Judging people (long)

[Undertoad]

OK now that is fuckin uncanny.

[lumberjim]

Originally posted by jinx


Oh knock it off! Who are you jerking off to? Inquiring minds want to know...
It's my sister isn't it? Pig dog...

EEEWWWW!!! not that she's gross or anything, but that's incest isn't it? i mean shes my sister in law.

as i said, if i was to partake in that particular habit, i would think of you....maybe with that friend of yours that's bi. but mostly you! promise!

[jinx]

Originally posted by vsp


Since I'm not lumberjim, do you mind if I use your sister?

Ok, but just this one time.

[jinx]

Originally posted by lumberjim



EEEWWWW!!! not that she's gross or anything, but that's incest isn't it? i mean shes my sister in law.

as i said, if i was to partake in that particular habit, i would think of you....maybe with that friend of yours that's bi. but mostly you! promise!

Huh. Is that normal?
I'd be thinking of angelina jolie I think.

[lumberjim]

Originally posted by jinx


Huh. Is that normal?
I'd be thinking of angelina jolie I think.

when have i ever done anything normal?

and the question referred to some one you know. plus, i'd never follow billy bob thornton.

i knew when i asked that question that i'd weather a bunch of probing masturbation questions, but i really DID mean it hypothetically. i have a strict don;t ask dont tell policy about what i do in the bathroom

[Riddil]

Originally posted by hot_pastrami

Nobody can tell you what your morals are... if it feels like you're doing something wrong, you're doing something wrong. Now come out of the bathroom, you've been in there for at least twenty minutes now.

Oo, now that's an interesting point. I know it grew out of a joke... but still... is a sin only a sin if your moral compass defines it as one?

I knew an over-zealous Christian kid in college who admitted that every time he had "impure thoughts" he felt a deep, deep shame. Therefore, by his definition, he is sinning. But for lumberjim, no such sin occured.

What about moral beliefs that involve actions? What if you thought, "My elderly neighbor just passed away, and since he has no immediate family it's ok to take the rocking chair on his porch. (I know someone who did this.)

But if that's ok, then how about, "While visiting Bill Gates I found a dollar on the floor. If I take it, he'll never miss it."

And then how about, "Best Buy is a massive company. If I lie and return this new big-screen TV after the superbowl they'll never miss the money it cost them."

You see where I'm going. If a "sin" is defined by our own personal moral compass, then how far can it go? Is there a difference b/w "personal sin" and "social sin", defined solely by a difference b/w thought and action?

And the rules for a social-sin must by necessity change over time as the social mind changes. (eg, masturbation was once seen as a social sin, but is now accepted).

Faaascination.

*returns thread to discussion about masturbation*

[SteveDallas]

Originally posted by Undertoad
OK now that is fuckin uncanny.

Actually, I thought it was just par for the course!

[vsp]

Originally posted by Riddil
Oo, now that's an interesting point. I know it grew out of a joke... but still... is a sin only a sin if your moral compass defines it as one?

I knew an over-zealous Christian kid in college who admitted that every time he had "impure thoughts" he felt a deep, deep shame. Therefore, by his definition, he is sinning. But for lumberjim, no such sin occured.

What about moral beliefs that involve actions? What if you thought, "My elderly neighbor just passed away, and since he has no immediate family it's ok to take the rocking chair on his porch. (I know someone who did this.)

But if that's ok, then how about, "While visiting Bill Gates I found a dollar on the floor. If I take it, he'll never miss it."

And then how about, "Best Buy is a massive company. If I lie and return this new big-screen TV after the superbowl they'll never miss the money it cost them."

You see where I'm going. If a "sin" is defined by our own personal moral compass, then how far can it go? Is there a difference b/w "personal sin" and "social sin", defined solely by a difference b/w thought and action?

"Sin" and "Ethical failure" are different beasts. The former applies to those of religious faith; the latter does not require religion to operate. ("Violation of the law" is yet another related concept.)

