Income Inequality

[Speaker to Animals]

What world have we created for ourselves when a person pointing out that immoral choices have consequences that can affect all of society is met with accusation of being a sanctimonious asshole?

That's not even rational. This poster told me that it's okay to disregard moral restraints as long as the immoral act doesn't harm other people. But most if not all immoral acts harm other people, if not directly, certainly indirectly, no differently than environmental pollution harms the rest of society indirectly. This is why these acts are defined as immoral in the first place.

His entire premise is falsified. But that makes me a sanctimonious asshole? Whatever. No argument coupled with insult speaks for itself.

Elaborate on how an immoral act is 'indirectly harming' someone else.

Extra points if you don't point and screech "But the childrennnN!"

An example was already provided. Be honest and form an argument rather than being a dick.

I want people to recognize that the vast bulk of incivility in this forum comes from people like this poster. Don't blame me for their nastiness.

[SuburbanFarmer]

What world have we created for ourselves when a person pointing out that immoral choices have consequences that can affect all of society is met with accusation of being a sanctimonious asshole?

That's not even rational. This poster told me that it's okay to disregard moral restraints as long as the immoral act doesn't harm other people. But most if not all immoral acts harm other people, if not directly, certainly indirectly, no differently than environmental pollution harms the rest of society indirectly. This is why these acts are defined as immoral in the first place.

His entire premise is falsified. But that makes me a sanctimonious asshole? Whatever. No argument coupled with insult speaks for itself.

Elaborate on how an immoral act is 'indirectly harming' someone else.

Extra points if you don't point and screech "But the childrennnN!"

An example was already provided. Be honest and form an argument rather than being a dick.

I want people to recognize that the vast bulk of incivility in this forum comes from people like this poster. Don't blame me for their nastiness.

Birth Control and Abortion? Seriously?

Is there a shortage of unwanted kids in this country?

[Speaker to Animals]

You still refused to respond to my argument. It had nothing to do with "a shortage of kids". If you can't form a rational argument in response (and let's be honest, we all know you probably are incapable), then maybe just walk away?

Incivility doesn't win the debate.

[Speaker to Animals]

Another example:

I often hear from the pro-licentiousness folks that sex between consenting adults is not a moral act since it doesn't affect anybody else. That's not true. The rise of sex outside of marriage has led to single parenthood, broken homes, and an enormous drain on the public coffers to pay for consequences of all this allegedly harmless sex. You can't really argue that this act does not impact the rest of society when it clearly does -- all the time.

Now, I am hardly innocent of this, so spare me the "you're a sanctimonious bastard!" quip when you lack a good counter-argument.

The point is that, if your basis for what acts should be morally restrained is based on the heuristic of which acts negatively impact nonconsenting people to the act, then we might as well go back to the 1950s. That's the worst possible defense of licentiousness I can think of. Perhaps it's because of the bold-faced lie that it represents and it's inherent absurdity that it catches on with the kinds of people that are into this type of thing. I don't really know for sure. But what I do know for sure is that it's logically unsound. Anybody can see that by simply identifying how these acts negatively affect society at large.

[SuburbanFarmer]

You still refused to respond to my argument. It had nothing to do with "a shortage of kids". If you can't form a rational argument in response (and let's be honest, we all know you probably are incapable), then maybe just walk away?

Incivility doesn't win the debate.

Then what, exactly, does it have to do with? Stopping abortions and birth control would result in an explosion of kids. How is that a benefit?

[SuburbanFarmer]

Another example:

I often hear from the pro-licentiousness folks that sex between consenting adults is not a moral act since it doesn't affect anybody else. That's not true. The rise of sex outside of marriage has led to single parenthood, broken homes, and an enormous drain on the public coffers to pay for consequences of all this allegedly harmless sex. You can't really argue that this act does not impact the rest of society when it clearly does -- all the time.

Now, I am hardly innocent of this, so spare me the "you're a sanctimonious bastard!" quip when you lack a good counter-argument.

