Morally Twisted Society

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Fido
 
Reply Mon 4 Jan, 2010 11:33 am
@ArthBH,
Well it ain't for want of trying... It really is possible for Sex to be as damaging as death, and those who show death are giving you fair warning... You can't trust your state if honor is demeaned, and justice is demeaned, and if intimacy is demeaned you can trust your mate... All of our relationshiips are built on trust, and the use of a honorable institution as marriage is to make money endangers the institution which is under legal assault as we speak...Sex with out love is only another form of violence, and it injures people...I does not matter if you buy porn...It is an injury to you because it is an injury to society...
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 4 Jan, 2010 11:37 am
@William,
William;116885 wrote:
I was not able to watch the video. Something about a violation? But I can imagine what it did say by the conversation that is going on among those who "are" commenting. For the most part I agree with what John has to say. (Jgweed). As far a the others, not!

Most of you are parroting what Larry Flynt offered in his desired to make pornography legal. Issuing violence was far worse than what nudity, profanity and lust did. What a crock! Two wrongs guys don't make a right. Have any of you ever heard that before? Damn!

You find more comfort being what can be considered by most as immoral and will not hear any notion of what morality could mean or represents.

What you are offering is not a sign of any definition that can be applied to maturity, but that of contaminated children who know no better nor do they want to be better. There is much that can be offered as to why that is but to offer it to those so afflicted is a chore. So I will not attempt to do so now.



So you are not a part of that society? If you are not then why complain? Why not effort to fix it? If you can see something society doesn't, wouldn't it behoove you to do something about it rather than try to rationalize it, or are you more comfortable where you are in you profane, lusty, pornographic world? Huh?

If you are, then you, my friend, are just a wrong as the one you are so disgusted with in demanding a reason for nudity, profanity and pornography. How so very sad.



Yeah, television; ain't it a hoot! Sorta distracted you, didn't it. Of course you didn't say what the children's channel was offering? Obviously what it was offering wasn't interesting you or you were not paying attention for a variety of reasons for if you were, you would not have changed the channel, would you? I don't know what your environment is telling you so common sense tells me this is what was happening.

When considering all that television is offering today, from my experience, especially to children, please do all you can to keep them
away from it and occupy all the time you have to that child. It was almost that way once and then television came along and it has never been that way since. That is so very, very, very sad!!!!

.

First of all your use of they is highly ambiguous as you effort to explain your stance. Now don't you think it would be prudent to know exactly who "they" are and why "they" are doing that? As far as the nudity and profanity, it seems you find an enjoyment in that and all I can ask you is...............why?

If you think that is not being done at all hours of the day and night, you are simply not paying attention to what is happening. Hell, man, sex sells! Didn't you know that. What more basal instinct can another use to get our attention, the male species, huh? And you bit and are biting.

.

It would if you wanted it to. Your analogy is weak to say the least. You want it to make sense. That is what Flynt did; using war as a greater obscenity. Crap! The gun in those cowboy movies were a metaphor for justice and could be misconstrued for other just as you are doing to satisfy what you fine more comfort with. The old western was just a depiction of good vs. evil; sex is nothing but self gratification. If one was in interested in good vs evil it would be easy to justify why they are into self gratification more. What you might say a "NO BRAINER".




True! Your point?



No, any two creatures can have sex. There are many who are "having sex" and the sex they are having is incapable of bringing life. Please tell me how you rationalize that if you would?



I don't know about fun and all that so called "fun" represents, but it is beautiful when it is between a man and woman who truly understand what the act is all about. We don't understand all that, that is; as a matter of a fact we are going in the opposite direction.



Nice shot, no cigar! Profanity is just an excuse when one is too damn lazy to effort to find more appropriate language. To use profanity is anger is one thing to use it gratuitously it utter stupidity.



If you think that is what it is, then that is what it will be. How's than!



Thank you. You got 'em!

