Teenage girls to be sterilized in Britain?

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Meh. Who cares what's right and wrong anyway? Morality being relative is all the rage these days.

It's not just about morality (which I could give a damn about) though. It's about basic human rights and the government trying to deny them. If the government denies one right, what's to stop them from denying another? It's a bit of a selfish reason, but a reason nevertheless.

[Corinthian]

Basic Human Rights are based around morality. For example, it was not considered immoral to keep slaves in the 16th Century, but we would consider it a violation of basic human rights. Morality and Human Rights go hand in hand, and with moral relativism, you can march it in any way you want! Why do humans deserve rights anyway?

[Arcesious]

Some do not desrve rights, like mass-murderers, but many others do. We are sentient beings, and frankly what you're implying is that we shouldn't have rights, which is a just plain stupid thing to do, after all we've achieved.

[Web Rider]

Why do humans deserve rights anyway?

A good question, why DO you deserve rights?

[Arcesious]

I really have no idea why I deserve rights now that I think about it, but saying so isn't going to change anything. I sure don't want to lose my rights, which is what Corinthian is implying we do... Taking way our rights won't make the sterlization idea any more 'just'.

[Corinthian]

I don't deserve rights. Very few people have actually earned the rights that they demand they are owed. Without a sacrifice of blood, no one would ever have any real rights. It's really rather ironic - Our higher learning and such, the things that bring us furthest from our primal nature, is protected by that same primal nature that we try to deny.

 

These teenagers, what exactly do they contribute to society beyond a strain on Britain's magnificent economy, unwanted children who are either aborted or shuttled off to foster care, or just 'cared' for by their child mother? From what I know of teenagers, and that's a reasonable amount, I'd say jack squat. I mean, the day that Britain desperately needs a battalion of horny teenagers to squeeze out an army of squalling infants, these will be the first in line to join up, no doubt, But I'd say the last thing Britain or anyone else needs is more unwanted children - it's not like we haven't already slaughtered enough babies to fill up Auschwitz. A few times over. We've probably had enough baby blood flowing down sinks to paint every door in the nation red. I wonder if that would have been effective at Passover?

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Basic Human Rights are based around morality. For example, it was not considered immoral to keep slaves in the 16th Century, but we would consider it a violation of basic human rights. Morality and Human Rights go hand in hand, and with moral relativism, you can march it in any way you want! Why do humans deserve rights anyway?

Would you prefer it if you had no rights? I think most people can agree we should have at least a few rights that shouldn't have to be earned. Rather than morality, I think this consensus is reached because of selfishness. I also think that morality is bull**** and that all people decide things based on their own self-interest and not the morals they claim to have.

[Arcesious]

Many people do, Jmac, but not all. Morality is in no way BS. Without morality there woudl be no people who care about anyone. Okay, lets take away morality for awhile.

Without morality black-skinned people would still be slaves.

You see an old lady crossing the street, carrying some groceries. Since you don't want to be moral at all, you don't help her, and she has to suffer from her arthritis trying to carry those groceries.

You are tryign to make a treaty with a country you really hate. since you have no morality, you just argue with them and cuss at them and they declare war on you.

Without morality many laws would not exist and many horrible crimes would not be punished.

Without morality, the governement wouldn't care about protecting it's citizens, and they wouldn't have any national security. No law enforcement people would care either. Nobody would bother to make mods for other people in games. No one would have done anything about rescuing Hurricaine Katrina victims. No doctors would treat your diseases and make medicines. Farmers would keep their crops for themselves. There would be no orphanages or foster homes either. Your parents would leave you out on the streets to rot. There would be no holidays, no Christmas. The world would have dictators like Hitler ruling it, making your life miserable. Don't give this crap that morality is BS. Without morality, humanity would never have gotten this far.

And there's oh-so-many other different ways that the world would be worse without morality.

[Corinthian]

Read my above post, Jmac. Also, if you don't believe in an objective morality, how can you believe in an objective system of human rights?

[DeadYorick]

Morality is important to our every day society. Since it influences our actions. All of our actions are influenced on what we perceive of right and wrong. We wouldn't be human if we couldn't project our mortality

[Totenkopf]

Morality, of the absolute or even relative kind, is no more than a system of rules about what we should and should not do. The problem with relative morality has always been that if you say all codes are equal, you have shot yourself in the foot with relation to make statements about what is wrong or right. It may seem wrong to you, but who's asking you anyway, especially if your way clashes with the other guy's. In a relativistic world, it is ultimately the code of the most powerful that wins out over the competing codes in deciding what goes on in society. You can think or feel what you want, but it won't matter to anyone else but you. Sort of like anarchy being diplaced by some form of order. We have rights (or not) either based on what we've decided we should get or what some third party has granted us (in the case of religion for instance). Regardless of the system in place, it's the nature of our rights that will always be in question. So, how does one go about defining these rights in the first place (either system still requires people to come to a decision or revelation as to what is and is not a right)? Under what conditions can these rights be proscribed or even expanded? If man/govt decides what those "rights" are, they can take them away with virtual impunity, rendering them little more than priveleges. So, if Britain says that teenage girls must be sterilized between 12-17 (or some other arbitrary range), then they aren't violating anyone's rights. If you believe that our rights come from somewhere else, you'll see it differently.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Without morality black-skinned people would still be slaves.

