Morality and burden upon society

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by timojin, Jun 30, 2017.

  1. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Then explain what's in your mind a bit better?
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2017
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    I guess it is immoral not to have safe sex. To be a perfect moral person, use a condom.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member

    The greater majority of the population have pre-marital sex, timojin. Unless you want to take yourself and your family out to a cave and out of society entirely, you simply cannot escape it.



    You make absolutely no sense..

    Misconstrued? No. Here is what you said:

    Seems to me that you were suggesting something else entirely.

    I kind of consider it a badge of honour that we do not share the same preferences, timojin. But you do have to abide by this site's rules, which denotes that homophobia and stereotyping is against this site's rules.


    Your morality is to demand that people be just like you.. And after what you just said about brothers and sisters, perhaps your morality should be questioned.

    People will and do have sex prior to marriage. Over 90% of the population in the US had pre-marital sex. Was over 80% back in the 1940's. People have sex. Get over it. It's none of your business if they do. Just because you demand virginity and maybe that is a cultural issue for you, but people do have sex. Perhaps you should live in a society where pre-marital sex is illegal and results in stoning?

    Whether you do or not is really beside the point. Unless you live in complete isolation to the rest of society, your son or daughter will probably have sex before marriage and you will not even know about it. Why? Because it is none of your business what consenting adults do in private.

    Which is why safe sex is so important.

    We know that teaching or demanding that kids remain virgins until marriage results in a greater likelihood of those kids contracting an STD as well as a higher rate of teen pregnancies, because they were never taught about safe sex or using condoms.

    Abstinence only education, such as what you propose for your own offspring, is immoral, because you are literally risking their lives and future, because in all likelihood, they will have pre-marital sex or engage in sexual activities that will, pardon the pun, leave them open to contracting an STD.

    My parents were responsible adults and ensured that I knew and understood about not only sex through sex education (such as what constituted "sex"), but most importantly, that I understood why safe sex was important from when I was a teenager. While they would have obviously preferred I abstained until marriage, being the strict Catholics they are, they recognised that I had to learn about safe sex practices for my own safety and wellbeing. They never asked me if I had sex, they never told me to have sex or to not have sex. They just told me to do the right thing for myself and ensured I had received proper sex-ed to ensure I made the right choices.

    The sex-ed program we had at my high school started from year 8. And it was comprehensive, so that we understood that one did not just need to not have sexual intercourse to contract an STD, but it could be caught by other ways and safe sex was literally drummed into our heads. I guess it makes sense since the HIV epidemic was in full force at the time. But we were taught that it was not just "sex" that posed a risk to our wellbeing. That, outside of a full vaccination schedule, is probably the best present my parents could have given me.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    One of my favorite scraps, accrued over the years; Michelle Goldberg↱, circa 2007, on Christian nationalism:

    I'm going to skip ahead to this part about a conference that's held every year in D. James Kennedy's church in Fort Lauderdale, which is called—well, he has something called the Center for Reclaiming America, and then he has a large church called Coral Ridge Ministries, and he's actually the third most-watched televangelist in the country. He's a little bit less-known than some of the others, but he's been very, very politically active. He has an office in D.C. that exists just to evangelize young Hill staffers, and they frequently bring in high-ranking Republicans, and have these prayer luncheons.

    At the latest conference, he had Mike Huckabee, who's one of the Republican candidates for [president]. But this is a couple years ago, so:

    Every year, for the past twelve years, D. James Kennedy has hosted the Reclaiming America for Christ conference, usually at his Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale. The event brings together hundreds of committed Christian nationalists for two days of lectures, seminars, and devotions that, as the 2001 conference website puts it, "chart the path for believers to take back the land in America". Speakers have included Roy Moore, David Barton, and Rick Scarborough, as well as the occasional GOP operative like Clinton prosecutor Kenneth Starr. Former Vice-President Dan Quayle delivered a speech in the first Reclaiming America for Christ Conference in 1994. In his book, Eternal Hostility, Frederick Clarkson described the scene:

    Quayle's speech was unremarkable, except for his presence during the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance—to the Christian flag—which preceded his remarks. The Christian flag, white with a gold cross on a blue field in the upper-left corner, flies outside Kennedy headquarters. The assemblage recited together: "I pledge allegiance to the Christian Flag and to the Savior for whose Kingdom it stands. One Savior, crucified, risen, and coming again with life and liberty for all who believe."

    For all who believe. Reclaiming America for Christ is a place where the Christian nationalist movement drops its democratic pretenses and indulges its theocratic dreams.