William
Ive read some self righteous crap in my life but this beats all of it. You have completely ignored his intention in this thread and turned him into a depraved porn loving creep. You should be ashamed of yourself. I wont even start to comment on your blinkered bigoted views as it would give a certain credence to your malignant post. This is the guy ,you, who believes god helps you from getting a ticket from the police, when he ignores starving children. Get real and dont condemn without knowing his intentions. His only intention was to point out the absurdity of bigoted blinkered attitudes towards censorship. YouTube shows violent death but not naked or obscene language. He is not condoning visual sex or obscene language but the twisted sense of right and wrong. I am ashamed you could judge someone so harshly.
 
Fido
 
Reply Mon 4 Jan, 2010 11:51 am
@xris,
xris;116924 wrote:
Ive read some self righteous crap in my life but this beats all of it. You have completely ignored his intention in this thread and turned him into a depraved porn loving creep. You should be ashamed of yourself. I wont even start to comment on your blinkered bigoted views as it would give a certain credence to your malignant post. This is the guy ,you, who believes god helps you from getting a ticket from the police, when he ignores starving children. Get real and dont condemn without knowing his intentions. His only intention was to point out the absurdity of bigoted blinkered attitudes towards censorship. YouTube shows violent death but not naked or obscene language. He is not condoning visual sex or obscene language but the twisted sense of right and wrong. I am ashamed you could judge someone so harshly.

It is neither blinkered or bigoted... People who get some creepy joy out of death videos are no different from those who like sex videos...The difference is not of kind, but of degree...
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 4 Jan, 2010 01:15 pm
@Fido,
Fido;116932 wrote:
It is neither blinkered or bigoted... People who get some creepy joy out of death videos are no different from those who like sex videos...The difference is not of kind, but of degree...
You are both acting like bigoted evangelists but then maybe you are. When Will can claim god helps him avoid traffic violations what more could I assume. Its not that we enjoy watching porn as you are so keen on purposely interpreting wrongly but that the likes of you and your bigoted twisted sense of right and wrong will not criticise the appalling broadcast of brutal violence but will scream horror when a womens breasts are exposed.
 
ArthBH
 
Reply Mon 4 Jan, 2010 01:18 pm
@Fido,
They are not the same thing and they are not forms of violence. Violence makes people unhappy, it is not enjoyable. Sex is enjoyable, it makes people happier.
 
William
 
Reply Mon 4 Jan, 2010 03:55 pm
@xris,
xris;116924 wrote:
Ive read some self righteous crap in my life but this beats all of it.


Which part? Please be specific if you don't mind. The self part? Honestly xris, you guys have got to get another tune to chant.

xris;116924 wrote:
You have completely ignored his intention in this thread and turned him into a depraved porn loving creep.


Where exactly did I do that?

xris;116924 wrote:
You should be ashamed of yourself. I wont even start to comment on your blinkered bigoted views as it would give a certain credence to your malignant post.


Why should I be ashamed? Offering my opinion? He asked for what I thought and I gave it. What did you want me to do if I didn't agree with what he was "trying" to insinuate; just not respond? You guys huddle in groups when it comes to discussing morality and attack at the mention of it.

xris;116924 wrote:
This is the guy ,you, who believes god helps you from getting a ticket from the police, when he ignores starving children.


Never seen a starving (food wise) myself in my entire life. If I did, he wouldn't be starving long. As far as the ticket thing, yeah, I thought that little help was kinda nice.

xris;116924 wrote:
Get real and dont condemn without knowing his intentions. His only intention was to point out the absurdity of bigoted blinkered attitudes towards censorship.


I thought I had his intentions down rather good actually. His whole point was based on what he was exposed to on the ole telly and what he had seen on youtube. I was merely hinting to perhaps get a life himself and stop watching so much of television and browsing the internet. You call that having a real life? Who is being real here?

xris;116924 wrote:
YouTube shows violent death but not naked or obscene language. He is not condoning visual sex or obscene language but the twisted sense of right and wrong. I am ashamed you could judge someone so harshly.


