuned to her needs and motivates me to be a better husband.

Love is the supreme ethic and a wonderful emotion if used properly, but its misuse can be equally destructive.  A parent who refuses to discipline a child because they love them too much to offend them runs the risk of destroying them because they end up creating self-centered children with no understanding of social responisbility.

No what you just described is your own insecurity and mistrust regarding your spouse. I'd be flattered someone took an interest in my partner. However I would trust they are strong enough to ignore such advances and I would recognize the fact that I have an attractive partner. Kind of like being hit on by a gay guy. I'd be flattered but I wouldn't get all insecure and pissed off.
Title:
Post by: Whitney on July 31, 2006, 06:31:28 PM
Quote from: "iplaw"This is nice in theory but ignores my entire argument about men who go through mid life crisis.  Simply allowing men this out because there must be something wrong in the marriage is inhumane for the spouse.  We could go through each instance and argument and all would die the death of a thousand qualifications, so it comes down to whether you are will to gamble or not.
Also, in passing I find it interesting that most here responding have been females.

A person at the age where a mid life crisis could be involved should add that into their evaluation when deciding why they are having thoughts of cheating.  Plus, I never said it was an out, just a reason to re-evaluate the relationship.  Re-evaluating the relationship includes looking at the self and why thoughts towards the relationship have changed.  Anyone who has a halfway decent understanding of their own thoughts should be able to figure out what is wrong...even if it is just a crisis of their own rather than one related to the relationship.

I don't know about anyone else, but I can figure out when the person I'm with is having problems even if he doesn't even hint at them knowingly.  If this is true for everyone, it is far better to acknowledge the problems and discuss them openly than for both partners to suffer because one is burying an issue to spare the other's feelings.  Even if the issue is more personal than related to the relationship, it would still be better to get it out there in the open and have support in working through those feelings.

edit:  I think it may be helpful for me to point out that I don't think someone having thoughts of cheating is necessarily an indicator that something is wrong in the relationship...just that for me, as an individual, it has a track record for being the first sign of a relationship heading south (the guy is becoming controlling etc) and I've tried to discuss those issues with the person prior to thinking of ending the relationship.  I think there is also a difference between fantasy based thoughts (like those about brad pitt or some other sex symbol) and those towards the general desire to cheat.
Title:
Post by: Court on July 31, 2006, 07:05:16 PM
I agree with everything Laetus just said.
I don't think it's taking a gamble to evaluate your thoughts and understand why you're having them. Metacognition, for me, has always been the best therapy. Suppressing thoughts because I think they're "bad" has always been disastrous.
There are such things as innocent fantasies, that do not lead to any actions. But if you don't meditate on your seemingly random thoughts, including the "immoral" ones, how could you possibly know the difference?

And, I think the reason mostly females have been responding is because, for whatever reason, be it socialization or genetics, men tend to get jealous more often and more violently than women. So, they would get more upset by their wife/girlfriend having thoughts about Brad Pitt...
Title:
Post by: iplaw on July 31, 2006, 07:09:14 PM
QuoteI don't know about anyone else, but I can figure out when the person I'm with is having problems even if he doesn't even hint at them knowingly. If this is true for everyone, it is far better to acknowledge the problems and discuss them openly than for both partners to suffer because one is burying an issue to spare the other's feelings. Even if the issue is more personal than related to the relationship, it would still be better to get it out there in the open and have support in working through those feelings.
Brilliant.  I agree.  What has created and sustained this argument was people's dogmatic assertion that thoughts are innocent and innocuous in and of themselves and mental self-control is too prohibitive for intelligent humans.  I never supported or attributed any value to supressing thoughts, rather scripture states we should deal with them so that the pattern stops and deflects the thought process away so it never culminates in the action, but the thought should never be ignored.

