--WebTV-Mail-707929527-6772 Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
I hear that you are personally "sick" of being told what is right. I am sorry that you are unwilling to contribute at this time toward discussions which might help understand the terms
(as you say, you will reject all definitions of morality with a force of willfulness... you will use the term "judgement" to define what is "judged to be wrong" but refuse to believe there is a single, or "true", basis for such judgement... and you will say that violation may be deemed to have occurred "with good reason" but, similarly, refuse to define [or even discuss] an unquestionable foundation for such reasoning).
Defining "morality" as "right action" doesn't place me in a position to judge what is right and wrong-- *truth* judges what is right and wrong (as in, it is right for a ball to roll downhill/ such that, an "immoral" ball is one which uses force to do what is un-natural... ie. roll uphill).
My family were middle to upper class citizens who were monogamous, hard working, self-sacrificing, productive, and creative. They didn't instill in me the need to excuse behavior which is self-destructive.
I am willing to discuss "fantasy" further.
ps. I am also sorry you do not personally like the me/ you style of responding... please take your dislikes offlist or conform to the types of standards this style of forum evolves
Brett Lane Robertson
MindRecreation Metaphysical Assn.
BIO: http://members.theglobe.com/bretthay ...........
Put your item up for auction! Bid on hot opportunities! Click HERE to view great deals!:
--WebTV-Mail-707929527-6772 Content-Disposition: Inline Content-Type: Message/RFC822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Received: from mailsorter-101-1.iap.bryant.webtv.net (18.104.22.168) by postoffice-131.iap.bryant.webtv.net; Tue, 25 May 1999 11:32:04 -0700 (PDT)
mailsorter-101-1.iap.bryant.webtv.net (8.8.8/ms.graham.14Aug97) with ESMTP id LAA16213; Tue, 25 May 1999 11:32:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by maxwell.kumo.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id MAA21165 for virus-outgoing; Tue, 25 May 1999 12:14:21 -0600Message-Id: <email@example.com> X-Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 13:13:24 -0500
>ME:The example which involved a disabled child was NOT an example about
>disability... it was an example about MOTHERS [...]
But what you said is:
>SHE said that she could imagine it happening... perhaps in the situation
where the >son was disabled and would never be able to have a woman otherwise.
This implied that a disabled person would "never be able to have a woman otherwise". My point was that is a silly assertion, because there are plenty of handicapped folks who have mates.
Secondly, I wanted to point out that it doesn't matter if someone is disabled or not, because if the tendency is not already there, they are not going to have sex with their own mother or father. I'd wager that most people would not commit incest no matter what the circumstances. I don't care if I'm a limbless vegetable- I am NOT going to have sex with either of my parents. I think the need for physical and emotional support outweighs the need to "get laid" when a person suffers from a major disability. I don't mean to condemn incest, as it's only another social taboo (in the case of two consenting *adults*), but I think that incest does not occur due to circumstances (what I think you are saying), but underlying desires which already exist.
>yadda yadda... If a certain act or thought brings mutual or individual
>satisfaction/pleasure without bringing harm to anyone, how can it be
>judged as having the quality of 'bad', 'immoral', or 'perverse'?
>ME: By your definition, what DOES bring "harm" might be considered
Sure, if you change the usual definition of "perverse", so that it describes ONLY what is harmful, and excludes anything that is merely judged as wrong.
>If a so-called perversion hurts someone else (pedophila, for instance),
>then it is *not* a perversion, but a crime.
>ME: ...except that you define it as a *crime*. So I must ask: How do
>you define what "hurts" someone?
That's the problem. Other than clear-cut cases, I think society tends to *tell* people what is harmful for them and what is not, when they should be asking instead. I believe that in the case of a young child, they are unable to make an actual self-interested decision regarding sex, because they can be so easily manipulated. However, as far as adults go, I don't think I'm qualified to say what hurts them and what doesn't-- ask that person yourself. If they honestly feel violated, with good reason, then it is a crime.
>Is there NOT a standard (perversion/ harm) upon which codes
>of criminal behavior are based? Are they then arbitrary (If so, why
>would we abide by them)?
I don't think it's arbitrary. Whatever crosses the line from mutual or self-satisfaction to inflicting harm on another person/being, then it is criminal? Wouldn't you agree?
>Anything else is just a choice of behavior, or a preference.
>Furthermore, anyone who says otherwise is just presuming they are
>allowed to dictate what good taste or morality is. And frankly, all
>morality is horse shit.
>ME: *Morality* is right action.
No! I'm sick to death of morality and being told what is right. How do you see yourself as fit to tell everyone else in the world what is "right" or "wrong", or "good" or "bad"? Conversely, how would you feel if someone dictated your actions with some "morality", or declared that WebTV would be outlawed because it is immoral? Go on, and live your own personal code of morality to the dot, but don't try to impose it on anyone else.
>Eating hot coals may be "morally"
>wrong because the standards for what is "right" includes "not hurting
>oneself" (but this is based on obvious results, at least in this
>example, by which what is moral is also OBVIOUSLY superior to causing
>oneself pain and death [and causing oneself pain and death would not a
>be a good survival strategy, such that a "standard" which suggests such
>action would not be much of a moral *standard*]).
It depends on the individual. In certain circumstances, the person is hurting themself, but it is for a greater pleasure. Using your example, something as benign as body piercing would be immoral.
>It is a good definition.
>No, it's not. Any definition of "sexual perversion" is a bad one.
>ME: If you have decided that you will accept no definition, then...
I accept no definition of it because I have always been adamant that "sexual perversion" does not exist. Other than as a tool for the holier-than-thou to point their fingers and exclaim, "Sinner!"
>Oh, and btw: Is anything *imagined*, by your definition, perverted? Or
>does it have to be an actual *act* that condemns you?
>ME: I make no distinction between what is imagined and what is
>actual... that is, the same logic applies to what is imaginable that
>applies to what is actual (thus what is "imagined" is that which COULD
>be actual). On the other hand, what is *fantasized* is, by nature, not
>possible (and is founded upon a contradiction-- ie. "pink unicorns" as a
>fantasized element, and so one which is KNOWN to be non-actual-- or
>perhaps a "perversion" of the idea of "horse"). What is *fantasized* IS
>by definition *perverse* (and if made actual would, by this definition,
>seek to cause harm to what is actual [in this case, "horse"] so as to
>institute an un-natural element into reality whose sole purpose is the
>satisfaction of the person who has fantasized it such).
Oh come on! That is such fundamentalist puritanical bollocks! I'm sure that many of us have at one time thought about or imagined "bad" things like suicide, killing our parents, decapitating the Pope, etc, but that is common and healthy behavior. You sound like a crazed nun rallying against "impure thoughts". Most of them are all alcoholic sadist lesbians anyway. So...using your non-distinction between the two...if I imagine that I am an extraterrestrial turnip sitting at a computer, will it become so? A fantasy is healthy, no matter what it is. Your anti-thought, anti-imagination diatribes will not find a happy home with me. I will evict them forthright.
Please don't continue to do that third-person form of speech (you know, the ME/YOU thing). It's bad enough that I already have to decode and interpret your cryptic writings without this reminding me of some sort of Giant Puppet Theatre. I believe I can keep track of who said what; I'm resourceful like that.
ps: Brett, if this isn't too personal to ask... What kind of household did you grow up in? Where your parents incredibly strict or religious?