    So at the 2003 conference, when the abstinence educator Pam Stenzel spoke, she knew she didn't have to justify her objection to sex education with prosaic arguments about health and public policy. She could be frank about the real reasons society must not condone premarital sex. "Because it is," as she shouted during one particularly impassioned moment, "Stinking filthy dirty rotten sin!" A pretty, zaftig brunette from Minnesota with a degree in psychology from Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, Stenzel makes a living telling kids not to have sex. Rather, she makes a living trying to scare kids out of having sex. As she says in her video, No Screwing Around, "If you have sex outside of marriage, to a partner who has only been with you, then you will pay." A big part of her mission is puncturing students' beliefs that condoms can protect them. She says she addresses half a million kids each year, and millions more have received her message via video. Thanks to George W. Bush, abstinence education has become a thriving industry, and Stenzel has been at its forefront. Bush appointed her to a twelve-person task force at the Department of Health and Human Services to help implement abstinence education guidelines. She's been a guest at the White House and a speaker at the United Nations. Her non-profit company, Enlightenment Communications, which puts on abstinence talks and seminars in public schools, typically grossed several hundred thousand dollars a year during the first Bush term.

    At Reclaiming America for Christ, Stenzel told her audience about a conversation she'd had with a skeptical businessman on an airplane. The man had asked about abstinence education's success rate, a question she regarded as risible.

    "What he's asking," she said, "is 'does it work?' You know what? Doesn't matter. 'Cause guess what? My job is not to keep teenagers from having sex. The public school's job should not be to keep teens from having sex."

    Then her voice rose and turned angry as she shouted, "Our job should be to tell kids the truth!" And I should say that up 'til then, I agreed with her. But here's what she means by the truth:

    "People of God," she cried, "can I beg you to commit yourself to truth? Not what works, to truth! I don't care if it works, because at the end of the day, I'm not answering to you. I'm answering to God.

    "Let me tell you something, People of God, that is radical, and I can only say it here," she said. "AIDS is not the enemy. HPV and a hysterectomy at twenty is not the enemy. An unplanned pregnancy is not the enemy. My child believing that they can shake their fist in the face of a holy God and sin without consequence, and my child spending eternity separated from God, is the enemy! I will not teach my child that they can sin safely!"

    The crowd applauded. Of course, Stenzel isn't just teaching her child.​

    See, the thing is that according to Jesus (Mt. 25.31-46↱), if Stenzel fails to try to save her kids, so also will God fail to try to save Stenzel—"Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me".

    And, you know, lying in hopes of scaring kids stupid is apparently the best thing some of these believers can come up with.


    Goldberg, Michelle. "The Rise of Christian Nationalism". 13 April 2007. Speakers' Forum. 18 October 2007. 10 July 2017.

    Weigle, Luther, et al. The Bible: Revised Standard Version. New York: Thomas Nelson, 1971. University of Michigan. 10 July 2017.
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    What business of mine is the sex life of my brother or sister (assuming I have a brother and/or sister)? What's wrong with you? Do you inquire into the sex lives of your own brothers and sisters?

    Do you think that being married makes a man more responsible? Why?

    I think you're changing the topic now. And I think the laws vary in different countries.

    In the longer term, children brought up in very poor environments are more likely to become a drain on society in one way or another when they grow up. It is far better for the government to put some money into them when they are young.

    Are you claiming that gay people are more likely than straight ones to be child molesters? Got any data to back that up?

    People of low morals hate others because they are different from themselves. They hate people with different coloured skin, or different ethnic background, or who have different sexual preferences. To hate somebody based on a characteristic that is entirely out of their control is irrational, and acting on that hatred is worse - for example, promoting discrimination based on sexual preference.

    Nobody really cares what your private issues are with homosexuality or premarital sex. They start to care when you start advocating that such people be persecuted.
    origin likes this.
  9. Kittamaru Suppose it makes sense. Wearing a bit thin. Valued Senior Member

    Hm... interesting. So you apparently think it is impossible for a person to be in a committed relationship without being married? How incredibly arrogant and ignorant you are timojin (not to mention what an utter bigot). How would being married prevent someone from bringing home syphilis or gonorrhea? I'll give you a hint - it wouldn't. At all. Normal, reasonable precautions prevent the spread of STD's - you can have casual flings and be perfectly safe.

