Morals (attn: Maverick)

[Mavrick]

Are you telling me then that because she did not breakup with him (as promised), you were not willing to put up with that, hence you left her? In which case, why did you leave her?

The reason I left was because i was deceived. I did not want sloppy seconds because I knew I could be 1st in another woman's life. If she cheats on me, then so be it. I cannot control her life. I can only control mine.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Morals from an evolutionary stand point. If women gave equal oppertunity to all men, then this would ultimately lead to our evolution coming to a grinding halt and possibly even thrust in reverse. How? Procreating with slutty women would lead to slutty off-spring that would sleep with less genetically gift partners, which would in turn become more sluty and less genetically gifted. The gene pool would become incredibly shallow, and civilization would regress.

I am sure you've read Freakenomics and the authors views on abortion. But if you haven't here's the low down. He writes that at one time in Romania, abortion was outlawed. It caused higher crime, and poverty rates, and the eventual over throw of the government. My point? The apples don't fall far from the tree. So impregnating, either by accident or on purpose, slutty women, is NOT good for mankind.

ok, first of all, humans evolved over a couple MILLION years. society, civilization has only been around for like 7 or 8 THOUSAND. So evolutionary forces have not had nearly enough time to have any measureable effect on society. That's ok, common mistake, I'll let it slide.

second of all, is that copy of Freakenomics you read downloaded off the internet and got mixed up somehow in the process? Becasue that is NOT AT ALL the conclusion the author(s) draw from abortion. In fact they assert that abortion is a very INEFFICIENT model to mitigate crime.

and I hate to break it to you, but ALL women are slutty, and love sex. Its just that most of them got brainwashed out of it. CONTRARY to the forces of evolution. That is not good, not bad, not immoral, not moral. It just is. but you do have a point, if your gonna bang a "slutty" woman, make sure to wear a condom.

As far as the OP's question? The difference between LAWS and MORALS?

break a law, go to jail. (if you get caught)

break a moral, go to hell (and god sees and knows all!!!)

morals were created for the reasons laws were, they are just enforced differently.

 

[Purple-Haze]

This does NOT make me a hypocrite. I never said that it was wrong to help a woman cheat on her boyfriend. I didn't make any profession of a belief, feeling, or virtue that stated a woman in a LTR should be untouched.

Whew, so that clears me of hypocrisy. Thanks for helping clear that up.

Come again? Did you read my post correctly?

 

[Purple-Haze]

The reason I left was because i was deceived. I did not want sloppy seconds because I knew I could be 1st in another woman's life. If she cheats on me, then so be it. I cannot control her life. I can only control mine.

This entire debate is moot as you DO NOT want to a woman in an LTR/monogamous R to cheat (despite your contradictory statements above).

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

This thread started off so well...

 

[Mavrick]

It's right there. Did you read it?

I may have some mixed up morals, but that doesn't make me a hypocrite.

There are no vows said in a LTR. There are no binding contracts that say, "in sickness and in health". There are only words based on trust like "forever" and "I'll always love you". If she wants to break that trust between them, then that's not my problem. Maybe I'm at fault for helping her do that, but I'm not to blame. Anyway, I see your point.

If a girl cheated on me, I wouldn't blame him. He's just a guy doing his natural thing. I would blame her and dump her.

 

[Purple-Haze]

It's right there. Did you read it?

I may have some mixed up morals, but that doesn't make me a hypocrite.

There are no vows said in a LTR. There are no binding contracts that say, "in sickness and in health". There are only words based on trust like "forever" and "I'll always love you". If she wants to break that trust between them, then that's not my problem. Maybe I'm at fault for helping her do that, but I'm not to blame. Anyway, I see your point.

If a girl cheated on me, I wouldn't blame him. He's just a guy doing his natural thing. I would blame her and dump her.

How do you rationalize a woman/man in a common law relationship cheating then?

I am not arguing the morality of your stance on cheating so much as pointing out the inconsistency or contradiction in your argument.

I'm not sure if we have agreed or if we're going in circles.

 

[Mavrick]

A common-law marriage is binding and must be dissolved through legal courts. Since both know and acknowledge that they are bond together by law, I have no right to interfere nor will I.

No, I won't get in trouble by law, but I don't feel like it's my place to interfere.

Another place I won't interfere is when a couple is engaged. I think I'd feel too much guilt if I caused any problems between them.

Anyway, this is my last post on this thread because I've explained myself enough, and I won't reply to any threads where men want to date married women because I don't want to have to go through a lengthy debate again.

 

[Sir I]

people could go on about this for pages and hours imho it's simple:


Do what ever you want as long as you can handle it.

this also means being okay with screwing up the life of others.

 

[Purple-Haze]

A common-law marriage is binding and must be dissolved through legal courts. Since both know and acknowledge that they are bond together by law, I have no right to interfere nor will I.

No, I won't get in trouble by law, but I don't feel like it's my place to interfere.

Another place I won't interfere is when a couple is engaged. I think I'd feel too much guilt if I caused any problems between them.