Nowhere did I tell people to supress thoughts.  That is a preconceived notion they bring to the table regarding how they think christians should react based upon a basic misunderstanding of the christian philosophy.  Nothing in scripture talks of supression of thougths but the control or submission of them to different ideals because thoughts are the catalyst.
Title:
Post by: iplaw on July 31, 2006, 07:14:37 PM
Quote...men tend to get jealous more often...
Court.  Come on...men tend to be more jealous.  Women get jealous of one another's shoes for pete's sake. :wink:

Big Mac.  Go bother someone else.
Title:
Post by: Court on July 31, 2006, 07:31:08 PM
Quote from: "iplaw"
Quote...men tend to get jealous more often...
Court.  Come on...men tend to be more jealous.  Women get jealous of one another's shoes for pete's sake. :wink:

Okay, that was a bit stereotypical of me. And if you know women who actually get jealous of one another's shoes, they are silly and materialistic. I don't befriend women like that.
Well, perhaps it is simply irrational folks. I don't get jealous very often, and when I do, I realize it's my own insecurity and deal with it. In my experience, men have always been more controlling, violent, and jealous (and irrational). But I'll admit, my experiences are limited.

Perhaps the women on this forum are just more comfortable discussing their views on relationships.
Title:
Post by: Court on July 31, 2006, 07:37:21 PM
Quote from: "iplaw"
QuoteI don't know about anyone else, but I can figure out when the person I'm with is having problems even if he doesn't even hint at them knowingly. If this is true for everyone, it is far better to acknowledge the problems and discuss them openly than for both partners to suffer because one is burying an issue to spare the other's feelings. Even if the issue is more personal than related to the relationship, it would still be better to get it out there in the open and have support in working through those feelings.
Brilliant.  I agree.  What has created and sustained this argument was people's dogmatic assertion that thoughts are innocent and innocuous in and of themselves and mental self-control is too prohibitive for intelligent humans.

I don't think that mental self-control is inherently bad, but I also don't think that the thought is as bad as the action (as the bible verse about thinking about adultery suggests).
Perhaps you could give a specific example of an immoral thought that normal people would have that is dangerous, besides cheating.
Title:
Post by: iplaw on July 31, 2006, 07:38:49 PM
Quotemy experiences are limited
Hope those experiences didn't involve a father figure.
Title:
Post by: Big Mac on July 31, 2006, 07:44:23 PM
Quote from: "iplaw"
Quote...men tend to get jealous more often...
Court.  Come on...men tend to be more jealous.  Women get jealous of one another's shoes for pete's sake. :wink:

Big Mac.  Go bother someone else.

What's the matter, you don't have a legitimate rebuttal? Some lawyer you are, Tex.
Title:
Post by: Whitney on July 31, 2006, 07:50:13 PM
Quote from: "iplaw"
Quotemy experiences are limited
Hope those experiences didn't involve a father figure.

That wasn't necessary.
Title:
Post by: iplaw on July 31, 2006, 07:51:48 PM
First.  I don't remember dangerous as being part of the criteria plenty of things destroy character without being dangerous.  How about:

I bet no one will know it if I cheat on my tax return;  I bet I can skip out on work because the boss will be gone for the day.....So on and So on...

Can you name me an immoral action that wasn't prompted by a thought?
Title:
Post by: iplaw on July 31, 2006, 07:53:27 PM
It wasn't meant to be anything but what I said, sincere.  I hope that she wasn't harmed by someone she should have been able to trust.  People need to stop reading between the lines when there is nothing to read.  Court and I have a good relationship and I have never been anything but kind to her as she is to me.
Title:
Post by: Court on July 31, 2006, 07:54:26 PM
Okay, then. I just read it as sarcastic. Sorry about that.

EDIT: Well, to be really honest, some of that experience has come from my father. I don't judge other men because of him, though, because he was a special kind of asshole that you only encounter every once in a while.
Title:
Post by: Big Mac on July 31, 2006, 07:55:05 PM
Quote from: "laetusatheos"
Quote from: "iplaw"
Quotemy experiences are limited
Hope those experiences didn't involve a father figure.

That wasn't necessary.

So I'm not the only one who found his comment a little creepy?
Title:
Post by: Court on July 31, 2006, 07:56:33 PM
Quote from: "iplaw"First.  I don't remember dangerous as being part of the criteria plenty of things destroy character without being dangerous.  How about:

I bet no one will know it if I cheat on my tax return;  I bet I can skip out on work because the boss will be gone for the day.....So on and So on...

