100 Facts About The Moral Collapse Of America That Are Almost Too Crazy To Believe

reply to post by UxoriousMagnus

big fat zero.....that's how many....there would be zero STD's if people acted in a moral way on just this one subject.

YOu realize that STD's are also transmitted through non sexual contact right?

I'm sorry, but what you are saying doesn't make sense. Your idea of morality is subjective and to judge somebody else's behavior that doesn't effect your life is just silly.

There' no need to be 'married' in order to be sexually monogamous. Nor is having multiple sexual partners immoral, regardless of whether or not you use protection, that's simply a matter of common sense and decency, not morality.

~Tenth

tothetenthpower
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus

 

big fat zero.....that's how many....there would be zero STD's if people acted in a moral way on just this one subject.

YOu realize that STD's are also transmitted through non sexual contact right?

I'm sorry, but what you are saying doesn't make sense. Your idea of morality is subjective and to judge somebody else's behavior that doesn't effect your life is just silly.

There' no need to be 'married' in order to be sexually monogamous. Nor is having multiple sexual partners immoral, regardless of whether or not you use protection, that's simply a matter of common sense and decency, not morality.

~Tenth

no...I did not know "Sexually Transmitted Diseases" were transmitted through other than sexual conduct....do tell?

of course having multiple sexual partners is immoral....just because you say it isn't doesn't mean it isn't

morality cannot be subjective.....it either is or is not. Morality must come from a higher source....it cannot, by definition, be subjective....as it becomes useless, meaningless and non-existent which....is what people like yourself want.

you can say that morality doesn't exist or that promiscuity isn't immoral but it does not change the fact.....

it is just your choice to believe otherwise which is fine....but it doesn't change the facts of it

reply to post by xuenchen


I'd say there are alot of factors at play. One of the highest populations in the industrialized world.
Better record keeping.
I would bet hpv accounts for a large majority of these cases.
More progressive overall (than say the countryside in China).

And so on. They didnt even talk about hpv as an std when I was in school. I started to hear about it in college (around the time the vaccine was being pushed).

reply to post by UxoriousMagnus


Herpes and hpv can be transmitted via non sexual contact like kissing.

Then almost all studs can be transmitted via blood or through I.v. drug use.

So yeah std can be transmitted outside of sex.

reply to post by UxoriousMagnus


See your problem is that you believe this:

morality cannot be subjective.....it either is or is not. Morality must come from a higher source....it cannot, by definition, be subjective....as it becomes useless, meaningless and non-existent which....is what people like yourself want.

That morality comes from some higher power. So automatically, your idea of morality is ENTIRELY Subjective, because it RELIES on faith in a higher power.

I don't have such faith, and my morality is JUST AS subjective as yours. I'm sure we'd find things we agree on as being classified immoral, like child abduction or murder.

But sex?

Absolutely, 100% subjective.

Your faith blinds you from this reality.

Remember,

You have the right to your own opinions, not your own facts.

I had sex with 2 people this week. Moral? SUBJECTIVE OPINION.

The sky outside is blue. NON SUBJECTIVE FACT.

~Tenth

Who went and got the heathens all riled up?

Nor is having multiple sexual partners immoral, regardless of whether or not you use protection, that's simply a matter of common sense and decency, not morality.

So is someone that just got back from doing the 7th fleet, had unprotected sex with you and gave you aids, it wouldn't really be wrong/immoral on their part . . . more like rude?

It's almost like "morals" is a dirty word to you. I don't understand that, a debate on what is moral or immoral I can understand, just not a rejection of the idea of morals altogether.

How about this list:
Preachers:

1. Jimmy Swaggart Got caught with not one but two prostitutes.

2. Jim Baker did time for fraud racketeering and tax evasion.

3. John J. Geoghan molested over 130 young people over a 30 time period, went to prison for molesting a ten year old boy at a public pool and was murdered in prison.

4. Paul Crouch was fired from TBN after a affair with a young man, TBN paid Crouch big money to not speak about the affair.