    Why don't you pull your cranium from your rectal sphincter and join the rest of the world in the 21st century...?
  10. birch Valued Senior Member

    there are certain things people should consider when it comes to immorality issues, generally. the first premise is that people are generally motivated by self-interest and whatever protects that self-interest. second you must remember is most people are full of shit. it's true that society is generally inclined to be immoral but it's not just the non-religious.

    let me explain a horrible example, AGAIN, which i had the misfortune to find out about life's underhanded dirty secrets. my stepfather was a baptist preacher as a family man and all he ever dealt with was other christians (mostly middle class to upper middle class) in a seemingly moral structure of his preacher's wife and kids (their daughter and his son from previous marriage) but here i am the stepchild and he actually ENCOURAGED AND EVEN TRIED TO GROOM ME to be exactly what christians and morality would not dictate.

    he wanted me to be all the SEEDY things that his shadow side wanted which would include no boundaries, no morals, self-destructive, drug addict, alcoholic, promiscuous etc. in short, all those SEEDY things in life such as porn, pedophilia, strip clubs, adultery, cheating, fornication etc exist not just because of the non-religious but because the religious are often the same types of people too, they just hide it or go about it less openly. OF COURSE HE DIDN'T WANT HIS DAUGHTER THOUGH TO BE THIS WAY. so why would he want me to be this way? because he did not truly care about me and i was expendable/usable. what's even more perverted and demonic is he tried to convince me this was all in my best-interest. really, that my self-destruction was in my best interest because it fed his perverted wants.

    i was beaten when he was just frustrated, jealous, angry etc and that included by my mother which i do not consider her my mother. there didn't even need to be any legitimate reason and again, it was drilled into me that it was my fault or that i had done something wrong. his daughter? never spanked in her life. what happened to even the christian mantra that to spare the rod is to spoil the child? oh yes, but the stepfather loved me more that is why i was beaten so much, right?

    totally different ethical value system applied and taught to me vs his own kids. i remember he stripped me down at 13 years old to see how i was 'developing' when of course my mother and his daughter were away on a christian retreat and i was left alone with him for him to inspect my naked body to which he would proudly say to himself ' you are developing into a pretty woman!' who needs demons when humans are just as or probably worse? why blame it on the devil?

    once you realize most people are full of shit, and the proverbial demon in disguise or wearing human meat suits, you are mostly on the right track. very few really good souls here or they are not the majority.

    GUESS WHAT??! i did end up the way i was groomed and i did end up homeless, inititally promiscuous not because i really was but because i felt dirty and didn't feel good/clean enough anymore, tried alcohol to numb pain but not drugs, struggled mentally and emotionally all my life. his daughter? totally different life and suffered nothing remotely the same.


    and where are these people who caused these ugly and horrible consequences? NEVER had to be homeless or go to jail for trespassing as i once did because i was homeless or suffer extreme ptsd because of horrible dehumanizing flashbacks!

    they abused in every way possible and all along totally got away with it. this world is very corrupt and when i say you can't trust the FACADE of society, it is often LITERALLY TRUE!!!!
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2017
  11. river

    How though or what is your attitude towards others ?
  12. birch Valued Senior Member

    what about my attitude toward others? you mean the bs excuses society uses to excuse criminals and scum? like if you were sexually abused, you want to sexually abuse others? NOPE! that if you were beaten, you want to beat others? NOPE!

    when evil people have those things happen to them, that's how THEY reason but they would do that just if there is an opportunity anyways. that's how they reason, they are opportunists from the ground up with no moral scruples to get in their way! the only morals they have is what is in their best interest. that is as simple as that.

    even though i was raised with these dysfunctional values, i knew in my heart it was wrong. good people have a natural sense of right and wrong and you know when it's not right. i knew it was wrong because it was unfair, damaging, debilitating and harmful, duh? that still didn't change the negative effects but it doesn't force you to do the same to others.

    but i was naturally an empathetic and compassionate person to begin with and for me, it makes you more of a target of predators/parasites so for empaths, you actually have to learn to be more selfish instead of sacrificing yourself for others or helping so much because most people will just take advantage of that! sickly, they tend to think you were put on this earth just to give them things or do for them that others won't just because they take your kindness for weakness! it's the opposite lesson for narcissists and sociopaths who need to learn to be less selfish, more fair, consider others besides themselves and more giving. but they are almost never the ones who are giving which is why the world is so unbalanced and sick! oh, they give alright but they give you a hard time, their junk, maybe even want you to serve them and take your good and good will like you are an object. in their selfish mind, this is a balanced relationship because it just benefits them.

    what i've learned about sociopaths is they like to use guilt trips and even your sense of fairness against you. yes, they can even use good values against you. when you realize that they do not operate with any conscience or sense of guilt or fairness, that is the first step in protecting yourself. good people tend to want to be fair to others, they tend to feel guilty if they have more than their fair share so they try to give more but sociopaths don't think this way and will exploit it to the max if there is an opening.