I wasn't condemning him, I was just explaining his rationalizations. Gratuitous sex and violence are both wrong and comparing one against the other is a useless argument. It appeared as though he was more or less condoning one by comparing the other. If one is ok, then they should both be. Like I said two wrongs don't make a right.

Perhaps it was my use of the word "morality" that got you so upset? There are those who think there is not such thing. That's always been the argument when it comes to gratuitous, fun sex. Hell, I guess that's all there is to life, huh? For some I am sure that is all there is.

As far as violence, up close an personal; I would be willing to wager the majority of those who watch so much television have never experience it in their life. For those that have, still it wouldn't hold a candle to all the pain that "fun sex" is causing. Of course I mentioned that, you just conveniently ignored it.

Like I said, you guys got to come up with some new mud to sling. You take some of the most dire cases of religions brainwashing and assume all of faith are the same. It's getting old guys.

William
 
Fido
 
Reply Mon 4 Jan, 2010 04:02 pm
@ArthBH,
ArthBH;116973 wrote:
They are not the same thing and they are not forms of violence. Violence makes people unhappy, it is not enjoyable. Sex is enjoyable, it makes people happier.


I don't suppose yoou have lived long enough to see much human wreckage from failed sexual relationships...Think of it in this fashion before you get a busy finger... Humans bond, and it is our natural state, and you cannot touch a single person as though in love and take back your touch without a bit of their being...People may feel whole when they meet, but even a few hours or days later feel as though they have an open wound where ever they were touched... I am telling this as fact...

Lovers have a certain caring that does not pass... They try only to touch those they might be stuck to, and not mind it...But, the sad reality is that most people are not lovers no matter how they may pretend, and they seek sexual medicine as a cure, but it only coats their misery with dirt...

Everyone who loves is made better my sex, and everyone who hates is injured by it...I am not telling you anything you would not have learned in some fashion in twenty years, but why not face the inevitable, and realize there is a healthy sort of sex, and an unhealthy sort... Love takes health...It is not for weaklings... Anyone can have intercourse... That is one way of telling you are not in the grave, but to love takes strength, and health, and desire...And most men are simply not up to it, or women... There are many who want to be loved without merit...It is another thing to wish to merit love so much as to work at it, and it is not easy, and never was...
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 4 Jan, 2010 04:17 pm
@William,
When you've brainwashed yourself into believing god would prefer to help you escape a traffic ticket than feed a child, telling us of his charity , I dont have to prove anything. You do it yourself with confident ease.

You and your so pious friend have no idea how your twisted views are seen by reasonable souls. If you can believe the real scenes of violent death of humans is on a par with nudity then your off your fundamentalist head.
 
Fido
 
Reply Mon 4 Jan, 2010 04:43 pm
@ArthBH,
I am not pushing religion on you...I might push morality on you, but a moral argument is a rational argument, and I do not expect, that if you are not moral, that an agument will make you so...Instead, if you were moral, you would know what is right, and you would not let anyone sell you short, or anyone you might care about...What do you think...
 
Pyrrho
 
Reply Mon 4 Jan, 2010 04:58 pm
@xris,
xris;117062 wrote:
When you've brainwashed yourself into believing god would prefer to help you escape a traffic ticket than feed a child, telling us of his charity , I dont have to prove anything. You do it yourself with confident ease.

You and your so pious friend have no idea how your twisted views are seen by reasonable souls. If you can believe the real scenes of violent death of humans is on a par with nudity then your off your fundamentalist head.


Religion has a tendency to warp morality. If in doubt, take a look at this thread:

http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/secondary-branches-philosophy/philosophy-religion/1103-god-willing-prevent-evil-but-not-able-then-he-impotent.html

According to some of the faithful, it is good that God allows people to starve to death, and that babies burn alive in fires. And it is good that people suffer in agony from diseases, as well. It is no wonder that many religious fanatics of the past wanted doctors to not interfere with the pain and suffering of women during childbirth. Why, it is God's will, and God is all good, so it is good that these things happen!

