You have not yet responded to the forum.

Here you will find the last 3 forum topics
you have posted a comment on.
+ add shout
Private
 New blog, new outfits! Go check them and vote ♥
0 | 0 | 0 | 0
0%
To join the forums you need to be logged in.

Click here to register your own account for free and I will personally explain to you how you can start getting your own fans and, making popdollars.
> Close
Helper
Forum
Startalk
Blog statistics
Friends management



Topics   Messages
13 of the 24 stars earned

Forum

General < General First | Previous | Page: | Next | Last
Trashposting
Private
Popstar



ouch wrote:
Riddle wrote:
xxpedrofangirlxx444 wrote:
Riddle wrote:
Answer the question.
I don't think it should be normalized. Some people's preferences don't have to be popularized, in fact I am against that in the first place, people should be able to decide for themselves. But accepted on the other hand? Yes, of course it all depends on the people involved, things aren't as black and white as you think. It's not wrong in my heart, if people want to engage in that kind of activity and they are doing it in a way that guarantees safety and trust within the relationship, I am no one to tell them whether they should do it or not.

Now are you gonna stop being subhumanly dense 
Some things are objectivity right or wrong in terms of morality. If all things were in those called grey areas, we wouldn't know right from wrong in the first place. We have been way too open and accepting of things that are not right. Hurting your partner isn't one of those things.
Thank god ppl can have own opinions on right and wrong
16
Posts: 95664
Date: 09-10-2021 19:09
Account deleted




wrote:
Date: 09-10-2021 19:09
Riddle
Karaoke Star



Riddle wrote:
Alam wrote:
Riddle wrote:
xxpedrofangirlxx444 wrote:
I don't think it should be normalized. Some people's preferences don't have to be popularized, in fact I am against that in the first place, people should be able to decide for themselves. But accepted on the other hand? Yes, of course it all depends on the people involved, things aren't as black and white as you think. It's not wrong in my heart, if people want to engage in that kind of activity and they are doing it in a way that guarantees safety and trust within the relationship, I am no one to tell them whether they should do it or not.

Now are you gonna stop being subhumanly dense 
Some things are objectivity right or wrong in terms of morality. If all things were in those called grey areas, we wouldn't know right from wrong in the first place. We have been way too open and accepting of things that are not right. Hurting your partner isn't one of those things.
I mean, if there's disagreement, it's a gray area, no?
No.

If we were arguing about which fruit tastes the best, then I would agree with you. There is no objective truth to as to which fruit is the best. Because it has everything to do with preferences as an individual.

Morality however, does not. We can argue killing = bad morally but sometimes killing bad = morally good. That is a grey area but the killing itself is bad.
3
Posts: 492
Date: 09-10-2021 19:12
Riddle
Karaoke Star



Riddle wrote:
ouch wrote:
Riddle wrote:
xxpedrofangirlxx444 wrote:
I don't think it should be normalized. Some people's preferences don't have to be popularized, in fact I am against that in the first place, people should be able to decide for themselves. But accepted on the other hand? Yes, of course it all depends on the people involved, things aren't as black and white as you think. It's not wrong in my heart, if people want to engage in that kind of activity and they are doing it in a way that guarantees safety and trust within the relationship, I am no one to tell them whether they should do it or not.

Now are you gonna stop being subhumanly dense 
Some things are objectivity right or wrong in terms of morality. If all things were in those called grey areas, we wouldn't know right from wrong in the first place. We have been way too open and accepting of things that are not right. Hurting your partner isn't one of those things.
Thank god ppl can have own opinions on right and wrong
Are we discussing morality and ethics or whichever color looks the prettiest?
3
Posts: 492
Date: 09-10-2021 19:13
Account deleted




wrote:
Riddle wrote:
xxpedrofangirlxx444 wrote:
Riddle wrote:
Answer the question.
I don't think it should be normalized. Some people's preferences don't have to be popularized, in fact I am against that in the first place, people should be able to decide for themselves. But accepted on the other hand? Yes, of course it all depends on the people involved, things aren't as black and white as you think. It's not wrong in my heart, if people want to engage in that kind of activity and they are doing it in a way that guarantees safety and trust within the relationship, I am no one to tell them whether they should do it or not.

