A Thought Experiment (4 Viewers)

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,913
I suppose because it was slowly eliminated over the hundreds of thousands of years in between, but you're right. I cannot explain y our gene pool grew to be more diverse over millennia.

It is a bit coincidental though that our brains are far more advanced now than they were when inbreeding was the sole means for families to grow.

Of course, learning to hunt, communicate, sing, draw, etc also contributed significantly to the development of the brain (probably even more so than inbreeding), but considering the prevalence of numerous diseases and disorders are much higher amongst inbred children, I like to think that the taboo of inbreeding is not just social, which is the topic of this thread considering were talking about morality.
If you read back this thread you'll notice there were very sterile scenarios given that excluded the child issue. That was Rev's intention.

Btw it's slightly amusing to me that people fawn over this family values issue like it's the crucial principle in civilization. Whereas family is actually just a byproduct of evolution that turned out to be the best means of reproduction, and is fairly incidental. Which means if tomorrow we had an equally good method of bringing up children then the family question would cease to exist from an evolution standpoint. Of course it would still have cultural significance.

But it's amusing how people commonly view the world that they see and say "since things are as they are that means they should be as they are, we must not tamper with anything".
 

Zé Tahir

JhoolayLaaaal!
Moderator
Dec 10, 2004
29,281
We don't see gay sex as being immoral either, I guess that means we're gonna get a piece of that action too, right?

Because apparently it's not immoral = I wanna do it.
Homosexuality is a sexual orientation while mothers and sisters are of the opposite sex. Which means while you don't want to have sex with them for whatever reason you could potentially do it if you were attracted to them/felt like it and you wouldn't be affected if you friends were doing it.
 

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,913
Homosexuality is a sexual orientation while mothers and sisters are of the opposite sex. Which means while you don't want to have sex with them for whatever reason you could potentially do it if you were attracted to them/felt like it and you wouldn't be affected if you friends were doing it.
I could "potentially" do it whether or not I thought it was immoral. Humans are not exactly strictly moral, are they?

What we're saying here is that if there is no harm to anyone, why would it be immoral?
 

Martin

Senior Member
Dec 31, 2000
56,913
And you, instead of coming up with arguments for why it might be harmful (which I think is a case that can be made) just laugh at us in your superior moral righteousness. Fine, whatever makes you happy.
 
Apr 12, 2004
77,165
Homosexuality is a sexual orientation while mothers and sisters are of the opposite sex. Which means while you don't want to have sex with them for whatever reason you could potentially do it if you were attracted to them/felt like it and you wouldn't be affected if you friends were doing it.
That doesn't explain why gay sex happens even when both recipients are heterosexual.
 

Zé Tahir

JhoolayLaaaal!
Moderator
Dec 10, 2004
29,281
I could "potentially" do it whether or not I thought it was immoral. Humans are not exactly strictly moral, are they?

What we're saying here is that if there is no harm to anyone, why would it be immoral?
That's all I needed to know.

And you, instead of coming up with arguments for why it might be harmful (which I think is a case that can be made) just laugh at us in your superior moral righteousness. Fine, whatever makes you happy.
I don't need to. When people start fucking their mothers and sisters and ask what's wrong it, that's when shit has hit the fun :lol2:

ßüякε;2051894 said:
That doesn't explain why gay sex happens even when both recipients are heterosexual.
Huh?

what about animals?

say.....Seven fucks a goat. Does that mean he did something immoral?
If the goat is consenting then there's nothing wrong with it :lol2:
 

Lion

King of Tuz
Jan 24, 2007
36,185
But Seven is not my friend therefore your theory is wrong.

senile peasant making baseless assumption :rolleyes:


My question stands though.
 