The Civil War is similar to the war in Iraq in that large corporations benefited financially by rebuilding southern cities - which were completely destroyed by the North's policy of burning everything to the ground.

 

You see an old lady crossing the street, carrying some groceries. Since you don't want to be moral at all, you don't help her, and she has to suffer from her arthritis trying to carry those groceries.

Honestly, how often does that happen? And the real reason behind such actions is that some people gain a feeling of satisfaction from making others happy.

 

You are tryign to make a treaty with a country you really hate. since you have no morality, you just argue with them and cuss at them and they declare war on you.

Uh, no. Why would you piss them off and go to war (other than the reason I gave for the Civil War)?

 

Without morality many laws would not exist and many horrible crimes would not be punished.

Once again, no. Laws are in the best interest of many due to the deterrent effect punishment has on potential offenders.

 

Without morality, the governement wouldn't care about protecting it's citizens, and they wouldn't have any national security.

The government is allowed to keep its power because citizens allow it to. If its citizens received nothing in return, why would they agree to follow the government's rules?

 

And there's oh-so-many other different ways that the world would be worse without morality.

Not really. Many parts of the world are no better than they were when they were ungoverned and no one was expected to behave "morally". The only difference is that they can rape and pillage more efficiently because of new technologies.

 

No law enforcement people would care either.

They get paid to care in case you didn't know.

 

Nobody would bother to make mods for other people in games.

Some people like to do that stuff. For example, I like to write code.

 

No one would have done anything about rescuing Hurricaine Katrina victims.

Not the greatest example, FYI.

 

No doctors would treat your diseases and make medicines.

Doctors get paid too AFAIK.

 

Farmers would keep their crops for themselves.

#define REASON $$$

 

There would be no orphanages or foster homes either.

What? You want even more homeless people on the streets? Sorry, but I say "I don't have any money on me" enough already.

 

Your parents would leave you out on the streets to rot.

• Parents who treat their children properly most likely wanted to have kids.
• Parents who didn't want to have kids usually treat them like ****.
• Child abuse laws.

 

There would be no holidays, no Christmas.

YES THERE WOULDN'T BE HOLIDAYS WHERE PEOPLE GET **** AND HAVE PARTIES.

 

The world would have dictators like Hitler ruling it, making your life miserable.

YES PEOPLE WOULD JUST BEND OVER AND TAKE IT FOREVER AND EVER AND EVER.

 

And in my opinion, "moral" actions are not equivalent to being nice. I'm not cynical enough to believe that there is no goodness in the world, I'm just saying the motivation behind people being nice to one another isn't some abstract idea supposedly handed down to us by some douchebag deity thousands of years ago.

 

 

Read my above post, Jmac. Also, if you don't believe in an objective morality, how can you believe in an objective system of human rights?

If you want to count selfishness as a moral, fine.

[Corinthian]

We didn't have to free the slaves to win the Civil War, Jmac. In fact, we might have been better off not freeing the slaves, strategically.

 

You mean a virtue. And, no. Selfishness is immoral. But without an objective system of morality, seflishness can get sorted into the good, bad, ugly, middle, up, down, left, right, between, or behind areas.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

We didn't have to free the slaves to win the Civil War, Jmac. In fact, we might have been better off not freeing the slaves, strategically.

Yeah, but no one would support a war unless there was a reason, and the secession of the South was a reason the public could get behind. And we didn't exactly free the slaves. For years after the Civil War they were forced to work for next to nothing, as were poor whites in the South. So really, the government freed them on paper, but effectively kept them enslaved and in the same motion, enslaved poor whites as well.

 

You can't play chess without pawns.

 

 

You mean a virtue. And, no. Selfishness is immoral. But without an objective system of morality, seflishness can get sorted into the good, bad, ugly, middle, up, down, left, right, between, or behind areas.

Fantastic. I count it as an instinct. And as I've said before, I believe morality is bull****. It's just something society likes to say exists because we like to dupe ourselves into thinking that we're a superior species.

[Arcesious]

Wow. Wow. And wow...