It is no wonder that the Inquisition, in its full glory, lasted for hundreds of years. But the secular authorities, once they got sufficiently out from under the control of religionists, decided it was a bad thing. Otherwise, it would probably still be happening today. You can here see the result on morality of our getting away from religion!
 
Fido
 
Reply Mon 4 Jan, 2010 05:54 pm
@Pyrrho,
Pyrrho;117078 wrote:
Religion has a tendency to warp morality. If in doubt, take a look at this thread:

http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/secondary-branches-philosophy/philosophy-religion/1103-god-willing-prevent-evil-but-not-able-then-he-impotent.html

According to some of the faithful, it is good that God allows people to starve to death, and that babies burn alive in fires. And it is good that people suffer in agony from diseases, as well. It is no wonder that many religious fanatics of the past wanted doctors to not interfere with the pain and suffering of women during childbirth. Why, it is God's will, and God is all good, so it is good that these things happen!

It is no wonder that the Inquisition, in its full glory, lasted for hundreds of years. But the secular authorities, once they got sufficiently out from under the control of religionists, decided it was a bad thing. Otherwise, it would probably still be happening today. You can here see the result on morality of our getting away from religion!

You are abstracting a bad God who should be a good God based upon human needs when you have not first proved the reality of God, which your abstractions do not prove... That stacking of abstractions does not prove God or prove the nature of God, so what is the point??? Does it help you to feel better about adding to human injustice???
 
William
 
Reply Mon 4 Jan, 2010 07:10 pm
@xris,
xris;117062 wrote:
When you've brainwashed yourself into believing god would prefer to help you escape a traffic ticket than feed a child, telling us of his charity , I don't have to prove anything. You do it yourself with confident ease.


God has nothing to do with why children are starving, my myopic accuser. When one wants to defend a behavior that is reprehensible one can go to excessive lengths to find a behavior the is more reprehensible. I am not saying yours is that, but it typical of the tactics one uses to defend themselves. You are looking for a God to solve your problems and you can't imagine one. For that to happen it would be prudent to at least believe one exists! Don't you think?

There are billions of starving children in the world and I assure you it is not food for which they seek nourishment. Who, knows you may be one of those and it is my guess you are.

For one who has no idea of what love is, it is no feat, to find many analogies to justify their actions. If I were you, I guess I would be angry too. They are, by far, the hardest to reach. There are many who engage is sex and call it love when in fact it is a desperate act of never being loved. In that respect one can call any act love.

xris;117062 wrote:
You and your so pious friend have no idea how your twisted views are seen by reasonable souls.


So, you call yourself reasonable? Perhaps tremendously rationalistic, but reasonable, not even close. Many can rationalize that which is not right; hell a child does that when no one is paying attention to them by even hurting themselves, to get the attention they never had. You are lucky here, xris, I hear you and understand why you think as you do. Like I said, some are much more difficult to reach than others. I am tenacious; I don't give up that easily. I know if I do that you will call me names like self righteous. That's been the tactic for a while now. You effort to insult me, behaps before, you could. but no more. I have grown since then. Have you?

xris;117062 wrote:
If you can believe the real scenes of violent death of humans is on a par with nudity then your off your fundamentalist head.


Hell, xris, I can think of many things that would make Medusa look attractive.

William
 
starfighter
 
Reply Mon 4 Jan, 2010 11:13 pm
@William,
Baring witness to the extremes of both, I have seen the same hollow look on men's eyes. I have felt the same cold feeling afterwards. I have the same nightmares from both. To commit a great act of violence, or a loveless act of sex requires the same distance mentally from what you are doing. Neither is natural.

Ultimately you can justify an act of violence. Unless your a complete pacifist. Judging by how we are so actively debating this subject I don't think anyone who has commented so far isn't capable of protecting something with violence if necessary.

You can not justify something like pornography. A loveless act of sex is purely for self gratification. When something is so selfish it is hard to justify public display.

