What's new
By:
Filters

At what point does it become moral for a collective to do immoral things?

AKnate said:
My brother's in laws are "old school" religious.

I mentioned drinking some beers around the campfire and they looked at me like I'd just told a story about clubbing puppies and bald eagles.
Click to expand...

I'll never get that...a lot of people would call me very religious but I enjoy beer, wine, liquor.

Do they miss the part where Jesus turned water into wine?

Or instituted the Lord's supper using wine?

My sister is a nutjob like that. Paraded her brainwashed kids in front of the city council when they were voting on selling beer and wine in the city. At least one of them turned out normal. No thanks to her.
 
JD Mark said:
I'll never get that...a lot of people would call me very religious but I enjoy beer, wine, liquor.

Do they miss the part where Jesus turned water into wine?

Or instituted the Lord's supper using wine?

My sister is a nutjob like that. Paraded her brainwashed kids in front of the city council when they were voting on selling beer and wine in the city. At least one of them turned out normal. No thanks to her.
Click to expand...
Yep, just one of the many easily understood, mis understood things.

The purpose behind not drinking is about how you drink and what effect it has on you.

Don't drink so much you will sin is a basic common sense rule.

Some people are mean drunks, some are happy drunks. I say drunk by the .08 standard not individual basis.

If you are a mean drunk, pick fights, assault people, have sex with animals, cuss and such, then no, drinking is not for you.
 
MChat said:
That which is immoral can never become moral simply because the majority decide it is (even with a unanimous decision).

Now, if your question is what percentage of the population is required for something immoral to be acceptable by society, then we need only to look at history to conclude that it only needs a very small vocal minority that gains the ear of the media and government so long as the vast majority of dissenters remain silent or at least inactive.
Click to expand...
The problem with people studying history is trying to apply the morals of TODAY on a times in the Past.

You can't judge the man raise under Genghis Khan and the morality of the time, with the morality of modern man.
 
"Don't have sex before marriage" works really well when your culture says to get married at 13 or 14.

So now... Don't get married until you're 30. OK
Don't have sex before marriage... AT 30???? Really???
 
grumpy356 said:
The problem with people studying history is trying to apply the morals of TODAY on a times in the Past.

You can't judge the man raise under Genghis Khan and the morality of the time, with the morality of modern man.
Click to expand...

Yes and no.

I think it can be judged, just not necessarily condemned.

Owning another person is wrong, no matter what century. Condemning the slaveowner and trying to ignore/destroy that history is just stupid.
 
grumpy356 said:
"Don't have sex before marriage" works really well when your culture says to get married at 13 or 14.

So now... Don't get married until you're 30. OK
Don't have sex before marriage... AT 30???? Really???
Click to expand...
Nobody tells you you have to wait till 30 to get married. That’s your choice.
 
Beat95yj said:
Nobody tells you you have to wait till 30 to get married. That’s your choice.
Click to expand...
Well you ain't getting married at 13, which was common not so long ago.... which was the point.
 
JD Mark said:
Yes and no.

I think it can be judged, just not necessarily condemned.

Owning another person is wrong, no matter what century. Condemning the slaveowner and trying to ignore/destroy that history is just stupid.
Click to expand...
Your government owns you. You are basically their slave. You provide them with all the resources they need to live wonderful lives while you struggle.
 
Beat95yj said:
Your government owns you. You are basically their slave. You provide them with all the resources they need to live wonderful lives while you struggle.
Click to expand...
Fuck... The DRAFT.
The DRAFT, Legal today just not in use. TOTAL SLAVERY.

And taxation is a taking your labor, by force .... Just because you apply it to the common good changes nothing.
 
[486] said:
or all the other ways in which the coercive monopoly cannot be contested, such as taxation and legislation and "enforcement"
Click to expand...
In a point for the other side... I do find taxation incredibly immoral, so that may go to them.
 
JD Mark said:
So pedophilia can become moral if enough people agree?

Not in my world.

Or rape.

Or stealing, murder, etc.

There are absolutes.
Click to expand...
Picking dumb and arbitrary lines in the sand makes you a fool who is easy to manipulate

I'm not a fan of pedophilia but unlike most here I'm not gonna get out the torches and pitchforks when a 25yo bangs a 17yo

Wash rinse repeat for all those other "absolutes".
 
arse_sidewards said:
Picking dumb and arbitrary lines in the sand makes you a fool who is easy to manipulate

I'm not a fan of pedophilia but unlike most here I'm not gonna get out the torches and pitchforks when a 25yo bangs a 17yo

Wash rinse repeat for all those other "absolutes".
Click to expand...
Because pedophilia means PREPUBESCENT . And I’ll get out the torch for that.

Rape by statute / statutory rape…. Case by case kind of thing.
 
JD Mark said:
So pedophilia can become moral if enough people agree?

Not in my world.

Or rape.

Or stealing, murder, etc.

There are absolutes.
Click to expand...
Are they? The majority of cultures throughout the ages have thought pillaging, rape, and murder were perfectly acceptable pasttimes.
 
