Morals, why does it seem that a lot of people don't care to follow them anymore?

[Sic Semper Tyranosaurus]

I guess ringtail agrees with me. I just think America would have more structure if it had stronger morals.

Oh, for Christ's sake. Morals are subjective, you twat.They're societal constructs. We have them. They just vary from previous times and different parts of the world.

Jesus. Living. Christ.

 

[ringtail]

Well, either way, I agree with everyone in different ways, this topic varies a lot between people. We're all individuals with different view points. No one has the same thoughts as the person next to them. As much as we would like people to be pure, it wont happen, and I suppose it would leave the world too nice and too balanced. Then we would find more people like ourselves posting on a forum, complaining about how perfect society is, right? Haha.

Either way, humans always have something they don't like, or something to complain about, and it always varies, like I said. Like, for example, how I wish some people knew how to keep it in their pants a little better, that would be nice to see. Or, at least, just people actually respecting one another. But that will probably never happen. So I dream on with everyone else in wanting a good-natured society. I can complain all I want about something I dislike in a person, or in humans in general, but nothing I say will phase everyone.

Even if we did all have 'good' morals to set ourselves by, not one person is completely a saint, anyway. We all have bad habits, bad thoughts, and do bad things. That's how humans are. That wont change. Unfortunately.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

Then we would find more people like ourselves posting on a forum, complaining about how perfect society is, right? Haha.

I'm already under the impression that things are too "perfect", "good", and "right" :\

I'd much prefer a destructive and chaotic sense.  I'm from a violent and unstable upbringing, in environments of distrust and understood disorder.  Lately I've been really acting out against things.  I've suddenly become much stronger in my opinions, no matter how trivial.  I lack the strife, because I lack the opposition, so I'm forcing myself to create opposition.  I'm building walls in the hopes of knocking them down.

Everyone I used to argue with, they're coming to my side.  Many are actually defending things I defended against them just yesteryear.  People I used to physically war with have become my friends, or have vanished, and I'm looking to buy another new punching bag just to feel something smack against my fist.  I never thought I'd see the day where I have literally no rivals in the really real world.  Tangible ones at least.

Perhaps I'm a product of environment.  Maybe if I didn't have such a turbulent upbringing, specifically in that time identity and independence started to really grow and personify the person I would one day be, I wouldn't strive for that identifying difference.  But then I'm not sure who I'd be, or if that would even be better.

Even if we did all have 'good' morals to set ourselves by, not one person is completely a saint, anyway. We all have bad habits, bad thoughts, and do bad things. That's how humans are. That wont change. Unfortunately.

I for one would never trade my bad thoughts, the bad things I do, the bad habits.  None of it.  I may want to rid myself of them, but they made me who I am - whether we like that or not.  I wouldn't trade a single scar, even the ones I'm ashamed to wear.

 

[Diaforetikos]

I guess ringtail agrees with me. I just think America would have more structure if it had stronger morals.

Oh, for Christ's sake. Morals are subjective, you twat.They're societal constructs. We have them. They just vary from previous times and different parts of the world.

Jesus. Living. Christ.

The people with the most logic still need to insult their opposer. C'mon man. If you read the rest of that post, I say its dumb, far fetched and I'm being ridiculous. I swear.

Then we would find more people like ourselves posting on a forum, complaining about how perfect society is, right? Haha.

I'm already under the impression that things are too "perfect", "good", and "right" :\

I'd much prefer a destructive and chaotic sense.  I'm from a violent and unstable upbringing, in environments of distrust and understood disorder.  Lately I've been really acting out against things.  I've suddenly become much stronger in my opinions, no matter how trivial.  I lack the strife, because I lack the opposition, so I'm forcing myself to create opposition.  I'm building walls in the hopes of knocking them down.

Everyone I used to argue with, they're coming to my side.  Many are actually defending things I defended against them just yesteryear.  People I used to physically war with have become my friends, or have vanished, and I'm looking to buy another new punching bag just to feel something smack against my fist.  I never thought I'd see the day where I have literally no rivals in the really real world.  Tangible ones at least.

Perhaps I'm a product of environment.  Maybe if I didn't have such a turbulent upbringing, specifically in that time identity and independence started to really grow and personify the person I would one day be, I wouldn't strive for that identifying difference.  But then I'm not sure who I'd be, or if that would even be better.

I am very much like this. But I don't do it physically. I mentally think death and destruction. I love the Joker on The Dark Knight. I love seeing people suffer for no reason. I wouldn't need the money to be happy, just bombs, death, and destruction. Pure turmoil. I am so crooked. But yet, I respect authority, I control my swears, I respect other people's opinions, and I do this all without anger. But I love my flaws, my evil side. Like you said, I would be glad if they were gone, but I won't throw them away.

 

[Stardust]

Even if we did all have 'good' morals to set ourselves by, not one person is completely a saint, anyway. We all have bad habits, bad thoughts, and do bad things. That's how humans are. That wont change. Unfortunately.

Fair is foul and foul is fair.  Sometimes those "bad things" can have positive side effects.  In the case of sex, it's our survival as a species.

Then we would find more people like ourselves posting on a forum, complaining about how perfect society is, right? Haha.

I'm already under the impression that things are too "perfect", "good", and "right" :\

I'd much prefer a destructive and chaotic sense.  I'm from a violent and unstable upbringing, in environments of distrust and understood disorder.  Lately I've been really acting out against things.  I've suddenly become much stronger in my opinions, no matter how trivial.  I lack the strife, because I lack the opposition, so I'm forcing myself to create opposition.  I'm building walls in the hopes of knocking them down.

Everyone I used to argue with, they're coming to my side.  Many are actually defending things I defended against them just yesteryear.  People I used to physically war with have become my friends, or have vanished, and I'm looking to buy another new punching bag just to feel something smack against my fist.  I never thought I'd see the day where I have literally no rivals in the really real world.  Tangible ones at least.

Perhaps I'm a product of environment.  Maybe if I didn't have such a turbulent upbringing, specifically in that time identity and independence started to really grow and personify the person I would one day be, I wouldn't strive for that identifying difference.  But then I'm not sure who I'd be, or if that would even be better.

I am very much like this. But I don't do it physically. I mentally think death and destruction. I love the Joker on The Dark Knight. I love seeing people suffer for no reason. I wouldn't need the money to be happy, just bombs, death, and destruction. Pure turmoil. I am so crooked. But yet, I respect authority, I control my swears, I respect other people's opinions, and I do this all without anger. But I love my flaws, my evil side. Like you said, I would be glad if they were gone, but I won't throw them away.

I get the whole evil thing until you reach the suffering part.  I want to blow shit up, but I don't want to hurt anyone.  I deal with it in my own way, and you have to deal with it in yours.  Don't let it build up.  Sometimes shooting at a target can be very satisfying.

 

[Zekallinos]

The thing is most times when people say a line like that, they confuse it.
A man's word is protected by free speech - even though it was extremely offensive to everyone who saw it.  Is his rite a small minority costing the majority?  Because your not hitting his free speech, or his ability to say it - but rather the ability to say anything once deemed offensive.  Artistic expression, power of opinion, the very different and very basic styles of freedom of speech are now thrown in - and that applies to everyone.  Your including everyone's freespeech there - not a minorty, or a majority, but a singular universal.  I don't know if this would've been your or anyone's example, but I know last time I had asked for an example in another thread, and this scenario was the one given, mistakingly by someone believing this one comedian's rites superseded everyone else's.  Not realizing it was a very basic universal rite, applying to even themselves on the internet.

Very true, I see your point, although I still think that the common rule of "Your liberty stops and another one's start" is sometimes cast aside. This could make quite another debate, but take for example the Kirpan (knife) that Sikhs wear...at school? Sure, it is free religion, and that applies to everyone, but we are talking about security here.

And again, there is no such things as stronger morals makes a stronger society. As long as the society runs, it's strong. As far as I know, USA does not have major problems with that. That's the cycle of life.