As it applies to the original post.....I agree with Fido (I think if I understand him correctly) Showing someone a scene of violence can lead to some greater good. Showing a scene of nudity even for a more highbrow reason can only work to cheapen our value of things of this nature.
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 04:05 am
@William,
William;117109 wrote:
God has nothing to do with why children are starving, my myopic accuser. When one wants to defend a behavior that is reprehensible one can go to excessive lengths to find a behavior the is more reprehensible. I am not saying yours is that, but it typical of the tactics one uses to defend themselves. You are looking for a God to solve your problems and you can't imagine one. For that to happen it would be prudent to at least believe one exists! Don't you think?

There are billions of starving children in the world and I assure you it is not food for which they seek nourishment. Who, knows you may be one of those and it is my guess you are.

For one who has no idea of what love is, it is no feat, to find many analogies to justify their actions. If I were you, I guess I would be angry too. They are, by far, the hardest to reach. There are many who engage is sex and call it love when in fact it is a desperate act of never being loved. In that respect one can call any act love.



So, you call yourself reasonable? Perhaps tremendously rationalistic, but reasonable, not even close. Many can rationalize that which is not right; hell a child does that when no one is paying attention to them by even hurting themselves, to get the attention they never had. You are lucky here, xris, I hear you and understand why you think as you do. Like I said, some are much more difficult to reach than others. I am tenacious; I don't give up that easily. I know if I do that you will call me names like self righteous. That's been the tactic for a while now. You effort to insult me, behaps before, you could. but no more. I have grown since then. Have you?



Hell, xris, I can think of many things that would make Medusa look attractive.

William
You fail to recognise your own failings but are only too willing to comment on others, it was you that started the abusive language, not I. I dont believe in your god so I don't believe he allows children to die of hunger. The problem is, you believe he helped you avoid traffic violations, now if your so naive to believe that crap then what does your opinion count for to a reasonable person?

---------- Post added 01-05-2010 at 05:10 AM ----------

starfighter;117160 wrote:
Baring witness to the extremes of both, I have seen the same hollow look on men's eyes. I have felt the same cold feeling afterwards. I have the same nightmares from both. To commit a great act of violence, or a loveless act of sex requires the same distance mentally from what you are doing. Neither is natural.

Ultimately you can justify an act of violence. Unless your a complete pacifist. Judging by how we are so actively debating this subject I don't think anyone who has commented so far isn't capable of protecting something with violence if necessary.

You can not justify something like pornography. A loveless act of sex is purely for self gratification. When something is so selfish it is hard to justify public display.

As it applies to the original post.....I agree with Fido (I think if I understand him correctly) Showing someone a scene of violence can lead to some greater good. Showing a scene of nudity even for a more highbrow reason can only work to cheapen our value of things of this nature.
It was not the point of the debate, if you bothered to read it. He was commenting on the double standards society has inflicted on us all. YouTube is only too pleased to show the most horrendous of acts but not allow scenes of any sexual encounter. We are not saying porn should be shown but that violence is just as damaging . My opinion on sexual viewing may differ from yours but it does not conclude I am in favour of hard porn.
 
William
 
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 06:54 am
@ArthBH,
xris;117208 wrote:
You fail to recognise your own failings but are only too willing to comment on others,


I have my failings, it's a shame others don't learn from theirs. I did! Misery loves company and that is why I don't reveal them. You'd like that wouldn't you? Sorry! You would find a relief in that which would enable you to exist more comfortably in yours. I have revealed more about my life than anyone on this forum with the exception of perhaps Salima, a dear friend. What about you! Care to go there?

William
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 07:19 am
@William,
William;117225 wrote:
I have my failings, it's a shame others don't learn from theirs. I did! Misery loves company and that is why I don't reveal them. You'd like that wouldn't you? Sorry! You would find a relief in that which would enable you to exist more comfortably in yours. I have revealed more about my life than anyone on this forum with the exception of perhaps Salima, a dear friend. What about you! Care to go there?

William
Pain has no reason to invent a personal benevolent god. I find no comfort in others invention only dismay at the naivety that you would think he helped you in certain trivia and not a child in need of their life. It was you that judged harshly not I.