Stuck said:
Are they? The majority of cultures throughout the ages have thought pillaging, rape, and murder were perfectly acceptable pasttimes.
Click to expand...
As recently as during major wars within the last 100 years.
 
grumpy356 said:
"Don't have sex before marriage" works really well when your culture says to get married at 13 or 14.

So now... Don't get married until you're 30. OK
Don't have sex before marriage... AT 30???? Really???
Click to expand...
A lot of that has to do with what's best for society, ensuring paternity, etc. There are a lot of reasons why things developed the way they did and no they don't fit everyone equally. Having a child out of wedlock for a man is like hitting the genetic lottery. You get to pass on your seed without having to expend the resources to raise the child. The mother has an immense burden and it does the child no favor to be in a single parent household statistically speaking. Our society generally evolved around a nuclear family.
 
[486] said:
trumpwrong.jpg

unless you mean "our society" as in the 1960s-90s
Click to expand...
The multigenerational set of social norms you are constantly simping for is frequently far more of a freedom restricting ball and chain on the productive than you're giving it credit for.

The continent wasn't settled with three generations in tow. The initial settlers moving whole communities over from europe are the closest you'll see of that. Maybe you and a brother or cousin moved your families out west at the same time but that shit absolutely wasn't the default. Individuals and family units moved far enough to be out of the influence or help of others they were related to far more frequently than happens today.
 
arse_sidewards said:
The multigenerational set of social norms you are constantly simping for is frequently far more of a freedom restricting ball and chain on the productive than you're giving it credit for.
Click to expand...
nope, the communism you're simping for is far less efficient


I really don't understand how you can possibly argue for the welfare state. I just can't grasp the barest thread of it.
 
Stuck said:
Are they? The majority of cultures throughout the ages have thought pillaging, rape, and murder were perfectly acceptable pasttimes.
Click to expand...

So that makes them moral?
 
[486] said:
nope, the communism you're simping for is far less efficient
Click to expand...

What communism am I simping for?

Of are you going to act like a leftist and act like being against your shit makes me for some other shit?


[486] said:
I really don't understand how you can possibly argue for the welfare state. I just can't grasp the barest thread of it.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing for the welfare state.

I'm arguing against a set of social norms that result in some level of obligation to support people who are blood related.
 
arse_sidewards said:
What communism am I simping for?

Of are you going to act like a leftist and act like being against your shit makes me for some other shit?



I'm not arguing for the welfare state.

I'm arguing against a set of social norms that result in some level of obligation to support people who are blood related.
Click to expand...
The welfare state is mostly what was used to disassemble the extended family.
The family didn't fall apart on its own, it was destroyed through outside influences making smaller and dysfunctional families a much less costly phenomenon.
Just like how being a single mother used to be extremely expensive, where lately it has been made to be virtuous
 
[486] said:
The welfare state is mostly what was used to disassemble the extended family.
The family didn't fall apart on its own
Click to expand...

The extended family disassembled itself as a result of first westward expansion and then industrialization providing people better economic opportunity than staying where they were with people who could give them preferential treatment did.

Those who stayed put in any given place were the low/no value people for whom staying put offered a better life than moving away for economic opportunity resulting in a concentration of uselessness and dead weight further driving useful people to get out.

If the multi-generational family was destroyed by outside influence it's because it wasn't worth fighting for because none of the productive people who had anything of value to be threatened depended upon it.
 
I think it's also worth noting, and covid really highlighted it, that multi-generational families are an absolute minefield when it comes to politics and it usually plays to the state's favor.

It's easy for a husband and wife to raise their kids free of whatever the state bullshit of the minute is. The odds of pulling that shit off successfully go way down when grandma and grandma who watch CNN all day are in the picture. Historically the stakes have been higher. It's a lot harder to keep a jew under your floor when old racist grandma gonna rat you out.

I think it's also worth noting that multi-generational families give the state more ability to fuck up and burn institutional credibility before it comes back to fuck them. I know state and state adjacent institutions are bullshit, you know it. Imagine trying to pass those values onto a kid if your wive's parents are in the picture and one of them is a retired teacher and the other's a retired union hack. State legitimacy that could have been burned in a generation burns much more slowly when the old get to help raise the young.

Everything that's bad about family multi-generational families make worse.
 
arse_sidewards said:
The extended family disassembled itself as a result of first westward expansion and then industrialization providing people better economic opportunity than staying where they were with people who could give them preferential treatment did.

Those who stayed put in any given place were the low/no value people for whom staying put offered a better life than moving away for economic opportunity resulting in a concentration of uselessness and dead weight further driving useful people to get out.

If the multi-generational family was destroyed by outside influence it's because it wasn't worth fighting for because none of the productive people who had anything of value to be threatened depended upon it.
Click to expand...
I could just go with the cheap shot of 'then why are you still in the worthless east coast with all the useless uselesses?' but that's really unproductive so I won't.

anyways, this is why I called you a commie, you're ignoring the natural generational capital accumulation that occurs within a functional family
People passing on the shit they built up to their children who have been trained all their lives in the operation of that productive capital.
Time preference continuing beyond a single lifetime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh