Do girls NEED to just get rid of it?

[T-Dawg]

No they just have silly morals, not strict morals.

And you have the right to make fun of them simply because you and maybe a lot of other people think their morals are silly? Gee, maybe I should make fun of you because your morals are different than mine :no:. It'd make about as much sense .

 

[Mr Cheese]

And you have the right to make fun of them simply because you and maybe a lot of other people think their morals are silly? Gee, maybe I should make fun of you because your morals are different than mine :no:. It'd make about as much sense .

Puritans, the original ones were highly extreme...
If they were muslims and alive today, they would be the kind that bombed people to death....

High moral values is only part of the issue...its excessive unbending belief.
For example if you were truly a puritan, you would probably be beaten by your parents for writing online about sex!

 

[T-Dawg]

I suppose beating kids for writing about sex is wrong, although a lot of other things (which people don't care about) are wrong too D=. How come only certain morals matter these days?

 

[tumbleweed41]

I suppose beating kids for writing about sex is wrong, although a lot of other things (which people don't care about) are wrong too D=. How come only certain morals matter these days?

Because societal norms set moral principals, not arbitrary rule set down thousands of years ago.

 

[T-Dawg]

Your morals change with social normals? Yikes, I feel sorry for you. As someone with Asperger's Syndrome, I can recognize "social norms" to be as senseless and blatantly oppressive as many atheists claim religion is, not to mention that societal normals constantly change. I would hate to have my morals change every time the media (or wherever you get social norms from) said something new. I'm much better off with an arbitrary rule set thoasands of years ago that I can reasonably expect won't be edited to suit some politician (although sadly I think the Bible's already been edited to suit the purpose of authoritarians... hence the disrepancies between our modern Bibles and the Hebrew and Greek texts...).
Just out of curiosity, if society told you that it was morally ok to steal from the defenceless, would you do it? I don't think so. How do you know when to not go with the crowd?

 

[Panda]

Your morals change with social normals? Yikes, I feel sorry for you. As someone with Asperger's Syndrome, I can recognize "social norms" to be as senseless and blatantly oppressive as many atheists claim religion is, not to mention that societal normals constantly change. I would hate to have my morals change every time the media (or wherever you get social norms from) said something new. I'm much better off with an arbitrary rule set thoasands of years ago that I can reasonably expect won't be edited to suit some politician (although sadly I think the Bible's already been edited to suit the purpose of authoritarians... hence the disrepancies between our modern Bibles and the Hebrew and Greek texts...).
Just out of curiosity, if society told you that it was morally ok to steal from the defenceless, would you do it? I don't think so. How do you know when to not go with the crowd?

Society isn't some thing, you are part of it and you yourself influence it. The fact is everyone's morals change over time. Even the puritans of today's moral won't be the same as those 200 or 300 years ago. To say everyone's morals don't change with social norms is rather silly. Take this example, 300 years ago slavery was totally normal and it wasn't viewed as immoral by a lot of people. These days the vast majority of people would view slavery as immoral.

 

[T-Dawg]

Society isn't some thing, you are part of it and you yourself influence it.

Society is some thing, it is the word we use for the hive mind that tells us what to think, what to wear, and who to buy from. I am not a part of it, if I was, my morals would change every time the media said something different, unless by "part of it" you mean that I live in the same area as such people. The individual can't influence society like he used to. There's simply too many people, combined with our cultural emphasis on the majority, for the individual to be taken seriously.

To say everyone's morals don't change with social norms is rather silly.

Unfortunately morals do change over time, I was addressing his statement that morals from thoasands of years ago are somehow inferior to morals made up recently.

Take this example, 300 years ago slavery was totally normal and it wasn't viewed as immoral by a lot of people. These days the vast majority of people would view slavery as immoral.

My point exactly. People changed their position on slavery merely because the times changed. Why is this good?

 

[Panda]

Society is some thing, it is the word we use for the hive mind that tells us what to think, what to wear, and who to buy from. I am not a part of it, if I was, my morals would change every time the media said something different, unless by "part of it" you mean that I live in the same area as such people. The individual can't influence society like he used to. There's simply too many people, combined with our cultural emphasis on the majority, for the individual to be taken seriously.

What a depressing view.

Unfortunately morals do change over time, I was addressing his statement that morals from thoasands of years ago are somehow inferior to morals made up recently.

Because morals are relative. Morals made up thousands of years ago are completely out of date and do not fit the modern world.

My point exactly. People changed their position on slavery merely because the times changed. Why is this good?

So you think we should still encourage slavery?

 

[T-Dawg]

Because morals are relative. Morals made up thousands of years ago are completely out of date and do not fit the modern world.

They are out of date because you and society said so. That is not a legitimate reason to consider them out of date. Why should I listen to society's morals simply because they're more modern than the ones I already have? Are you one of those people who think that times get better as everything goes on?

So you think we should still encourage slavery?

It is not good that the only reason they changed was because times changed. I do not condone the mistreatment of slaves as was done in America in the 17-1800s, and I am relatively sure that the Bible would not have approved of the beating and torture of slaves either (it also had regulations preventing an owner for keeping a slave for more than 7 years unless the slave wanted to stay with him). However, back in the classical era in Greece and Romee and anything I can recall before that, slaves were treated with respect and as part of the family. Most slaves were slaves as punishment for a crime or because they sold themselves willingly. That I have no problem with. What I do have a problem with is the kind of slavery in your example, where the white man went to Africa and lured men away from their homes and abducted them.

I have yet to hear a reason why 2 year old morals are better than 2000 year old morals.

 

[Panda]

They are out of date because you and society said so. That is not a legitimate reason to consider them out of date. Why should I listen to society's morals simply because they're more modern than the ones I already have? Are you one of those people who think that times get better as everything goes on?