Can you name me an immoral action that wasn't prompted by a thought?

Yeah, but I don't think that thinking about cheating on my tax return is bad, because I have the willpower to stop myself. Ditto on the skipping work. I say I want to call in sick almost every morning, or that I want to skip class. I don't do either, despite the repetitive thought. I've been having those thoughts for years. Do you really think I'll eventually act on them? Or do you think the initial thought should be avoided?
Title:
Post by: iplaw on July 31, 2006, 07:57:30 PM
QuoteOkay, then. I just read it as sarcastic.
Unfortunately the limitations of text only conversation sometimes.  If I'm being sarcastic I lay it on pretty thick, I don't take hip shots.
Title:
Post by: iplaw on July 31, 2006, 08:00:25 PM
Some people don't consider hating others because of the color of their skin as immoral.  Whether we see it as wrong or right subjectively is dangerous ground to stand on in the right or wrong game.  Immorality doesn't always equal dangerous, in fact it most often doesn't.

QuoteSo I'm not the only one who found his comment a little creepy?

Big Mac. Hey pot, kettle calling, it's for you.
Title:
Post by: Court on July 31, 2006, 08:10:48 PM
Quote from: "iplaw"Some people don't consider hating others because of the color of their skin as immoral.  Whether we see it as wrong or right subjectively is dangerous ground to stand on in the right or wrong game.  Immorality doesn't always equal dangerous, in fact it most often doesn't.
So, how do you decide what thoughts to entertain and which to "control" if immorality is so subjective?

Edit: And, no, I can't think of an immoral act that isn't preceded by thought. But, again, my experiences would be limited to my thoughts and acts, and I haven't acted in ways I thought immoral very often at all.
Title:
Post by: iplaw on July 31, 2006, 08:19:36 PM
Morality is not subjective nor do I think it should be left up to individuals to decide what acts are and are not immoral based upon personal opinion or societal consensus.  I think you misunderstand my position.  For me, I think Christ was particularly descriptive about what acts are considered immoral and not, adultery, cheating, stealing, hate, etc.....others I think are not so important if not mentioned directly.  Remember what I said earlier that not all acts can be categorized as evil or good, many are ambiguous, and Christ dealt with the important ones which imply a distinction.
Title:
Post by: Big Mac on July 31, 2006, 08:33:40 PM
Okay great, you have Christ. However you cannot impose your will onto others by saying we are immoral for not following such stringent and dated ideas. What is so immoral about looking at a woman lustfully? It's not as if you actually went through and assaulted her.

And so what if you cheat at taxes? That's like robbing a thief, it kind of negates any kind of morality since the "victim" isn't exactly an innocent person or entity.

Christ dealt with the idea that he was the Son of God, which is ludicrous.  Christ also claims to have stayed in the desert for 40 days and nights without any food or water. Another claim that is patently retarded. Morality is indeed subjective. What one group considers immoral (drinking among muslms) another group may see as a good time (europeans on drinking and soccer). It's usually about what helps maintain order as a whole.

By the way, you really got me with the kettle one. Technically you just admitted (indirectly) that your comment was creepy.

Also, by not responding or even attempting to counter my claim you technically are conceding to it. Look at that, I didn't even need Law School to do that.
Title:
Post by: iplaw on July 31, 2006, 08:38:17 PM
QuoteEdit: And, no, I can't think of an immoral act that isn't preceded by thought. But, again, my experiences would be limited to my thoughts and acts, and I haven't acted in ways I thought immoral very often at all.
I think you have a problem coming up with something because they don't exist, but if you do, I am willing to talk about it.  You have proved me wrong more than once.

