Thread: Questions on Morality... What's your take?

I've promised The Fishy to toss in my two cents, so here they are.

First of all, in our conventional way of thinking of good and evil we tend to mix the ethics with the morality. To some they are the same; to me they're not. Morality has strong cultural basis - what is considered immoral in one culture is accepted in another. There is, however, a set of universalia that we all abide with, consciously or not, for as long as we are sane. This is what ethics is concerned with. We humans are born with an ethical code of sorts; it's basic article, if it can be called that, would read "thou shalt not kill". Every sane human individual unconsciously steers out of the situation when he or she is forced to kill anyone. Sociopaths have no problem with this, but then, they are not sane. That's why the U.S. Army devised a training system to break this natural pattern of behavior.

The second article reads: "Thou shalt help another human being in need." It needs no explanation; it needs neither learning nor memorization. I've read in the newspaper about a teenager who saved a person from a burning house, just because he happened to be passing by. The town authorities called him a hero; he didn't bother with that. He admitted that he did it without thinking about what he was doing - it just happened.

Mike Huckabee said in one of his speeches that "Human nature is essentially selfish". Not so; we become selfish only when our nature becomes corrupted with culture. That's an important point.

When we abide with the laws and customs the culture imposed on us, we're cut from our human nature which - being what it is - transcends cultural barriers. When we see a person in need we go on and help him; when faced with conflict we avoid killing the opponent, all this provided we are sane. But crippled individuals don't think this way; they think, for example, that killing a person from a different background - ethnic, cultural, religious - is fine, because it's sanctioned by their own culture. This is the way to lose track of the ethics, to lose our freedom and to lose our humanity.

And that's my opinion, if anyone cares.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Well mystic, as someone who takes no sides I do have to say that you tend to see problems that aren't there, create mountains out of mole hills, and get into petty disputes with people more than most here.

Whether or not that is intentional is for you to decide. I enjoy some of your posts so I was disappointed to see that in more recent weeks your post content has declined, and your anger risen. That's just my 2 cents for what it's worth...Peace.

Interesting observation you have there. It's worth more than some other peoples 2 cents. But I don't know about anger, that's a bit strong. I'm not perfect that's for sure.

Originally Posted by The fishy

Oh, bravo! Very carefully misinterpreted. In fact, 1. my question was "what sort of discussion is that? (in response to "Is that supposed to be the point of discussion? Arguing with someone until you bully them into saying that you're right?" ), not " What's the point of our discussion?".

Originally Posted by The fishy

I was asking a (rhetorical, but I'll explain later in the post) question on what the point of discussion in general is, not what this discussion is about. That is obvious. Thank you for the flames about how you're not going to do my thinking for me (Quote: "I shouldn't have to think for you. ") which were entirely innappropriate consider what my question actually was.

This is amusing and enlightening. Your not interested in asking me anything your pretending.

Originally Posted by Thefishy

Now, that was a rhetorical question, in a sense. You'll remember my question was:

" Is that supposed to be the point of discussion? Arguing with someone until you bully them into saying that you're right? What sort of discussion is that? "

And since to me, is obvious that the point of discussion isn't to beat your opponent down with flames, it was meant rhetorically. Of course, if you think that IS the point of discussion, 1. that would explain a lot as, from what I've seen, you try and browbeat people with flames until they give in, or browbeat them in other ways. That's how I see some of your posts. My opinion could of course be totally wrong. However, I am sure I'll find some posts to back this opinion up, erronous as it may be. I strongly advise against you trying to win on this count. See Grod's post.

I wonder what happened to "Can I ask about your opinion I don't understand it" has turned into the true colors of another "mystic is a troll" response. That's all it ever was and is the reason why I don't answer your pretend question. That would give you more fuel to flame, which would be a silly thing to do.

Originally Posted by The fishy

I asked you nicely

I did not interpret your attitude as nice. I don't care how nice you think you are. It wasn't genuine. I am the decider of that. Thanks very much. Got a problem, don't reply.

Originally Posted by The fishy

This does not explain your opinion on " the cause of murder is disease. The cause of corruption, disease, " at all but is merely an attempt to antagonise me.

Poor you......So quick for an excuse to give up and victimize youself.

Originally Posted by The fishy

If I posted, that is my opinion" - neither " Your right I am wrong. That should satisfy your question. " which, for aforementioned reasons and the ones I'll go into shortly, doesn't express an opnion on what I was asking and nor does " the cause of murder is disease. The cause of corruption, disease, ", not to a understandable extent, as it was vaugue. This vaugueness is the reason I am asking what you meant.

Originally Posted by The fishy

Now, for the masterpiece in this collection of half-baked attempts to flame me, here is my reply:

That was a lot of work to defend yourself. You could have understood me by now.

Originally Posted by The fishy

1. " If my post is 'admittedly pathetic'. Then I have done wrong, and you are right. " That may be so, but I wouldn't judge patheticness by right/ wrong standards unless such patheticness was a disguise for a barrage of flames against an innocent fish. It is worth pointing out that you are confusing the issue here too - in "your admirttedly pathetic response" I was critizing the vaugueness of " the cause of murder is disease. The cause of corruption, disease, ".