Now are you gonna stop being subhumanly dense 
Some things are objectivity right or wrong in terms of morality. If all things were in those called grey areas, we wouldn't know right from wrong in the first place. We have been way too open and accepting of things that are not right. Hurting your partner isn't one of those things.
You are putting a consensual thing (eg. two people agreeing to be in a bdsm relationship) in the same place of things that are obviously by default wrong (eg. murdering someone), your argument is flawed
Date: 09-10-2021 19:13
Private
Popstar



ouch wrote:
Riddle wrote:
Alam wrote:
Riddle wrote:
Some things are objectivity right or wrong in terms of morality. If all things were in those called grey areas, we wouldn't know right from wrong in the first place. We have been way too open and accepting of things that are not right. Hurting your partner isn't one of those things.
I mean, if there's disagreement, it's a gray area, no?
No.

If we were arguing about which fruit tastes the best, then I would agree with you. There is no objective truth to as to which fruit is the best. Because it has everything to do with preferences as an individual.

Morality however, does not. We can argue killing = bad morally but sometimes killing bad = morally good. That is a grey area but the killing itself is bad.
Who said killing was bad. Why didn't he also say bananas r bad. Why isn't which fruit is the correct fruit more important than killing or no killing
16
Posts: 95664
Date: 09-10-2021 19:14
Account deleted




wrote:
Riddle wrote:
Alam wrote:
Riddle wrote:
Some things are objectivity right or wrong in terms of morality. If all things were in those called grey areas, we wouldn't know right from wrong in the first place. We have been way too open and accepting of things that are not right. Hurting your partner isn't one of those things.
I mean, if there's disagreement, it's a gray area, no?
No.

If we were arguing about which fruit tastes the best, then I would agree with you. There is no objective truth to as to which fruit is the best. Because it has everything to do with preferences as an individual.

Morality however, does not. We can argue killing = bad morally but sometimes killing bad = morally good. That is a grey area but the killing itself is bad.
Oh okay then you can just substitute 'killing' with someone consensually hurting their partner. But I disagree that killing itself is bad, there's no inherent good or bad in that, it's neutral. This sounds so edgy but I hope y'all understand what I mean here lol
Date: 09-10-2021 19:17
Riddle
Karaoke Star



Riddle wrote:
xxpedrofangirlxx444 wrote:
Riddle wrote:
Alam wrote:
I mean, if there's disagreement, it's a gray area, no?
No.

If we were arguing about which fruit tastes the best, then I would agree with you. There is no objective truth to as to which fruit is the best. Because it has everything to do with preferences as an individual.

Morality however, does not. We can argue killing = bad morally but sometimes killing bad = morally good. That is a grey area but the killing itself is bad.
Oh okay then you can just substitute 'killing' with someone consensually hurting their partner. But I disagree that killing itself is bad, there's no inherent good or bad in that, it's neutral. This sounds so edgy but I hope y'all understand what I mean here lol
You don't believe in morality whatsoever then?
3
Posts: 492
Date: 09-10-2021 19:19
Private
Popstar



ouch wrote:
ouch wrote:
Riddle wrote:
Alam wrote:
I mean, if there's disagreement, it's a gray area, no?
No.

If we were arguing about which fruit tastes the best, then I would agree with you. There is no objective truth to as to which fruit is the best. Because it has everything to do with preferences as an individual.

Morality however, does not. We can argue killing = bad morally but sometimes killing bad = morally good. That is a grey area but the killing itself is bad.
Who said killing was bad. Why didn't he also say bananas r bad. Why isn't which fruit is the correct fruit more important than killing or no killing
Like legit, who decided what is ethically and morally set in stone right and wrong. If u asked ppl a long time ago if killing was bad, they would say no. Its all fleeting, so nothing can be inherently correct imo
16
Posts: 95664
Date: 09-10-2021 19:19
Account deleted




wrote:
Riddle wrote:
xxpedrofangirlxx444 wrote:
Riddle wrote:
No.

If we were arguing about which fruit tastes the best, then I would agree with you. There is no objective truth to as to which fruit is the best. Because it has everything to do with preferences as an individual.

Morality however, does not. We can argue killing = bad morally but sometimes killing bad = morally good. That is a grey area but the killing itself is bad.
Oh okay then you can just substitute 'killing' with someone consensually hurting their partner. But I disagree that killing itself is bad, there's no inherent good or bad in that, it's neutral. This sounds so edgy but I hope y'all understand what I mean here lol
You don't believe in morality whatsoever then?
I believe in morality, but I'm not saying that killing is morally neutral, I'm saying the act is neutral,
Hard to explain baaa
Date: 09-10-2021 19:20
Alam
World Famous



Alam wrote:
Riddle wrote:
Alam wrote:
Riddle wrote:
Some things are objectivity right or wrong in terms of morality. If all things were in those called grey areas, we wouldn't know right from wrong in the first place. We have been way too open and accepting of things that are not right. Hurting your partner isn't one of those things.
I mean, if there's disagreement, it's a gray area, no?
No.

