If people could manage to stop mistaking their emotional reactions to things, and/or their personal tastes, or comfort levels with those tastes, for "morals". Here's a test, did it break your arm? Did it pick your pocket? Did it break the arm, or pick the pocket of someone you know and/or love? If not, it's all on YOU to make the uphill rational case for it being "immoral". If you try to bludgeon your way to it with sheer lung-power, you lose. Discuss.
That sounds rather chauvanist. Something is only immoral if it affects me or those I directly know? Fuck that.
Rick's point is still valid. Diacanu's morality seems not to care about the silent suffering of those he doesn't know or see.
Sorry, I have to agree with Diacanu's position. You have to draw the line somewhere. Harming someone to protect those I know isn't immoral IMO. Placing outsiders above my own people would indeed be immoral IMO. When push comes to shove, WE live...YOU die. This is basic animal and human instinct, and is in our DNA.
This is the umpteenth repetition of your default "me and mine" banality. But it doesn't address the issue raised here. We aren't talking about protecting anyone, or defining any sort of hierarchy.
That is correct. It takes a very narrow moral view of things. By that standard why shouldn't Americans have said the Holocaust or the Rwandan genocide were not "immoral" as neither effected most Americans noticeably.
This goes back to my not worrying about gerrymandering in some state i will never live in. Ive got enough to worry about after all, i mean two dictators shook hands at a funeral today!
You know what would save the world a lot of trouble? If the Pralite monks accepted Dayton into their order and allowed him to skip straight ahead to his final vows.
Diacanu, I recommend reading the first few issues of Transmetropolitan and giving your thoughts on 'the reservations'. It depicts enclaves of areas where the outside world bears no responsibility for to preserve various cultural practices. Methinks this is how you view the 'outside world' according to your view. Transmetropolitan depicts a working (if somewhat unpalatable at times) example, but due to globalisation etc most of the world has to give different levels of attention to issues otherwise.
I agree that not everything that causes a negative emotional response should be considered immoral. In the end, your emotions are your own responsibility to deal with. However, I'm not sure if immorality should be limited to causing physical or financial harm. The intentional infliction of emotional damage (through lying, manipulation, betrayal of trust, etc.) should certainly qualify as immoral.
Gluing a portable toilet to your ass and a mask over your lower face with one tube for food and a second for drink, then just walking around like that all day so you wouldn't have to take breaks to eat, drink or evacuate your innards. What? It would.