The point is that, if your basis for what acts should be morally restrained is based on the heuristic of which acts negatively impact nonconsenting people to the act, then we might as well go back to the 1950s. That's the worst possible defense of licentiousness I can think of. Perhaps it's because of the bold-faced lie that it represents and it's inherent absurdity that it catches on with the kinds of people that are into this type of thing. I don't really know for sure. But what I do know for sure is that it's logically unsound. Anybody can see that by simply identifying how these acts negatively affect society at large.

...did you just shoot your argument in the face, or do you think somehow that the 1950s had less moral law than now?

[Speaker to Animals]

You still didn't address anything in the argument. Being uncivil does not win. You just look like an ass for doing it.

It was argued by another poster that acts which do no affect other people should not be morally restrained. But anybody can show that most of the acts he refers to do in fact inflict great harm on society at large.

You can say sex between consenting adults, for example, does not harm other people, and therefore should not be morally restrained. However, anybody can show that premise to be plainly false. The costs of welfare and single-motherhood alone show that to be false. The harm inflicted on children born out of wedlock show that to be false. Just the costs of STDs, which would not even be spread if we behaved morally show that this act is, in fact, an immoral act.

These acts have always been considered immoral acts precisely because they result in a negative impact upon society. So the argument that they should not be morally restrained because they don't affect anybody else is demonstrably false.


Your flailing, notwithstanding, this really is not something that be denied. You can possibly try to defend licentiousness in another fashion, but this common slogan argument was a dud. It always was a poor argument.

[PartyOf5]

Seriously WFT?! It absolutly does not! In your absolute fucking insane example you leave out the child's rights. And in a case like that the child cannot decide therefore a child is off limits until adulthood to make that choice (when spoiler alert....it's not pedophilia because they are now and adult), nobody, not even the parents can make that call. Why in the fuck do I even have to point that out you sick fuck!

I'm going by your definition of true freedom. You lamented that we do not have true freedom. I didn't make any assumptions on that. I specifically asked you to define it. Now true freedom is more than just:

To be able to do what you want when you want as long as you're not harming or infringing on others liberty. Pretty basic idea. Don't over think it.

All of a sudden it's not so basic.

Let's take another example. A guy decides that his true freedom is carrying an AK-47 around with him everywhere he goes. Is he harming anyone? Not if he doesn't use it. Is he infringing on other liberty? That's a bit trickier. My point is that if you want true freedom for people, then you are going to end up with things some people consider freedom that others will take as an invasion of their freedom. True freedom in the definition you supplied is not going to be possible in a civilized society. We all have to give up some small individual freedoms to keep an overall freedom.

Sorry for the derail. If this continues maybe it should be a separate thread.

[SuburbanFarmer]

You still didn't address anything in the argument. Being uncivil does not win. You just look like an ass for doing it.

It was argued by another poster that acts which do no affect other people should not be morally restrained. But anybody can show that most of the acts he refers to do in fact inflict great harm on society at large.

You can say sex between consenting adults, for example, does not harm other people, and therefore should not be morally restrained. However, anybody can show that premise to be plainly false. The costs of welfare and single-motherhood alone show that to be false. The harm inflicted on children born out of wedlock show that to be false. Just the costs of STDs, which would not even be spread if we behaved morally show that this act is, in fact, an immoral act.

These acts have always been considered immoral acts precisely because they result in a negative impact upon society. So the argument that they should not be morally restrained because they don't affect anybody else is demonstrably false.


Your flailing, notwithstanding, this really is not something that be denied. You can possibly try to defend licentiousness in another fashion, but this common slogan argument was a dud. It always was a poor argument.

Not flailing in the least. More like watching a pinned bug squirm around.

So would banning birth control and abortion result in more single mothers and welfare, or less?

Should be a pretty simple question for you to answer.

[Martin Hash]

How come folks want me to discuss morals? Specifically THEIR morals. Keep your morals to yourself.