If we were arguing about which fruit tastes the best, then I would agree with you. There is no objective truth to as to which fruit is the best. Because it has everything to do with preferences as an individual.

Morality however, does not. We can argue killing = bad morally but sometimes killing bad = morally good. That is a grey area but the killing itself is bad.
See that's the thing though. Things like killing = bad are ingrained in our biology, they are essential to the evolution of our species. That's why it's objectively wrong to do it. Things like sado-masochism aren't because the have nothing to do with evolution, other than they may lead to babies in which case it's a yes from evolution. That's at least how I see it. Somewhat.
20
Posts: 23097
Date: 09-10-2021 19:21
Riddle
Karaoke Star



Riddle wrote:
ouch wrote:
ouch wrote:
Riddle wrote:
No.

If we were arguing about which fruit tastes the best, then I would agree with you. There is no objective truth to as to which fruit is the best. Because it has everything to do with preferences as an individual.

Morality however, does not. We can argue killing = bad morally but sometimes killing bad = morally good. That is a grey area but the killing itself is bad.
Who said killing was bad. Why didn't he also say bananas r bad. Why isn't which fruit is the correct fruit more important than killing or no killing
Like legit, who decided what is ethically and morally set in stone right and wrong. If u asked ppl a long time ago if killing was bad, they would say no. Its all fleeting, so nothing can be inherently correct imo
That's why intention is so important. Which out of these two options would you say is morally wrong?
They are both killing.

Person A kills an innocent human being because it brings person A pleasure. He enjoys being a serial killer.
Peron B kills a person whom is just a second away from killing another innocent person.
3
Posts: 492
Date: 09-10-2021 19:22
Account deleted




wrote:
xxpedrofangirlxx444 wrote:
Riddle wrote:
Alam wrote:
I mean, if there's disagreement, it's a gray area, no?
No.

If we were arguing about which fruit tastes the best, then I would agree with you. There is no objective truth to as to which fruit is the best. Because it has everything to do with preferences as an individual.

Morality however, does not. We can argue killing = bad morally but sometimes killing bad = morally good. That is a grey area but the killing itself is bad.
Oh okay then you can just substitute 'killing' with someone consensually hurting their partner. But I disagree that killing itself is bad, there's no inherent good or bad in that, it's neutral. This sounds so edgy but I hope y'all understand what I mean here lol
Most people would kill to survive if need be, be it an animal like us or other predators. One can argue that the killing is bad in itself, see the motivation for justification, or simply accept that this world we want to pretend should be all good and justified, doesn't have a set agenda in the first place and thus leaves the matter of how the action is viewed up to your local or global contemporary. 
Date: 09-10-2021 19:23
Private
Popstar



ouch wrote:
Riddle wrote:
ouch wrote:
ouch wrote:
Who said killing was bad. Why didn't he also say bananas r bad. Why isn't which fruit is the correct fruit more important than killing or no killing
Like legit, who decided what is ethically and morally set in stone right and wrong. If u asked ppl a long time ago if killing was bad, they would say no. Its all fleeting, so nothing can be inherently correct imo
That's why intention is so important. Which out of these two options would you say is morally wrong?
They are both killing.

Person A kills an innocent human being because it brings person A pleasure. He enjoys being a serial killer.
Peron B kills a person whom is just a second away from killing another innocent person.
None is wrong to me cus as I said, nothing is wrong and right forever, but I guess option a from a moral standpoint
16
Posts: 95664
Date: 09-10-2021 19:24
Riddle
Karaoke Star



Riddle wrote:
ouch wrote:
Riddle wrote:
ouch wrote:
Like legit, who decided what is ethically and morally set in stone right and wrong. If u asked ppl a long time ago if killing was bad, they would say no. Its all fleeting, so nothing can be inherently correct imo
That's why intention is so important. Which out of these two options would you say is morally wrong?
They are both killing.

Person A kills an innocent human being because it brings person A pleasure. He enjoys being a serial killer.
Peron B kills a person whom is just a second away from killing another innocent person.
None is wrong to me cus as I said, nothing is wrong and right forever, but I guess option a from a moral standpoint
There you go. Case closed!
3
Posts: 492
Date: 09-10-2021 19:25
Post comment
Post Comment
To load new posts: activated
First | Previous | Page: | Next | Last
© 2024 Terms of Use