Big Mac.  You're a bomb thrower.  I have said before that I ignore rants and that I was ignoring you and have failed to exercise both, but no longer.  Find someone else who you can taggalong with and annoy.  Goodbye.
Title:
Post by: Court on July 31, 2006, 09:02:14 PM
I have to say, though, that I have never done an "immoral" act on which I thought about much.
When I do lie (which isn't very often, because I'm a terrible liar and everyone can tell), it's always instinctive and barely preceded by thought. When I do actually entertain the thought of lying, planning it out, I usually don't go through with it. That's one of the reasons I almost never call in sick to work. I have to think about it, come up with an excuse, and dwell on it a bit. Almost always, I just end up getting out of bed and going to work because I feel guilty that others are going to have to pick up the slack because I'm not there.
I've never cheated on anyone, but I've had thoughts about it.
I've never stolen anything, although I've had thoughts about that, as well.

I'm not sure where I'm going with that, I just thought it was interesting.
Title:
Post by: Court on July 31, 2006, 09:04:24 PM
I do think morality has to evolve with civilizations. It's an individual and societal thing, not a god thing.
Title:
Post by: Big Mac on July 31, 2006, 09:06:55 PM
Quote from: "iplaw"Big Mac.  You're a bomb thrower.  I have said before that I ignore rants and that I was ignoring you and have failed to exercise that but no longer.

Flattery will get you nowhere, old man.

You'll respond, they always respond.
Title:
Post by: iplaw on July 31, 2006, 09:12:34 PM
QuoteI do think morality has to evolve with civilizations. It's an individual and societal thing, not a god thing.
This topic deserves its own thread, but I'm not interested in debating it.  Too many brilliant people have debated the idea of the objective/subjective nature of ethics for thousands of years and I doubt I have anything meaningful to add beyond what has already been said throught the ages.  Obviously I wouldn't expect you to see it as a god thing anymore than you would expect me to see it any other way.
Title:
Post by: Court on July 31, 2006, 09:31:20 PM
Quote from: "iplaw"
QuoteI do think morality has to evolve with civilizations. It's an individual and societal thing, not a god thing.
This topic deserves its own thread, but I'm not interested in debating it.  Too many brilliant people have debated the idea of the objective/subjective nature of ethics for thousands of years and I doubt I have anything meaningful to add beyond what has already been said throught the ages.  Obviously I wouldn't expect you to see it as a god thing anymore than you would expect me to see it any other way.

Oh, I don't intend on arguing it, either. Nor do I expect you to see it as a non-god thing. :)
Title:
Post by: Asmodean Prime on July 31, 2006, 10:28:44 PM
Quote from: "iplaw"Interesting to read some of the responses from over the weekend.  First I want to say that after much afterthought, attempting to have a discussion on this topic was probably an exercise in futility on my part.  

This discussion probably would have been more fruitful if the topic of religion would have never been interjected so early on.  I feel that the introduction of my personal christiocentric viewpoint muddied the waters.

I think the discussion would have gone in a different direction entirely had religion not been brought up.  I assume most here are biased against religion prima facie, so even simple points that may have been conceded to on both sides were argued just because they were tied to a religious argument.  I.E. People were even having a hard time agreeing with a statement as simple as "Ideas preceded action," but when asked to give examples of situations where this doesn't apply I was ignored.

I think the topic was partially/correctly restated as "thought crimes."  Fundamentally, where is the only place to stop behavior before it manifests itself physically?  The only place is in the mind.  Period.  

Tell me where I am wrong here:

1.  No one cheats on a spouse without thinking about cheating first.
2.  Thoughts always precede the action.
3.  Stopping the action therefore requires a modification of thought.

It doesn't matter that some thoughts never generate cheating, but it does matter that ALL cheating started with thougths of cheating.  

Someone earlier made the rediculous argument that if you are thinking about cheating maybe you should nurture those thoughts because it means you possibly aren't sexually interested in your partner any longer and you should move on.  That absolves 100% of mid-life men who leave their wives and children to chase that young thing in the office because they just aren't interested in the old thing at home anymore.  If women believe this crap then they deserve what they get.

The only question left is whether you incubate thougths which make cheating more likely or less likely, the decision is ours to make, but let's not be so naive to think that sitting and dwelling on sexual ideas about other people make us less likely or ambivolent to cheating.

I agree with you 100%, iplaw