Anyway, this is my last post on this thread because I've explained myself enough, and I won't reply to any threads where men want to date married women because I don't want to have to go through a lengthy debate again.

Sure thing Mavrick!

 

[MacAvoy]

Question for you Maverick.

You said that you won't sleep with a married women because her husband might shoot you. Don't you think that a b/f is just as likely if not MORE likely to shoot you than a husband? ie if its just a b/f, he's likely of lower moral standard than someone who is married and the b/f would be much more likely to shoot you than a husband?

 

[DonGorgon]

This thread started off so well...

Yeh now just just going in silly circles. :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

 

[comic_relief]

Yeh now just just going in silly circles. :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

I tried to offer some kind of relevance to this post.

comic_relief

 

[Mavrick]

Everything we do in life is relative - even morals.

 

[ketostix]

I'm not sure if this is what you were getting at. But heres how I see it: take wifey, married to man who isn't doing enough to build attraction = AFC. Now from an evolutin standpoint, mankind would be better off genetically speaking if wifey messes around with someone who turns her on (alpha) and thereby improving the genepool. Also wifey is married, thereby having good genes as well, she ain't slvtty, she's committed to one man, and has one on the side. Sleeping with 2 men isn't slvtty. If so, then 98% of women are slvtty because I don't know too many women who marry the first guy they sleep with.

OK but if this woman got with an AFC husband in the first place then why not conclude that she's not genetically quality enough to get a "alpha" man and/or she's not qualified to pick the "alpha" male in the first place? Now why would the second she has an affair with necessarily be "alpha"? He wouldn't. And if this guy is so "alpha" why can't he compete and get a single woman? In reality the women who cheat on their husbands and the guys that do it with her both tend to be low quality if anything.

 

[ketostix]

Question for you Maverick.

You said that you won't sleep with a married women because her husband might shoot you. Don't you think that a b/f is just as likely if not MORE likely to shoot you than a husband? ie if its just a b/f, he's likely of lower moral standard than someone who is married and the b/f would be much more likely to shoot you than a husband?

Well no, this is where moral objectivism comes into play. Everyone knows if a woman is married the working assumption is she's in a commited relationship. Using you're line of reasoning to it's conclusion then a single guy playing or trying to play the field is more likely to shoot you because you slept with a girl he liked since he's the elast moral of all since he's neither married or even in a relationship.

 

[Centaurion]

Can you please explain to me why I need morals? Can you explain why I need morals to be successful in life? (I'm not talking about women here or the bad boy vs nice guy arguement that you were talking about JackPrescott with.

I want to know why I need morals?


Anyone else from the morality police is welcome to jump in on this. I just didn't want to continue hijacking the other thread when the depth of his issues were revealed.

Morals are nothing but imperatives forced down on us from the Society (call it the Matrix if you want) in order to modify and regulate (control) our behavior.

I made a post in the MM about not having any of the morals that society considers 'normal', and the Moral-police came out of the woodworks and tried to lynch me.

You all need to read about the discussion surrounding cognitivism vs. non-cognitivism in relations to positive law, and especially works by HLA Hart, Olivecrona.

Olivecrona found out about 'the matrix' way before any of us.

 

[Centaurion]

I was just walking by this thread and heard this. The question you should ask yourself isn't whether or not you need morals, rather whose morals should you follow.

Think of morality as something such like religion. There are doctrines and beliefs from one religion to another and morality could be the same from person to person. The complexity comes in when there is a large group of people who hold similar beliefs and feel that their way is the right way and that they need to convert the masses.

The most common one are those who believe "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." It sounds good if we were all the same but we're not and so in comes the contention. Did I mention morality is much like a religion?

God ****ing damnit Francisco, this is brilliant!

 

[ketostix]

This does NOT make me a hypocrite. I never said that it was wrong to help a woman cheat on her boyfriend. I didn't make any profession of a belief, feeling, or virtue that stated a woman in a LTR should be untouched.

Whew, so that clears me of hypocrisy. Thanks for helping clear that up.

Yeah I agree. You're not a hypocrite. Some people just believe they should sleep with married women. And because you don't believe in it, they have to reach for a false hypocrisy label. My question is, if you think it's OK to get with married women without the husband knowing, then is it not OK for your wife and some other guy to get with your wife? If not then you are a hypocrite lol.

 

[ketostix]

Morals are nothing but imperatives forced down on us from the Society (call it the Matrix if you want) in order to modify and regulate (control) our behavior.

I made a post in the MM about not having any of the morals that society considers 'normal', and the Moral-police came out of the woodworks and tried to lynch me.

You all need to read about the discussion surrounding cognitivism vs. non-cognitivism in relations to positive law, and especially works by HLA Hart, Olivecrona.

Olivecrona found out about 'the matrix' way before any of us.

REally? I won't dispute that for better or worse ethics and morals are forced on memebers of a society. But you mean I can't through my own reasoning decide what I think is moral and unmoral. On'y "society" has that capability? I think everyone has the capibility to individual come to the same conclusion, they just choose not too.