Nobody said they don't want to be moral. You have to look at something as important as morality and question it. That's what philosophies all about (and yes I know I don't need to tell you that) I'm actually quite surprised that your'e not interested in sharing a small amount of knowledge on the subject for us eager beavers.

Indeed, hence me going on to say ...

Read whole posts.


Peace,

kowalski

This is not unique. Girls, hot ones you like and that like you, are 10 a penny. We're not idiots we have this thing locked down so move on, find another girl. We don't need to be the bottom-feeders whose behaviour you are trying to validate. On this forum we are always telling guys they don't need low-value girls, with weak morals, a bad attitude, etc. Well this is low-value behaviour. Why would you encourage a guy to be with a girl who is shitty enough to cheat on their partner. There is no consistency in your advice.

Nonsense. This is naive to the extreme. It is in fact highly unlikely that the guy will look back at you fucking his girl and stealing her away and all the emotional hurt that went with it and say 'That was for the best'. I have ancient experience of this and I'd still knock the dude out if I saw him now.

This is not analogous. I don't choose work in the same way I choose who I will be sexually and emotionally exclusive with and neither should anyone else, and anyone who does is automatically a low-value person. We need jobs to live, so you take substandard employment to survive. This is a very different situation in pertinent respects.

Quite, but you are describing a situation where the girl does not hand her notice in but starts to take sick days to work both jobs at once and using your resources at the rubbish job to do work at the good job etc. etc. (the analogy doesn't work but the picture is clear enough). No one has an issue with one relationship ending and another begining. It's the overlap that causes the problem.

Fine. One day you'll be in love with a fine piece of ass and I'll come take that off you. You still wont say 'Good luck to you, k'. Clearly you didn't actually think and type at the same time there mate.

The bit about it being right action (where I'm guessing you meant condemn rather than condone) is un-submissable as it begs the question. Whether such action is right or not is the subject of this discussion so you can't use it in as an assumption in your argument. It's like saying 'God said ...' in an argument for god's existence.

This reads like the words of an inexperienced man. 1. People are weak, women especially. 2. Relationships are not all happy fun times where people feel 100% satisfied all the time, or indeed any of the time (in the poetic sense). People who do think they feel 100% satisfied are either playing a great game of self-deception or are cold, hard realists (such as myself). This is real life, not a fucking fairytale. There is no Happy-Ever-After. Real humans do stinky shits, get in bad moods, argue over insignificant shit like where you leave your socks etc.

I've never known even one girl who doesn't bitch about her man and when a bunch of them get together it's insane. They all back each other and can work up quite a frenzy of man-hating fury, based on frankly biased and embellished descriptions of events.

Pursuing a girl in a relationship is the equivalent of entrapment, or a tapping-up case in football. You are unsettling someone elses star player. You are dangling your crime-carrot in front of her and encouraging her and seducing her to take a bite. It's like some garden of eden shit. People are weak. Women especially so.


Now you've read that here's an interesting tactic: Instead of jumping to defend what you wrote because you identify with it, especially as this is a public forum and people are watching you be wrong, try honestly reconsidering your position in the new light I've shone on it ... and read on too.


Peace,

kowalski

Here's the deal (and thanks again to Ledge for a little of the inspiration here).

Would we cheat on our girlfriends? No.

Why? Because we would be the worst of liars.

So we've established that we think this behaviour is morally bad and, therefore, we can logically deduce that people who do it are morally bad.

Do we want girls who have good morals? Yes.

Then there is your reason to not get involved with such a girl.

Furthermore, if this is morally bad behaviour for her and you are, in legal terms, her accomplice (or worse depending on how much deliberate seduction takes place). Therefore, you are a morally bad person too. The blood is no your hands and it won't wash off, 'Out. Damned spot!'

The only premises here are 1. lying, especially to a person you are closest to (or at least feign closeness to), is bad, and 2. we want to be good people.

Voila! Box mutha fuckin' shut.


God I'm good.
Actually, that was so fricken easy I might tackle the 'Why be moral?' question after all.


Peace,

kowalski

SI find this topic very interesting so much so I have texted Anthony to hear his own opinion. Not sure if he will, not sure his involvement in the community these days, we'll see. Be nice to hear others' views (Jaz, Tom, Twisted, Sapmi, Red, Retro, Darood, Swype, Jynxy etc etc)!

I think I already said all that K, do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

But well done on fleshing it out. I'm a lazy so and so... X

Ha!!

Was i pissed off when someone mugged me and stole my mobile. HELL YES.

Would i be equally pissed if someone stole my car, or any of my possessions. HELL YES.


The catch 22 with this is you do NOT own or posses another person. That person has to freely give themselves to you. You can say your are someone's BF but you can never say that she is your GF, only she can say that.

The moral stand for me on this would be that IF i'd gotten to a stage in a relationship where we were clearly only seeing each other, maybe gotten to the stage where unprotected sex was the norm. If some guy was to then sleep with her i would be very offended / pissed off / betrayed, even worry for my own health. So me personnel i wouldn't want to put another person through what i would go through.


I know K doesn't like referring to books where there is only a very small take away, but there is one that has 10 commandments in it (even though a lot is a bit far fetched), that the majority of laws and social norm is based on, and i do believe in the "do unto others as they do unto you" philosophy.

Peace

Retro

I have not used the 'do unto others ...' rule anywhere in my argument because I don't agree with it. I might like a good slap on the bollocks everytime I see my friend, my friend may not like me to do that in return. So it should be stated more like 'Within a broader moral and legal framework, and taking into account available resources and level of responsibility, and the wishes of all involved and society as a whole, where relevant, do unto others as they would have you do unto them'.

Look at how unruly that simple rule becomes as soon it is examined. So now we have all these conditions and caveats, and there's probably more I just came up with those stream-of-consciousness stylee, and they all need weighted values applied to them considering both the present and all possible futures. Even if we could agree on values the calculations would be vast and far beyond the brain's capacity to do 'on the fly', and suddenly every action and inaction becomes a moral one. This is the nightmare you end up in when you start with a quite appealing, simple looking, utilitarian-esque ethical principle.

I didn't use that argument, nor would I for those reasons (and some other more technical reasons too).

My argument is more like if you think something is wrong don't do it, don't associate with people who do it and don't assist anyone to do it. Which is quite different.


Peace,

kowalski

Reading this made my nipples go hard.,

Can I just throw a hypothetical sitution into the mix. I know it's not valid whatsoever and I might look at it later and think 'why the fuck did I write that' but what the hell here goes.

Say you just landed on a desert island and there was no way of getting off. You were gonna have to spend the rest of your days there, simple as.

Now lets say you bumped into a bunch of peeps, kinda like shipwrecked style situation (no I DO NOT watch this programme) and they had a nice little set up, and they said you could live there with them.

Now lets say that there were.... 10 guys and 10 girls, and they were all in relationships together, and there is literally no one else on the island. So thats it, your not gonna get laid for the rest of your life, unless you take up zoophilia. Do these powerful moral beliefs still stand. Ok it's an unrealistic situation, but put yourself there and answer this question.,

First off that's not a Catch22.

Ownership is a non-issue and no one mentioned it. All I've really talked about is honesty.

Many people naively make that same false assumption, as if there was no system or concept of morality or justice before the bible, but there was. It is, in fact, putting the cart before the horse. The ethical norms come first. Rules like the commandments are based on these norms, not the other way round.


Peace,

kowalski