Zé Tahir

JhoolayLaaaal!
Moderator
Dec 10, 2004
29,281
ßüякε;2051904 said:
You said that homosexuality is a sexual preference and to have sex with our mothers/sisters is a choice. Gay sex is not always between gay men, in many cases, both of the persons involved are heterosexual men who are not gay and are not interested in men.
Let me clarify:

He said gay sex is not immoral but that doesn't mean he would have gay sex. Ok, understood, because most people who have gay sex are GAY. So assuming he's a heterosexual male AND that he prefers women over men then having sex with his mother and sister is totally different than having GAY sex. In other words, the example given wasn't such a good comparison.
 
OP
rounder
Jun 13, 2007
7,233
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #119
    If an absolute truth exists then it is obvious and there need be no discussion because everyone knows what the answer is. In the same way that noone is debating whether 2+2 really equals 4. This is obviously not the case with morality since moral conflicts are a huge part of history.

    The fact that there is no objective moral truth doesn't mean we can't come to a consensus amongst each other about what values we want to promote and make up rules that promote those values.
    A problem with the definition again. Morality is objective in the sense that it holds true regardless of what anyone thinks, not because everyone agrees with it.

    If everyone in the world really believed that 2+2=5, that would not make it true. Because it is an objective truth that 2+2=4. It's the same with morality, if everyone on earth believed it was right to torture newborn babies for pleasure, that would not make it right.

    Hmm let's see. Can you rationalize that helping Jews is immoral?




    What have we gotten ourselves into, Martin? :D
    So then would you not say the Nazism is objectively wrong since it cannot be rationally justified? The fact that you cannot accept Nazism as being morally right indicates that you at least think you possess some sort of objective morality. I don't think you'll admit it though.:D

    If you read back this thread you'll notice there were very sterile scenarios given that excluded the child issue. That was Rev's intention.

    Btw it's slightly amusing to me that people fawn over this family values issue like it's the crucial principle in civilization. Whereas family is actually just a byproduct of evolution that turned out to be the best means of reproduction, and is fairly incidental. Which means if tomorrow we had an equally good method of bringing up children then the family question would cease to exist from an evolution standpoint. Of course it would still have cultural significance.

    But it's amusing how people commonly view the world that they see and say "since things are as they are that means they should be as they are, we must not tamper with anything".
    I find it astounding how you are willing to base morality in its entirety on rational basis alone. It's an innate part of us and more often than not, it is our intuition that guides through moral decisions rather than rational thought.

    Consider this example. A Boeing 747 is travelling over Amarican skies, it carries 400 passengers on board. One of the passengers receives a text message that says the plane is being hijacked and will be heading into a crowded shopping center. The news reached the authorities, how do they react? Do they shoot down the 747 or do they just wait and see what happens?

    In such a situation, how can rational thought apply?

    Other meaning of objective in his context.
    I realized.

    Rev likes Godwin's law I guess. In any case I think the objective morality stuff is beaten to death because he and I have very different ideas about what is logical.
    I didn't intentionally use the Nazi's example. I suppose I felt it was neccessary.:D


    The problem is with the definition. If you are using my definition of objective morality, then it would make a lot more sense to you.
     
    Jun 26, 2007
    2,706
    Wait, then shouldn't the same be applied to women wearing the Hijab? I mean certainly muslim women wearing Hihab are more common than gay people(at least statistically). Doesn't that mean we shouldn't condemn them too?
    Who condemns women wearing a Hijab?

    As for your second statement. Thats a low blow, one that i didn't think was in you :D
    I wasn't adressing you personally, because I assume you're smart enough not to let a personal belief lead to violence and negative discrimination. But there are a lot of people who aren't.

    I cannot explain y our gene pool grew to be more diverse over millennia.
    Mutation.

    I realized that some people here would sleep with their mothers and sisters. Wow.
    Who said that?

    So then would you not say the Nazism is objectively wrong since it cannot be rationally justified? The fact that you cannot accept Nazism as being morally right indicates that you at least think you possess some sort of objective morality. I don't think you'll admit it though.:D
    The way Martin and I used 'objective': unbiased, basing your judgement only on facts. If the facts change, so would the judgement.

    The way you use 'objective': originating outside of the human mind, not influenced by our perception of the outside world.
     

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 4)