 

[ringtail]

Even if we did all have 'good' morals to set ourselves by, not one person is completely a saint, anyway. We all have bad habits, bad thoughts, and do bad things. That's how humans are. That wont change. Unfortunately.

Fair is foul and foul is fair.  Sometimes those "bad things" can have positive side effects.  In the case of sex, it's our survival as a species.

Then we would find more people like ourselves posting on a forum, complaining about how perfect society is, right? Haha.

I'm already under the impression that things are too "perfect", "good", and "right" :\

I'd much prefer a destructive and chaotic sense.  I'm from a violent and unstable upbringing, in environments of distrust and understood disorder.  Lately I've been really acting out against things.  I've suddenly become much stronger in my opinions, no matter how trivial.  I lack the strife, because I lack the opposition, so I'm forcing myself to create opposition.  I'm building walls in the hopes of knocking them down.

Everyone I used to argue with, they're coming to my side.  Many are actually defending things I defended against them just yesteryear.  People I used to physically war with have become my friends, or have vanished, and I'm looking to buy another new punching bag just to feel something smack against my fist.  I never thought I'd see the day where I have literally no rivals in the really real world.  Tangible ones at least.

Perhaps I'm a product of environment.  Maybe if I didn't have such a turbulent upbringing, specifically in that time identity and independence started to really grow and personify the person I would one day be, I wouldn't strive for that identifying difference.  But then I'm not sure who I'd be, or if that would even be better.

I am very much like this. But I don't do it physically. I mentally think death and destruction. I love the Joker on The Dark Knight. I love seeing people suffer for no reason. I wouldn't need the money to be happy, just bombs, death, and destruction. Pure turmoil. I am so crooked. But yet, I respect authority, I control my swears, I respect other people's opinions, and I do this all without anger. But I love my flaws, my evil side. Like you said, I would be glad if they were gone, but I won't throw them away.

I get the whole evil thing until you reach the suffering part.  I want to blow shit up, but I don't want to hurt anyone.  I deal with it in my own way, and you have to deal with it in yours.  Don't let it build up.  Sometimes shooting at a target can be very satisfying.

I agree. I've never gone that far into thinking as to want to murder someone, or watch someone suffer. That's a little beyond evil. But who doesn't want to blow something up or punch someone in the face once in awhile? I know I have. We're humans, we're animals, that's how we're programmed. It can't be helped. And true, some bad experiences can be turned positive, but that's only with some people. 

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

I agree. I've never gone that far into thinking as to want to murder someone, or watch someone suffer. That's a little beyond evil

Then what's evil?  Wanting to walk by someone and wish them no harm?

 

[ringtail]

Sorry, bad word choice. That's what happens when I don't sleep. I think I should have just cut out the word 'beyond.' It's an evil thought either way, that's what I'm getting at. I don't think my thoughts are 'evil', but they can be dark, at least. If you catch my drift.

 

[Diaforetikos]

I get the whole evil thing until you reach the suffering part.  I want to blow shit up, but I don't want to hurt anyone.  I deal with it in my own way, and you have to deal with it in yours.  Don't let it build up.  Sometimes shooting at a target can be very satisfying.

Thats why I play lots and lots of Gears of War.

 

[Venetia]

I'm not bothering to read this entire thread, but I read the first part.

In my opinion, two consenting adults should be able to do whatever the fuck they want to each other. And furthermore, people should be able to do as they like, period, unless it harms someone else [without consent!!!] (either their freedoms, their property, or their selves).

Morals are constructs of traditions, history, and religion.

Everyone shares different pasts on traditions, histories, and religion, so "morality" is an unquantifiable ideal shared only by some, to be imposed on the many.

In caveman days, in prehistoria, think about it. There was no marriage. There were no bras. There wasn't a highly methodical and traditional way of life. There was instinct. And for men to live among other men, they had to develop, over time, means with which to tolerate one another so they wouldn't all haul off and kill each other.

"No sex before marriage" is antiquated. Truly effective forms of birth control have only been around for decades. Means with which to cure most STDs we've suffered since olden times have only been around for about the same amount of time as latex condoms.