When we realise there is no benevolent god but only each other then we may see heaven on earth.

I have given my experiences of life on many occasions but if you were not present, can I be blamed for your absence. I dont wear my sorrow or problems like a badge of office.
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 07:32 am
@xris,
xris;117208 wrote:
You fail to recognise your own failings but are only too willing to comment on others, it was you that started the abusive language, not I. I dont believe in your god so I don't believe he allows children to die of hunger. The problem is, you believe he helped you avoid traffic violations, now if your so naive to believe that crap then what does your opinion count for to a reasonable person?

---------- Post added 01-05-2010 at 05:10 AM ----------

It was not the point of the debate, if you bothered to read it. He was commenting on the double standards society has inflicted on us all. YouTube is only too pleased to show the most horrendous of acts but not allow scenes of any sexual encounter. We are not saying porn should be shown but that violence is just as damaging . My opinion on sexual viewing may differ from yours but it does not conclude I am in favour of hard porn.

Sex without love is a form of violence, and to put it in the faces of those who are offended, who recognized that they are being subjected to violence, and made to witness violence... Now I have said it, that loveless sex is violence, and you deny, but will not refute it... If you are so insensitive as to not realize that people are hurt by it, and are often driven to sex without love out of some disease, or desparation; then you may never get it...Beauty can be a positive curse to a young woman...Her own desires can be turned against her... The desparation for love is such that it drives many to madness, but that should not be exploited... People can be the active participants in their own destruction, but that does not mean those encouraging such behavior are just in doing so....We have to work for a world were life and love are valued, where the honor of young people is guarded, where we do not give people the power to abuse for money, or give them the money or right to abuse in the search for some principal of freedom...The freedom of expression is not always the freedom to offend...
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 10:27 am
@Fido,
Fido;117238 wrote:
Sex without love is a form of violence, and to put it in the faces of those who are offended, who recognized that they are being subjected to violence, and made to witness violence... Now I have said it, that loveless sex is violence, and you deny, but will not refute it... If you are so insensitive as to not realize that people are hurt by it, and are often driven to sex without love out of some disease, or desparation; then you may never get it...Beauty can be a positive curse to a young woman...Her own desires can be turned against her... The desparation for love is such that it drives many to madness, but that should not be exploited... People can be the active participants in their own destruction, but that does not mean those encouraging such behavior are just in doing so....We have to work for a world were life and love are valued, where the honor of young people is guarded, where we do not give people the power to abuse for money, or give them the money or right to abuse in the search for some principal of freedom...The freedom of expression is not always the freedom to offend...
You constantly grind on about something I have never condoned, why is that? You and your fellow evangelist have a certain interest in offending without realising it, why is that? You are both so easy to condemn, why is that? Has it got something to do with you following the same malevolent god?
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 10:48 am
@xris,
xris;117287 wrote:
You constantly grind on about something I have never condoned, why is that? You and your fellow evangelist have a certain interest in offending without realising it, why is that? You are both so easy to condemn, why is that? Has it got something to do with you following the same malevolent god?

Morality hasn't much to do with God...You can blow that out of your horn anytime... Are you really up to an intelligent conversation on this subject???
 
starfighter
 
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2010 10:51 am
@xris,
xris;117208 wrote:
It was not the point of the debate, if you bothered to read it. He was commenting on the double standards society has inflicted on us all. YouTube is only too pleased to show the most horrendous of acts but not allow scenes of any sexual encounter. We are not saying porn should be shown but that violence is just as damaging . My opinion on sexual viewing may differ from yours but it does not conclude I am in favour of hard porn.



I did bother to read it. Thats why I said that some good can come to showing scenes of violence. Like the news showing scenes of an atrocity committed. In my most humble opinion. Any type of sexual viewing is for self gratification so I can agree that news media and things of this nature be more violent. My comment was right to the point of the debate I thought.

On my personal reaction I was trying to put my opinion in context. Did you bother to read it? This all could possibly a difference in opinion.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 10/25/2021 at 04:51:35