It is not good that the only reason they changed was because times changed. I do not condone the mistreatment of slaves as was done in America in the 17-1800s, and I am relatively sure that the Bible would not have approved of the beating and torture of slaves either (it also had regulations preventing an owner for keeping a slave for more than 7 years unless the slave wanted to stay with him). However, back in the classical era in Greece and Romee and anything I can recall before that, slaves were treated with respect and as part of the family. Most slaves were slaves as punishment for a crime or because they sold themselves willingly. That I have no problem with. What I do have a problem with is the kind of slavery in your example, where the white man went to Africa and lured men away from their homes and abducted them.

I have yet to hear a reason why 2 year old morals are better than 2000 year old morals.

The fact that you support slavery in any way sickens me. Anyway we are getting off topic if you want to discuss this further feel free start a new thread.

 

[T-Dawg]

The fact that you support slavery in any way sickens me. Anyway we are getting off topic if you want to discuss this further feel free start a new thread.

I understand, your culture has conditioned you to automatically think of racism and abuse when you hear the word "slavery."
Back in the old days, "slavery" was technically the ownership of another person, although they usually functioned more like servants. They were not beaten, they were not abused, they were not slaves because of their skin color, and they were not obtained by abducting them from foreign lands (well, usually. I think when a civilization conquered another group of people, they made the inhabitants slaves, but that's a different story). Why, in the case of the Aztecs, a slave could legally run away by making it to the temple before his master caught him, if I remember correctly, and with the Hebrews, slaves had the option to go free after 7 years (or at least they were SUPPOSED to, I think the Israelites disobeyed this command at at least one point).

But yes, we are getting off topic D=.

 

[Father Heathen]

I understand, your culture has conditioned you to automatically think of racism and abuse when you hear the word "slavery."
Back in the old days, "slavery" was technically the ownership of another person, although they usually functioned more like servants. They were not beaten, they were not abused, they were not slaves because of their skin color, and they were not obtained by abducting them from foreign lands (well, usually. I think when a civilization conquered another group of people, they made the inhabitants slaves, but that's a different story). Why, in the case of the Aztecs, a slave could legally run away by making it to the temple before his master caught him, if I remember correctly, and with the Hebrews, slaves had the option to go free after 7 years (or at least they were SUPPOSED to, I think the Israelites disobeyed this command at at least one point).

But yes, we are getting off topic D=.

Mind if I slap you in shackles and rob you of your humanity?

 

[DallasApple]

Mind if I slap you in shackles and rob you of your humanity?

As long as you are "relatively sure" that beatings and torture are not condoned in the Bible I dont see why he or anyone should have a problem with that.

Love

Dallas

 

[Mr Cheese]

As long as you are "relatively sure" that beatings and torture are not condoned in the Bible I dont see why he or anyone should have a problem with that.

Love

Dallas

I kinda like beatings and torture....

:flirt: with the right woman....

 

[T-Dawg]

As long as you are "relatively sure" that beatings and torture are not condoned in the Bible I dont see why he or anyone should have a problem with that.

Sorry, sounding unsure of everything is a habit I picked up a while back. Something subconcious tells me that I'm less likely to be made fun of or something if I look like I'm not certain in everything.
Yes, the Bible does prohibit the beating and torture of slaves.

Dueteronomy 15:12-15
If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed. Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the Lord your God has blessed you. Rememebr that you were slaves in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today.

(the next few verses after that discuss what to do if the servant doesn't want to leave)
Jeremiah 34:8-16 also discusses the freeing of slaves.
Hmm, I can't find the verse about being kind to your slaves, but it's in there somewhere. Aha, here it is:

Ephesians 6:5-9
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
And masters, treat your salves in the same awy. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

That good enough for you? Stop torturing and beating your slaves.

Mind if I slap you in shackles and rob you of your humanity?

Sorry, I'm not for sale and I haven't been convicted of any crimes.

 

[DallasApple]

I kinda like beatings and torture....

:flirt: with the right woman....

Well that actually wouldnt be torture then now would it?

I sort of draw the line or make the distinction of something being torturous as something you dont like.

Love

Dallas

 

[Mr Cheese]

Well that actually wouldnt be torture then now would it?

I sort of draw the line or make the distinction of something being torturous as something you dont like.

Love

Dallas

well there's scereaming and the word no....

and I still dont stop.........

I'd say that's torture:flirt:

 

[MissAlice]

It seems that guys are either ridiculed or congratulated depending on how much they "score" while it's the exact opposite for girls.

QFT.

I was never really pressured into losing my virginity and most of the females who were rumored to, were called sluts. Yet at times I also feel among girls that there is also a double standard the same with men that if one hasn't lost their virginity then you haven't experienced adulthood.

So it's kind of a double whammy. Anyway, I'm always surprised when people conform such extreme attitudes about the sexuality of women either way. I'm sure it's also hard for guys who don't feel compelled to lose their virginity right away either. Some of them probably get the impression that if they don't, they're gay or there's something wrong with them. We still seem to live in a somewhat bias century in which guys are "suppose" to enjoy sex with random females and girls aren't.

 

[Smoke]

Your morals change with social normals? Yikes, I feel sorry for you. As someone with Asperger's Syndrome, I can recognize "social norms" to be as senseless and blatantly oppressive as many atheists claim religion is, not to mention that societal normals constantly change.

Your morals are nothing but the "social norms" of another time and place. If you prefer to follow the social norms of ancient Palestine rather than the social norms of your own time and place, that's up to you, but it doesn't make you better or more moral -- just different.

 

[Smoke]

I have yet to hear a reason why 2 year old morals are better than 2000 year old morals.

I have yet to hear a reason why 2000 year old morals are better than 2 year old morals.