 

The Civil War is similar to the war in Iraq in that large corporations benefited financially by rebuilding southern cities - which were completely destroyed by the North's policy of burning everything to the ground.

 

Yes, but it was morally wrong to enslave black people to do the work against their will.

 

Honestly, how often does that happen? And the real reason behind such actions is that some people gain a feeling of satisfaction from making others happy.

 

Quite a lot, actually, if you attribute what I said as happening in different ways and in other situations where it would be morally right to help a person. So you are telling me it's a bad thing to help someone, because it makes you feel good; that it's a bad thing to feel good about helpign someone? I think not.

 

Uh, no. Why would you piss them off and go to war (other than the reason I gave for the Civil War)?

You would piss them off because you have no morals. Say, for example, a country of black people are who you're negotiating with. They want you to stop enslaving their people. You say "no way! 'F word' you, you 'N word', because you have no morality. And they declare war on you.

 

Once again, no. Laws are in the best interest of many due to the deterrent effect punishment has on potential offenders.

 

The best interest? No one has any morality in your proposition. So that means no women's rights would never had been made, and no black rights, in fact, no rights for anyone, just survival of the fittest, as no one cares at all. The 'leaders' wouldn't make laws because they would want to commit crimes such as rape and murder themselves, because they have no morality.

 

The government is allowed to keep its power because citizens allow it to. If its citizens received nothing in return, why would they agree to follow the government's rules?

 

'Survival of the fittest'. The leaders would be the 'fittest' in a non-moral situation. The citizens would have no choice.

 

Not really. Many parts of the world are no better than they were when they were ungoverned and no one was expected to behave "morally". The only difference is that they can rape and pillage more efficiently because of new technologies.

 

Oh really? The United States seems a lot nicer after Martin Luther King stepped in, and after the Soviet Union was reformed. Not to mention countless other reforms that made the world better, due to people who were moral and just, even if it's still really bad.

 

They get paid to care in case you didn't know.

 

Since there are no morals, I'm guessign the 'law' enforcement would be paid to capture people to torture for fun.

 

Some people like to do that stuff. For example, I like to write code.

 

Yes, they do, but they would keep it only for themselves to enjoy.

 

Not the greatest example, FYI.

 

Oh really? But it still gets the point accross, no matter how good of an example it was.

 

Doctors get paid too AFAIK.

 

Do you really think anyone would even care to pay the doctors, since there's no morality, the people with money would keep it for themselves in most situations. They'd probably just force doctors to work.

 

#define REASON $$$

 

The farmers wouldn't get paid at all for their crops, remember, no morality. They'd just have their crops stolen. That's one reason why they'd keep the crops for themselves.

 

YES THERE WOULDN'T BE HOLIDAYS WHERE PEOPLE GET **** AND HAVE PARTIES.

 

Getting a little mad there, huh? Glad to see you admitted that I was right about that though.

 

YES PEOPLE WOULD JUST BEND OVER AND TAKE IT FOREVER AND EVER AND EVER.

 

And in my opinion, "moral" actions are not equivalent to being nice. I'm not cynical enough to believe that there is no goodness in the world, I'm just saying the motivation behind people being nice to one another isn't some abstract idea supposedly handed down to us by some douchebag deity thousands of years ago.

 

Uh-huh... Nice rant there...

 

If you want to count selfishness as a moral, fine.

 

Selfishness? Selfishness? You call helping other people selfishness? Okay, what about the people who donate all of their money and time to helping the poor? It's selfish because helping people makes them feel good? Have fun trying to get that opinion accross as fact in this debate...

 

Yeah, but no one would support a war unless there was a reason, and the secession of the South was a reason the public could get behind. And we didn't exactly free the slaves. For years after the Civil War they were forced to work for next to nothing, as were poor whites in the South. So really, the government freed them on paper, but effectively kept them enslaved and in the same motion, enslaved poor whites as well.

 

You can't play chess without pawns.

 

Then lets be moral and do something about it.

 

Fantastic. I count it as an instinct. And as I've said before, I believe morality is bull****. It's just something society likes to say exists because we like to dupe ourselves into thinking that we're a superior species.

 

You believe. No proof whatsoever. We're not 'duping ourselves' into thinking we're a superior species. You're just trying to say you and all humanity are stupid, which is untrue. how about the geniuses and great people of the human race? They're not superior? And morality does exist? Without it humanity would have completely obliterated itself with fuedalism long ago.

[DeadYorick]

Okay everyone your straying off topic. Can you go back to the current topic of Sterilization? If you want to debate Mortality make a new thread about it

[Corinthian]

Jmac, you can't say morality doesn't exist. You can debate as to what is and what isn't moral, but human civilization is based around morality. Now, some people have warped views of morality and the perspective of morality is definitely subjective, but that hardly means there is no such thing as morality. Quite the opposite, in fact. Now, you can deny the existence of a totally objective morality, good luck with that, but you cannot deny the existence of morality. Well, you can, but you make no sense.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

words

No. You're not reading my posts or something. You're saying lack of morality is equivalent to being a prick - it's not.