[Sun_Sparkz]

with regard to thinking of someone else while alone in the bathroom i think it is in a way cheating. i lived with my last boyfriend for 2 years. and in the last few months i recieved a 300 dollar phone bill (i was the payer of the phone bill).. and when i checked the last few bills and the large recent one, i discovered he had been making phone calls to some quite unsavoury (and expensive) girly lines .. and the times all co-incided with around 10 mins after i left for work each day... and i had been paying for this for 6 months totally unaware! i FELT so betrayed. it made me feel WORTHLESS and as though he didnt respect me. It ruined our sex life completely because i then felt like i wasnt enough for him, like he would prefer something else.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Adding hot fudge doesn't dilute my love of ice cream.

[SteveDallas]

Originally posted by vsp


Since I'm not lumberjim, do you mind if I use your sister?

Maybe you could just use her?

(Poor jinx's sister.. her ears must be burning)

[Riddil]

Originally posted by vsp
"Sin" and "Ethical failure" are different beasts. The former applies to those of religious faith; the latter does not require religion to operate. ("Violation of the law" is yet another related concept.)

Hrm. You're probably pulling from accepted published works, so my arguing this is pretty stupid... BUT... I'm not so sure that definition matches. Otherwise it is impossible for an atheist to "sin". He could only have a moment of "ethical failure". But aren't they really the same thing? A religious man has his ethical structure based in his religion, so a 'sin' is just another name for an 'ethical failure'. It simply lets us know that the foundation for that particular ethics breach was based upon that man's religion.

And since they're equal, your comment is an unrelated point to my original comment. How do you deal with a person who's ethical boundaries may be a little too broad? Breaking a man's leg to steal his wallet would be an ethical failure for me, and later I would feel guilt. But breaking a man's leg that is attacking me is not an ethical breach, and since no breach occured, and I feel no guilt or remorse for the action.

But that situation applied to an ethical breach in my own mind. What about a breach to a set of ethics as defined by our society? What happens when an action breaks either the personal ethics or societies, but not both? And since societies eithics are defined by the ever-changing social mind, would it be possible to purposely shape society to alter it's eithical structure... therefore rendering past "sins" into accepted actions? (euthenasia, anyone?)

Hmmmm.

[vsp]

Originally posted by Sun_Sparkz
with regard to thinking of someone else while alone in the bathroom i think it is in a way cheating. i lived with my last boyfriend for 2 years. and in the last few months i recieved a 300 dollar phone bill (i was the payer of the phone bill).. and when i checked the last few bills and the large recent one, i discovered he had been making phone calls to some quite unsavoury (and expensive) girly lines .. and the times all co-incided with around 10 mins after i left for work each day... and i had been paying for this for 6 months totally unaware! i FELT so betrayed. it made me feel WORTHLESS and as though he didnt respect me. It ruined our sex life completely because i then felt like i wasnt enough for him, like he would prefer something else.

Well, that's not _thinking_ of someone else. That's spending three hundred bucks (plus whatever was on the previous bills) on someone else. Last I checked, fantasizing about someone who'd say the things he wanted to hear was free...

That's also him not communicating with you that he enjoyed "unsavory" conversation, and paying good money to _avoid_ discussing that with you; for all he knew, you might've provided it for free if you knew he liked it.

The moral of the story is: if you want something bad enough, ask for it. If you get a "no," at least it's out in the open and you can talk about it, instead of getting caught with your pants down and causing major feelings of betrayal.

[vsp]

Originally posted by Riddil
Hrm. You're probably pulling from accepted published works, so my arguing this is pretty stupid... BUT... I'm not so sure that definition matches. Otherwise it is impossible for an atheist to "sin". He could only have a moment of "ethical failure". But aren't they really the same thing? A religious man has his ethical structure based in his religion, so a 'sin' is just another name for an 'ethical failure'. It simply lets us know that the foundation for that particular ethics breach was based upon that man's religion.