    when your nature is not this way, it's hard to understand why anyone can be so evil or selfish. this is why sociopaths are not targets of other sociopaths because they can't get anywhere with them. takers look to givers and target them. empaths actually need to learn from sociopaths but not to be like them but in this type world, to have better boundaries and realize not everyone actually deserves sympathy. sociopaths use others sympathy to empower themselves to even take more from others. it doesn't change their nature at all. they just see you as an easy mark.
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2017
  13. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Thank you for the complement. I am a bigot , I am married with a woman not of my race. You tell me how did HIV spread in the 1978 and how did it venereal diseases into family ?
  14. river

  15. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Because people like Ronald Reagan refused to take the disease seriously.
  16. Bells Staff Member

    We know!

    Are you not human?

    Well a few ways, really. Unprotected sex (ie not using condoms) and via blood transfusions, since they did not screen for it back then.

    Venereal disease gets into a family?

    STD's are spread through unprotected sex. Seriously, have you never heard of a condom?
  17. Kittamaru Suppose it makes sense. Wearing a bit thin. Valued Senior Member

    The fact that you are, apparently, uneducated on basic reproductive health is scary...
    The fact that you believe simply being in an interracial relationship means you cannot be a bigot is laughable...
    The fact that you take what was said as a compliment just shows your lack of moral fiber...

    May you live in interesting times...

    For the record - it wasn't until 1985 that donated blood was screened for HIV...
    Face it timojin - you don't get to play "beat up the gays" anymore. We get it - that angers you. That does not mean you get to blame "the gays" for every little bad thing that happens... honestly, it's getting tiring seeing you act like this...
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Actually this is a very interesting statistical chart. If taken in a moral context, it would suggest that Asians are the most moral people, which of course is nonsense.

    I'd like to address this not from a moral standpoint, but from a strictly mathematical perspective.

    The mathematics of the exponential function demands that eventually zero growth of the world's population is mathematically inevitable, regardless of sexual activity or moral behaviors. Not only for economic reasons but also that a steady growth of anything within a finite space inevitable results in a condition where further growth becomes impossible.

    IMO, the Asian low birth rate was a result of China's "one child" policy (which has now been modified to two) . It is estimated that China's policy lowered the increase of is population by about 400 million births, although this has been disputed. Nevertheless it was part of China's family planning policy, mainly due to economic factors.
    Here is an interesting article from wiki.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Note that economic conditions plays crucial part in the growth rate of populations.

    Population in China
    Year Million ---- Change ---- Change / year
    1964 694.6 ------- -------
    1982 1008.2 ------ 313.6 ------ + 17.42
    2000 1265.8 ------ 257.6 ------ + 14.31
    2010 1339.7 -------- 73.9 ------ + 7.39
    Source: China Census
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2017
  19. Michael 345 Bali 1 week here 2 to go Valued Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Look at all the ancestors who had sex when marriage was not around

    What did it lead to?


    So it can't have been all bad right?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    DaveC426913 likes this.
  20. Michael 345 Bali 1 week here 2 to go Valued Senior Member

    You forgot cholera spread by those pesky immoral mosquitoes

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  21. Michael 345 Bali 1 week here 2 to go Valued Senior Member

    I wonder if it rates


    equal or


    as being superstitious in the Catholic church?

    Which is classed as a sin as I have noted in another thread

    TV program QI S 9 EP 15 Hypnosis

    Stephen Fry

    In the Roman Catholic church it is a sin to be superstitious

    Posted in other threads and I thought worthy of inclusion here

    Classic case of doing a double take while exclaiming


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  22. birch Valued Senior Member

    but it's telling that it's almost always people who have not had to suffer much in life that have a more positive or pollyanna, white washed view of the world but especially that tell everyone else that all is right with the world, it's not that bad or glossed over, excused or justified and you have your place in it. the fact is it's just a view from a self-serving and relatively comfortable position.

    right and that would be like a porpoise accusing a dolphin of being wet. religion itself can be classified as a superstition. prayer can be classifed as a superstition, have catholics stopped that practice too? or do they still pray, especially, to virgin mary with their rosary and all? or the belief in demonic possession or practice of exorcisms?
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2017
  23. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Agree. Pointing the finger at myself as an example.
    It's easy to say 'why can't we all get along' when it's not my house being bombed.
    It behooves me, from my comfortable position, to do more to help those less fortunate.
    Write4U likes this.

Share This Page