Originally posted by whodey No one wants to commit evil, however, people certainly enjoy the pleasures of life. Usually this comes down to pleasures stemming from sex and/or money. They then rationalize their behavior because they enjoy the pleasure over wanting to do "good".
And the Ursus arctos deposit their stools in "communities of living organisms characterized by the presence of trees that have symbiotic relationships with each other and the physical environment".
Originally posted by FMF When I was a Christian I perceived some of my behaviour as "sin" but not any more. Now I categorize my actions, when applicable, as moral and immoral.
You used the word "evil". Now is "evil" immorality or sin?
Originally posted by FMF No. Prostitution should be legalized/decriminalized and I do not have the same preoccupation you have with what homosexuals do. Harm no one. Deceive no one. Coerce no one. Striving to comply with these is moral behaviour to my way of thinking.
So you don't identify bath houses and promiscuity with increased risk of and STD or even death or do you just think that such risks are acceptable?
Originally posted by FMF And the Ursus arctos deposit their stools in "communities of living organisms characterized by the presence of trees that have symbiotic relationships with each other and the physical environment".
Originally posted by whodey So you don't identify bath houses and promiscuity with increased risk of and STD or even death or do you just think that such risks are acceptable?
If you have some sort of Christian-collectivist nanny state agenda you want to promote about health risks and bath houses and sexual orientation then perhaps you are better off propagating it on the Debates Forum. For me, if promiscuity involves deception or harming others by spreading disease then it is not moral behaviour. Being a homosexual or engaging in homosexual acts are not examples of immorality to my way of thinking.
Originally posted by whodey You used the word "evil". Now is "evil" immorality or sin?
Also, have you done any evil?
"Sin" is a Christian notion. You should discuss "sin" with people who subscribe to the notion.
I used the word "evil" in response to your use of the word. I doubt we have the same concept as to what the word means. I am going back to that post of mine and putting quotation marks around the word in order to reflect that gap between our outlooks. [edit: too late]
I have not done anything "evil" in my life in so far as my concept of "evil".
Originally posted by FMF "Sin" is a Christian notion. You should discuss "sin" with people who subscribe to the notion.
I used the word "evil" in response to your use of the word. I doubt we have the same concept as to what the word means. I am going back to that post of mine and putting quotation marks around the word in order to reflect that gap between our outlooks. [edit: too late]
I have not done anything "evil" in my life in so far as my concept of "evil".
Originally posted by FMF If you have some sort of Christian-collectivist nanny state agenda you want to promote about health risks and bath houses and sexual orientation then perhaps you are better off propagating it on the Debates Forum. For me, if promiscuity involves deception or harming others by spreading disease then it is not moral behaviour. Being a homosexual or engaging in homosexual acts are not examples of immorality to my way of thinking.
Sex is not just about STD's, it is also about reproduction.
Originally posted by whodey Sex is not just about STD's, it is also about reproduction.
Are single family situations immoral?
What about abortion?
Sex is not just about STD's, it is also about reproduction.
Spreading STDs knowingly is immoral. Making babies that one has no intention of caring for is immoral.
Are single family situations immoral?
No, of course not. But some immoral behaviour ~ such as deception, putting children in harm's way, coercion ~ could well result in families with one parent.
What about abortion?
I personally would not want to be involved in an abortion and have on a couple of occasions "prevented" them by supporting or advising pregnant friends, whilst failing on other occasions.
I think the law of the land should give the woman the choice.
Originally posted by FMF [b]Sex is not just about STD's, it is also about reproduction.
Spreading STDs knowingly is immoral. Making babies that one has no intention of caring for is immoral.
Are single family situations immoral?
No, of course not. But some immoral behaviour ~ such as deception, putting children in harm's way, coercion ~ could well result in families ...[text shortened]... lst failing on other occasions.
I think the law of the land should give the woman the choice.[/b]
So in other words, unknowingly spreading STD's around is perfectly moral?
So you would say that just because the average single parent home is often one in poverty and the child is often without both parents who give both a male and female role model to the child, there is no immorality present with this situation?
That is, assuming one parent had a choice in leaving.
And lastly, you seem to lean towards abortion being immoral even though you adamantly think women should have the choice. Why is it immoral if the "fetus" is not human?
Originally posted by whodey So in other words, unknowingly spreading STD's around is perfectly moral?
Having sex is a normal and morally sound activity as long as it doesn't break the harm-deception-coercion thing. If one has a disease it would be immoral to deliberately spread it.
03 Sep '14 01:24
The Fear Of God
Back to Top