In a way, we're both right. (This is off the top of my head, not out of Webster's, btw.) It is impossible (IMHO) for an atheist to "sin" from his own perspective, because the concept of "sin" itself is irrelevant to the atheist. The same act that a religious person calls "sin" may well be an "ethical failure" to the atheist, and the atheist may be well aware of that fact and feel just as badly about it as a religious person would. But an atheist can no more "sin" in a religious sense than a male can have menstrual cramps; it's simply a concept outside of his realm of experience.

It's like comparing a Catholic eating pork to an kosher-observing Orthodox Jew eating pork. The latter would be scandalized; to the former, it's no big deal at all. Is the Catholic wrong in that he doesn't view the meal as a transgression? No, because in his worldview, it simply isn't; it doesn't violate any of his established and respected codes of conduct. Likewise, the atheist is not bound by Catholic, Jewish, or any other religious guidelines; he may feel that a particular action is "wrong," but "sinful" simply does not apply. (How religious observers would classify said action is another matter.)

And since they're equal, your comment is an unrelated point to my original comment. How do you deal with a person who's ethical boundaries may be a little too broad? Breaking a man's leg to steal his wallet would be an ethical failure for me, and later I would feel guilt. But breaking a man's leg that is attacking me is not an ethical breach, and since no breach occured, and I feel no guilt or remorse for the action.

Different ethics apply to different situations, obviously.

But that situation applied to an ethical breach in my own mind. What about a breach to a set of ethics as defined by our society? What happens when an action breaks either the personal ethics or societies, but not both? And since societies ethics are defined by the ever-changing social mind, would it be possible to purposely shape society to alter its ethical structure... therefore rendering past "sins" into accepted actions? (euthenasia, anyone?)

Hmmmm.

I'm no Wiccan, but the old "An it harm no one, do as thou wilt" homily makes a lot of sense to me. I prefer the Frank Zappa version, myself...

It's partly a matter of scale. The more people you're talking about, the harder it is to pin down what "society's" ethics are, because it's a collection of individual ethics that often vary quite wildly. What would pass for normal or acceptable behavior in one social circle would scandalize another, and who's to say which group is "right?"

As such, societal ethics change all the time. When enough people try a particular behavior and lightning bolts from the heavens don't blow their legs off in retribution, the behavior tends to become more acceptable to the society at large. How quickly those changes occur (if at all) depends on how firmly the resistance insists on adherence to the old moral code, and what influence they have on those around them. Religion in general is a powerful force for retarding social change, though again, it depends on the particular church, congregation and issue involved.

My opinion; if it's not illegal and it's not directly hurting anyone, "society" should mind its own business, and if individuals within that society disapprove of a behavior, they're free to avoid engaging in it. If enough others in society agree with that disapproval, the behavior will not become widespread. If more people find value in the behavior, it will.

[Riddil]

Well... I think that law is a totally seperate issue. Law is simply a system developed to enforce social ethics. To this day it is illegal to sell beer on Sundays before noon here in NC. Is that necessary? It's a law to enforce a religious belief that's not even close to being universally shared.

But it's changing. That law will eventually be repealed since enough people disagree with it.

Law exists for several (very good) reasons. Protect the citizens. Maintain a power structure. Keep the peace. Unfortunately it is also a tool to enforce social ethics on the ENTIRE population, regardless of individual beliefs.

That's why sometimes law can be so frustrating to me. Even though 99.9% of the time it's a boon, it is also a tool to enforce a nonsensical and unjustifiable ethical code on people that do not hold similar beliefs.

If I want to buy beer at 10am on Sunday I should be able to. If a cancer patient in California wants to smoke weed so he's not in pain every minute of his life, then dammit he should be able to.

Heh, anyhow, all that jargon was a response to your one comment stating that "if it's not illegal and it's not directly hurting anyone, "society" should mind its own business." Because you *can't* accept that... society will create laws to force their beliefs upon you.

Oh, and last quick comment, I liked your comment at the end, " If enough others in society agree with that disapproval, the behavior will not become widespread. If more people find value in the behavior, it will.".... I see the logic and I agree. But! Food for thought... is that resultant behavior a product of free choice by every individual? Or is it an example of some sort of massive peer-pressure? Exploiting the human urge to conform?

Eentaresting.