 

Also all of your attempts to refute what I said about personal benefits for each of the examples you gave either don't make sense or make it clear that you misunderstood what I was saying. Good job.

 

 

You believe. No proof whatsoever.

Your opinion. No proof whatsoever. Thanks for playing.

 

 

As far as I can tell, your most recent post will just serve to create more comments like this:

[10:28:09 PM] ***** *****: I can't believe I read that post of Arcesious'. I think half my brain just shut down...

And yes, I censored out the username.

 

 

 

Jmac, you can't say morality doesn't exist.

I just did.

 

 

You can debate as to what is and what isn't moral, but human civilization is based around morality.

In your opinion. In mine it's based around people trying to **** each other for personal gain.

 

kbai

[Web Rider]

I don't deserve rights. Very few people have actually earned the rights that they demand they are owed. Without a sacrifice of blood, no one would ever have any real rights. It's really rather ironic - Our higher learning and such, the things that bring us furthest from our primal nature, is protected by that same primal nature that we try to deny.

 

There are 3 "generations" so to speak.

 

The first generation learns to fight and wages the wars to establish something. The second generation learns science and math and the "sciences" in order to better defend the newly won(freedom) without shedding more blood, and to advance the new(presumably nation). The third generation gets to write the poetry and sing the songs because the generations before them are the ones who died for their rights.

 

The idea that everyone should have to shed blood in order to have basic rights is essentially saying "more people need to die so others can be free" which is resoundingly stupid.

[DeadYorick]

 

In your opinion. In mine it's based around people trying to **** each other for personal gain.

 

kbai

 

Can you give some examples on why society is based on selfishness and suffering? This sounds more like a dystopian novel then reality

[Corinthian]

Jmac, that's called idiot land. Human contact is based around Enlightened Self Interest, not straight up chaos. Yes, every human is in it for No. 1, and it is selfish, but that's not the point. Morality is a set of codes people live by to keep society together. Without morality, humans would essentially move in a bunch of gangs that rape and pillage as they go, then gradually disintegrate as the biggest takes charge, leads them for a while, so on and so forth. Morality is what brought humanity from cavemen to the Agriculture, and by proxy to the Modern Era.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Jmac, that's called idiot land. Human contact is based around Enlightened Self Interest, not straight up chaos. Yes, every human is in it for No. 1, and it is selfish, but that's not the point. Morality is a set of codes people live by to keep society together. Without morality, humans would essentially move in a bunch of gangs that rape and pillage as they go, then gradually disintegrate as the biggest takes charge, leads them for a while, so on and so forth. Morality is what brought humanity from cavemen to the Agriculture, and by proxy to the Modern Era.

"Hmm I don't want to be killed."

"Hey <other person>, if you don't try to kill me I won't try to kill you."

"k"

"k"

 

And humans aren't the vastly superior beings you think them to be. We're just barely out of the woods - and this is proven almost every day by war, murder, rape, theft, and most of the bull**** you essentially denied the existence of.

[Totenkopf]

^^Given that morality is basically a set of rules that guides human behavior, it does exist b/c people basically seek order from chaos. There are, naturally, individuals that seek to exploit chaos for their own selfish reasons, but that doesn't mean that morality doesn't exist. Your Hobbsian outlook notwhithstanding, are you saying that society has no rules whatsoever or just that you really don't believe in concepts of good and evil?

[DarthJebus05]

Maybe he thinks STD's are created during a sex act. Seems clear to me he has no idea how the world works, which makes me wonder why people keep replying to his posts.

 

Likewise, your posts never make sense to me. It's all "Look at me, I'm better than you!" and "Just because I'm friends with the admins, means I can abuse you and get away with it!".

 

Give it a rest, everyone. --Jae

 

A teenage girl gets sterilized, thus she thinks she can go and have unprotected sex with her boyfriend. It turns out that her boyfriend has a STD, and this is after they had unprotected sex.

 

The End.

[Corinthian]

Not really. I'm not saying humans aren't bastards. We don't follow our own moral codes a lot of the time, as much as we cherish it. That doesn't mean morality doesn't exist. As I have said before, you can talk about relative morality as opposed to objective, but I can't think of anyone, besides you, who has ever said "Morality does not exist." It's completely wrong. Sorry, but it's a failed opinion. Denying the existence of morality is about as correct as denying the existence of the color green or claiming there was no Moon Landing - sorry, but your Opinion is invalid, and it's time to file a bug report.