There has been no time to build up a long-establish societal "norm".

Marriage, in pre-1960's years, means:
a.) A man can assure all his children are his.
b.) STDs are not only unlikely, they're 99.99999% IMPOSSIBLE, without philandering.
c.) Children begot through sex will have two means of financial support.
d.) Women will have a means of financial support.

Today:
a.) There are DNA tests.
b.) Except for HIV, there are means with which to cure, or atleast MOSTLY control, all STDs.
c.) Sex begets children MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH less.
d.) Women CAN work, and make enough money to support THEMSELVES.

We've only had like 40 years to overcome an EONS-LONG set of "moral" traditional constructs! Give it some time, baby! Just watch, barring a massive worldwide societal and medical dark age, your great-great-grandchildren will certainly have absolutely absolved themselves of the notion of immorality lying in premarital sex.


And, undoubtedly, lots of other things .

Remember! As of only 100 years ago, it was technically immoral for a white person to lay with a black person!

Do you feel the same way today?

 

[ringtail]

Who said I was talking about adults having premarital sex?

 

[Venetia]

i'unno, i wasn't answering you, i was answering the first post.

even if teens do it, it's not immoral, it's just stupid.

big diff.

 

[ringtail]

yeah, well, i agree with you there. xD

 

[kaze950]

True. I think the only universal moral should be that you can't infringe upon the rights of others, although the law pretty much covers that one.

 

[rey meustrus]

I'm going to try and remember an article I read a month ago about chastity.  It was written by a very religious person, I believe a Southern Baptist, who seemed to be far wiser than any of us here.

According to him, chastity is not, though a great many mistake it for, celibacy.  Being chaste has nothing to do with having or not having sex.  In fact, it has very little to do with sex at all.  Chastity, according to him, is based on respect for yourself and your actions.  It is about waiting until one is ready for the experience, instead of trying to learn everything about everything all at once.  In this sense, celibacy before marriage is a virtue, but that's not all it's about.  It's about choosing to hold back not because of the social norm, or because you're uncomfortable (and yes, the primary reason people remain virgins is because they're uncomfortable with sex, often because it's been driven into them by their upbringing), but because you don't need to know it yet and you respect that things you've got to learn first; responsibility comes to mind, as does sensitivity and responsiveness to a loved one's needs.  It should be about understanding what the experience is for you, and choosing the right time for that.  It's about finding a spouse for the right reasons first, not their attractiveness but their intelligence and personality.  But again, it's not just about sex.  A chaste person wouldn't make a three year wandering road trip through the US, seeing every major landmark, because it's all too much at once.  One cannot appreciate all that much wonder at once, and most certainly not when they've had no real life experiences to judge it against.  This person would also understand that as young people, none of us has the wisdom to truly tell what kind of morality we need.  However, none of us fit this description.

What I believe is that our mistakes define what we learn.  One cannot learn to be chaste by living it their entire life.  They'd have no experience to tell them why it's important, and they simply wouldn't know what they're missing out on and therefore wouldn't have respect for it.  It's a morality that seems foreign to us, as it certainly isn't from the Good Old Days (ringtail, I sensed a great deal of this syndrome coming from you, too), but then again not a single one of us knows what it was really like.  There were homes for unwed mothers before the 60's.  There were bars and opium dens in the 19th century.  There have been whorehouses in every major city since ancient times.  There have been shotgun weddings ever since the invention of the shotgun.  And there has been theft, murder, bribery, corruption, and general immorality since time immemorial, even from our bastions of morality such as the church and most certainly the government.

What I propose is that the wisest of us, the most moral, are those with the seediest past.  The worst of the slums will produce the holiest of saints, but then again they also produce more of the same.  Our lives are what we make of them, but we can only make do with what we know.  If you've never experienced sin, how can you say you have conquered it?  How can you say you are above it?  How is it possible to understand chastity if you have never been unchaste?  It is impossible to learn morality by being moral; only by being immoral can we learn what is wrong and, thereby, learn the importance of being right.

