• If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread
  • The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us.
  • Reminder - We have a ZERO TOLERANCE policy regarding content involving minors, regardless of intent. Any content containing minors will result in an immediate ban. If you see any such content, please report it using the "report" button on the bottom left of the post.
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

TB 4: Morals & Ethics: Is there really a need to argue them?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 66627
  • Start date Start date
D

Deleted member 66627

Guest
Thanks for the inspiration, Cosmo!

We seem to have been met with a couple threads on topics such as hitting women and honesty. -- In my opinion: setting up for a 'debate' of moral is a little retarded.. and counter productive. How is it possible to tell someone they are wrong for something they believe in? Are you Jesus? Actually.. that doesn't even matter. (dont want this to turn into a Religion dealio)

But .. seriously: Do you really feel there is any constructive point in arguing against someone who was raised to believe/feel differently than you?
 
Productive for them? No.

Productive for me? Yes.

I can't force them to believe anything, but by hearing their point of view on something, then I can expand my own vision. If they want to be close-minded, that's their choice. That does not mean that I have to be as well.
 
Absolutely. Discussion and debate couldn't be more important, especially on issues like morals and ethics. One person isn't going to think of every angle, every perspective. People need to swap views, so maybe somebody learns something s/he had overlooked. Granted, lots of times the debaters aren't interested in that and are just stubbornly preaching to each other, so yeah, there's no value in it for them. But that's because they're doing it wrong.
 
There is often no point in arguing with somebody who has utterly different values and beliefs. It is, however, useful to point out when they are using lies or fallacies in their arguments, or when they are in error about facts.
 
Thanks for the inspiration, Cosmo!

We seem to have been met with a couple threads on topics such as hitting women and honesty. -- In my opinion: setting up for a 'debate' of moral is a little retarded.. and counter productive. How is it possible to tell someone they are wrong for something they believe in? Are you Jesus? Actually.. that doesn't even matter. (dont want this to turn into a Religion dealio)

But .. seriously: Do you really feel there is any constructive point in arguing against someone who was raised to believe/feel differently than you?

Nail on the head, there.

I used to think differently, because in real life, a good debate among intelligent, reasonable people can help you develop a better understanding of the people you're dealing with.
But an "anonymous" internet forum just isn't the right venue for that.
 
Why is the other person automatically close-minded?

What if they've considered and thought about their position, decided they wished to follow it, and then encounter someone who believes differently, but condescendingly believes THEY'RE close minded?!!!

For example, I am against illegal drug use. I've softened my position on truly sick people....if you're bed ridden and dying of cancer, and a marijuana cigarette will ease your suffering, I know the asshole cops would probably arrest them anyway and drag them off to jail to die a horrible death, but come on, it's not like the 70 year old is going to go operate a forklift or drive a car, trapped in bed.

But that's it. I've spent a life time watching the BAD effects of illegal drug use, on family members, friends, or hearing friends stories, and it's horrible. Most people who are for illegal drug use are close minded and don't want to hear those stories.

There are a lot of myths that are perpetually put forth, and they've become reality when in fact they are bullshit.

"Only Conservatives, those who are spiritual or religious, Republicans, those are THE ONLY people who are close minded!!"

BULL FUCKING SHIT. I'll easily prove it - go try to convince someone who believes in conspiracy theories that they're wrong. Good luck wasting the rest of your life on that!
Go try to prove a liberal college professor he's wrong, ....with solid facts. Go try to prove that America ain't that bad to someone who hates America.

I believe in cases where people are truly criminally wrong, you don't debate them, you simply arrest them. They WANT a debate, and this usually traps "thoughtful, refined" people who think they're "smarter" than all us intolerant buffoons, but they're full of shit too!