You have really gone off the rails, a complete trainwreck from "can I understand your opinion. According to your trainwreck. No, you can't.

Originally Posted by The fishy

2. Again, confusing the issue, " Then I have done wrong, and you are right. "-wise. Here, you're talking about the rightousness (or lack of it) in writing a pathetic response, as if that was the original issue. Again, congratz if you can tell me what you're supposed to be wrong about, or what I'm supposed to be right about the FIRST time you mentioned it, in post 7, where you wrote it as a reply to me asking elaboration on a vaugue point of view.

Your right about your opinion. I'm wrong because I don't agree with you and consider your response a trainwreck.

Originally Posted by The fishy

Here you're trying to make it sound as if I claimed lack of understanding a critizised you in this paticular way (about not expressing your opinion) when replying to the same point in the discussion.

Trying to make it sound? I'm not trying. I am typing. I shouldn't have to tell you that. Don't define your definition of "trying to sound". I know. That's why I havn't answered your so called 'genuine question' as yet.

Originally Posted by The fishy

I would still love to know your opinion on my original question which was what does " the cause of murder is disease. The cause of corruption, disease, " mean. I really mean that.

I'm sure you do, Keep failing quitter. If you really wanted to know. You would not have wasted so much time posting defensive nonsense. All you needed to say is the last quote. The only reason you spent 1% of your post asking that question is because you can't backtrack and say you didn't ask it.... So you spend one sentence in your response asking it. While the rest of the time is spent defending yourself for no reason. What a waste of time for you and what an entertaining session for me. Sucked in as this is the only fuel to flame me you will ever get. Your ego has failed you.

Yea. I do have to agree with mystic on that one. That post was much ado about nothing.

The fire was pretty much stomped out and fishy had to go and spray lighter fluid on the ashes.

Anyway, to answer mystic's definition of disease being the root of all problems... it is a play on words.

Disease, as in an illness and also the idea of dis-ease...not at ease. Terence McKenna originally coined this play on words in one of his lectures. Proposing that all problems with the world are rooted from holding an outlook of dis-ease, or discontent with themselves and their surroundings.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

This is amusing and enlightening. Your not interested in asking me anything your pretending.



I wonder what happened to "Can I ask about your opinion I don't understand it" has turned into the true colors of another "mystic is a troll" response. That's all it ever was and is the reason why I don't answer your pretend question. That would give you more fuel to flame, which would be a silly thing to do.




I did not interpret your attitude as nice. I don't care how nice you think you are. It wasn't genuine. I am the decider of that. Thanks very much. Got a problem, don't reply.




Poor you......So quick for an excuse to give up and victimize youself.







That was a lot of work to defend yourself. You could have understood me by now.



You have really gone off the rails, a complete trainwreck from "can I understand your opinion. According to your trainwreck. No, you can't.



Your right about your opinion. I'm wrong because I don't agree with you and consider your response a trainwreck.




Trying to make it sound? I'm not trying. I am typing. I shouldn't have to tell you that. Don't define your definition of "trying to sound". I know. That's why I havn't answered your so called 'genuine question' as yet.




I'm sure you do, Keep failing quitter. If you really wanted to know. You would not have wasted so much time posting defensive nonsense. All you needed to say is the last quote. The only reason you spent 1% of your post asking that question is because you can't backtrack and say you didn't ask it.... So you spend one sentence in your response asking it. While the rest of the time is spent defending yourself for no reason. What a waste of time for you and what an entertaining session for me. Sucked in as this is the only fuel to flame me you will ever get. Your ego has failed you.

Mystic, Mystic, Mystic... I'm not going to be cowed, I'm not going to back down like a third-rate newbie scared of the big bad DV member... No.

As I thought, you didn't defend yourself in any way, but merely tried to cover up for your meaningless pile of flames with a huge barrage of insults based on random claims that I'm a horrible person.

Now, I could reply, but it would make no difference, turn this thread from a partial flame war into total flame-fest, and, as importantly, would give you more ammunition.

So... I think I'm just going to ignore you, unless you have something relevant to say. This isn't backing down. It is a strategy for dealing with someone impossible to civilly talk to. I think you'll see that it works quite well.

Please do not try me with another flame.

The bit in bold was bold so that you could see it. Nothing more.

. . .

Thank you everyone so far. Everyone's posted really interesting replies. Your reply, Kromoh, interested me even more because for a matter of fact it relates to a thread I'm thinking of making...

Anyway, thank you for all the replies. I'm drained, but I'll edit this post when I can to detail my opinion on your replies some more. They've been really good.

Originally Posted by Thefishy

So... I think I'm just going to ignore you, unless you have something relevant to say. This isn't backing down. It is a strategy for dealing with someone impossible to civilly talk to

You can't ignore someone if your asking them honestly about their opinion. This is impossible. Your a real mess. You contradict yourself and your stated intentions. Your a quitter, but think you know everything. You think you never give up, but you never even started.