 

[FlippyD]

I'm going to try and remember an article I read a month ago about chastity.  It was written by a very religious person, I believe a Southern Baptist, who seemed to be far wiser than any of us here.

According to him, chastity is not, though a great many mistake it for, celibacy.  Being chaste has nothing to do with having or not having sex.  In fact, it has very little to do with sex at all.  Chastity, according to him, is based on respect for yourself and your actions.  It is about waiting until one is ready for the experience, instead of trying to learn everything about everything all at once.  In this sense, celibacy before marriage is a virtue, but that's not all it's about.  It's about choosing to hold back not because of the social norm, or because you're uncomfortable (and yes, the primary reason people remain virgins is because they're uncomfortable with sex, often because it's been driven into them by their upbringing), but because you don't need to know it yet and you respect that things you've got to learn first; responsibility comes to mind, as does sensitivity and responsiveness to a loved one's needs.  It should be about understanding what the experience is for you, and choosing the right time for that.  It's about finding a spouse for the right reasons first, not their attractiveness but their intelligence and personality.  But again, it's not just about sex.  A chaste person wouldn't make a three year wandering road trip through the US, seeing every major landmark, because it's all too much at once.  One cannot appreciate all that much wonder at once, and most certainly not when they've had no real life experiences to judge it against.  This person would also understand that as young people, none of us has the wisdom to truly tell what kind of morality we need.  However, none of us fit this description.

What I believe is that our mistakes define what we learn.  One cannot learn to be chaste by living it their entire life.  They'd have no experience to tell them why it's important, and they simply wouldn't know what they're missing out on and therefore wouldn't have respect for it.  It's a morality that seems foreign to us, as it certainly isn't from the Good Old Days (ringtail, I sensed a great deal of this syndrome coming from you, too), but then again not a single one of us knows what it was really like.  There were homes for unwed mothers before the 60's.  There were bars and opium dens in the 19th century.  There have been whorehouses in every major city since ancient times.  There have been shotgun weddings ever since the invention of the shotgun.  And there has been theft, murder, bribery, corruption, and general immorality since time immemorial, even from our bastions of morality such as the church and most certainly the government.

What I propose is that the wisest of us, the most moral, are those with the seediest past.  The worst of the slums will produce the holiest of saints, but then again they also produce more of the same.  Our lives are what we make of them, but we can only make do with what we know.  If you've never experienced sin, how can you say you have conquered it?  How can you say you are above it?  How is it possible to understand chastity if you have never been unchaste?  It is impossible to learn morality by being moral; only by being immoral can we learn what is wrong and, thereby, learn the importance of being right.

Quoted for truth

 

[Venetia]

and I ask this man:

what gives him the right to judge people for their actions?

like i said. different things have different levels of "morality" for different people. I don't feel dirty or wrong, or like i've wronged myself for having sex or doing other things the church might not like. And if I did feel put upon, I WOULDN'T DO IT.

also you lost me when you said it was written by a very religious southern baptist. i was raised a so. baptist. they're the most intolerant, bible-thumping, judge-thy-neighbor sort of people i've ever seen in my life, and i'll never take a word they say to heart as long as i live

 

[Sic Semper Tyranosaurus]

also you lost me when you said it was written by a very religious southern baptist. i was raised a so. baptist. they're the most intolerant, bible-thumping, judge-thy-neighbor sort of people i've ever seen in my life, and i'll never take a word they say to heart as long as i live

Quoted for truth lolz.

 

[FlippyD]

and I ask this man:

what gives him the right to judge people for their actions?

like i said. different things have different levels of "morality" for different people. I don't feel dirty or wrong, or like i've wronged myself for having sex or doing other things the church might not like. And if I did feel put upon, I WOULDN'T DO IT.

also you lost me when you said it was written by a very religious southern baptist. i was raised a so. baptist. they're the most intolerant, bible-thumping, judge-thy-neighbor sort of people i've ever seen in my life, and i'll never take a word they say to heart as long as i live

Umm... Judgement? *rereads article*