If someone's an asshole who's hitting women, to show he's a tough guy, you just beat his ass or arrest him, or both. You don't have a debate with him, that devolves into semantics that goes on and on for 3 hours. You knock his ass out.
If a pedophile is raping kids, you don't get trapped into a debate with him about the sexual activity of the Greeks or Spartans and how backwards America is...while his victim cowers in fear from him....you throw him to the ground, hand cuff him, and throw him in jail for 20 years. Let him debate his 300 pound pissed off cellmate.
Adolf Hitler wanted to debate Roosevelt. Roosevelt ignored him and bombed his troops. Saddam wanted to debate Bush. Bush ignored him. They're not going to sit there and debate someone who's going to lie the whole fucking time.
 
Thanks for the inspiration, Cosmo!

We seem to have been met with a couple threads on topics such as hitting women and honesty. -- In my opinion: setting up for a 'debate' of moral is a little retarded.. and counter productive. How is it possible to tell someone they are wrong for something they believe in? Are you Jesus? Actually.. that doesn't even matter. (dont want this to turn into a Religion dealio)

But .. seriously: Do you really feel there is any constructive point in arguing against someone who was raised to believe/feel differently than you?

Thanks for the props, Crystal!

As far as the topic of this post, of course there is reason. Two good ones in particuler, but there are certainly more i'm sure.

1: Learning to understand others. Debates of this nature allow a person to learn a little more about the poster. How they feel about a certain thing, and why. Some people aren't interested in these things, others are. Personally, I find it very interesting.

2: Actually, LD did a better job of describibng this so, basically what he said. Casting new views on a subject that a person might not have seen before, or giving them new information about a topic they were unaware of. Some people have very strong views, until that one little piece of information drops into there lap. Human's are constantly changing individuals, and that includes things such as morality and ethics. It's through sharing information and views that we are able to do such things
 
I've never considered "debating" to be a zero-sum game; no one has to win or lose (i.e, agree that the other is right) in order for it to be a positive experience. The idea that one idea, mindset, paradigm, or whatever MUST defeat the other is counterproductive. Because then, it's not about learning, it's about winning.
 
Personally I like hearing others point of views on a variety of topics. Sometimes its fun to debate things as well as long as it doesn't get personal. Trading opinions is one thing, trading insults is quite another. At the end of the day, people have their views and most likely you are not going to change their mind, unless a life changing event happens to them.
 
I consider myself an immoralist. I despise eternal law; it only makes for the debasement of life and living. A moral debate only disintegrates intellectualism. It's based off of propositions that are not true, and has led to slavery of the conscious mind.

Ethics, on the other hand - is revolving, and is always evolutionary. It always changes! It brings humanity closer to understanding and dealing with each other.
 
I consider myself an immoralist. I despise eternal law; it only makes for the debasement of life and living. A moral debate only disintegrates intellectualism. It's based off of propositions that are not true, and has led to slavery of the conscious mind.

Ethics, on the other hand - is revolving, and is always evolutionary. It always changes! It brings humanity closer to understanding and dealing with each other.

I thought that's why we made nuclear weapons.
 
Arguing opinion... is technically the point of arguing lol. Ethics and morality are subjective to each individual group and when one group disagrees with how another group functions there's most definately a point for debate. It's necessary for cultures to grow and develop. If it wasn't debated that cutting down rain forests was a bad idea then we'd have no rainforests.

I think ethics and morality are of the healthiest debates people can have (as long as it's dealt with maturely and not like "you're wrong because i said so"). We may think genocide is wrong but if another group decides to commit genocide should we not put our foot down because we feel it's wrong? They might not see it wrong but we do.

The same logic applies to anything in ethics. The debate is necessary for advancement, regardless of if you're right or wrong. The hard part is accepting that you're wrong though, which a lot of people don't which makes arguments SEEM pointless. If people were more open minded and rational i think the world would be a lot happier.

In short, yes, VERY important 😀
 
good post.
jxesf5
 
What's New
3/8/26
There will be Trivia in our Chat Room this Sunday evening at 11PM EDT.

Door 44
Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** Anyone/M Lee ***
The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Top