5. Ted Haggard the anti homosexual preacher was shown to have gay affairs and a user of crystal meth.

Conservative Politicians:

1. Mark Foley resigned after sending sexual explicit messages to young male pages, Foley claimed to not be a pedo and blamed his behavior on alcohol.

2. Ken Calvert was busted for not paying child support and was caught receiving oral sex from a prostitute and he tried to run from the police.

3. Bob Allen offered a undercover police officer $20 for oral sex, later claimed that he was afraid of the big black man.

4. Parker J. Bena key in helping elect GWB was caught downloading child porn....

Do you see how easy it is to come up with a list to support your views?

Top 10 Christian Conservatives....

GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus

 

Herpes and hpv can be transmitted via non sexual contact like kissing.

Then almost all studs can be transmitted via blood or through I.v. drug use.

So yeah std can be transmitted outside of sex.

If you don't think kissing is sexual....then go to a elementary school and make out with some of the kids and see if you go to jail or not. Or make out with your brother or sister or mom or dad in front of people that know you are related and see if it is sexual. Kissing is one of the most intimate sexual things you can do.

or I can get them through illicit drug use....

yeah great arguments

or I can get them through illicit drug use....

Don't forget toilet seats. You can get std's or pregnant from those too

reply to post by imwilliam

So is someone that just got back from doing the 7th fleet, had unprotected sex with you and gave you aids, it wouldn't really be wrong/immoral on their part . . . more like rude?

It's almost like "morals" is a dirty word to you. I don't understand that, a debate on what is moral or immoral I can understand, just not a rejection of the idea of morals altogether.

I'm not rejecting the idea of morals. If you were to purposely have unprotected sex while knowingly infected with an STD, than of course that's immoral because you are causing HARM to another person. I think that's where I draw the line regarding morality.

If it only effects you and nobody else, than the idea of morality is entirely subjective. Only when it begins to effect other people, their rights, property and health does it really become an issue IMO.

~Tenth

tothetenthpower
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus

 

See your problem is that you believe this:

morality cannot be subjective.....it either is or is not. Morality must come from a higher source....it cannot, by definition, be subjective....as it becomes useless, meaningless and non-existent which....is what people like yourself want.

That morality comes from some higher power. So automatically, your idea of morality is ENTIRELY Subjective, because it RELIES on faith in a higher power.

I don't have such faith, and my morality is JUST AS subjective as yours. I'm sure we'd find things we agree on as being classified immoral, like child abduction or murder.

But sex?

Absolutely, 100% subjective.

Your faith blinds you from this reality.

Remember,

You have the right to your own opinions, not your own facts.

I had sex with 2 people this week. Moral? SUBJECTIVE OPINION.

The sky outside is blue. NON SUBJECTIVE FACT.

~Tenth

edit on 4/11/2014 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/11/2014 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)

you are getting to the core of it for sure which is good....

you see....our rights in America come from the same place that morality comes from....the Constitution just "clarifies" that our GOD GIVEN rights can not be trampled upon.

if those rights do not come from a higher power and morality does not either.....then it is left to humanity (humanism) ....which is where you come in.....you get to decide what peoples rights are and what is moral or immoral.....and so do I and so does everyone else....

Bernie Madoff decided....what do you think of his take on it
Hitler decided.....what do you think of his conclusion
Mao decided....
Stalin decided...
Nero decided.....

if our rights didn't come from a higher power....then they were just granted by the Government....and if that's the case....then they can be taken by the Government..

the problem with your ilk is that you believe this and not only is the morality of the country going down but so are my GOD GIVEN rights....

so thanks....

for nothin'

reply to post by UxoriousMagnus


GOD GIVEN RIGHTS is a bloody place holder, it doesn't imply religion nor should it. It was simply the base language in which it was written, back in the 1800's.

It should be UNALIENABLE RIGHTS.

God didn't write the constitution, men did. The reference to God they make is just that, a reference, it holds no more meaning than the one I put above.

I agree with you regarding people's rights, but the idea that morality and rights must come from some *higher* power that we can't all agree on is actually more detrimental than what I propose.Regardless of your GOD or your BELIEFS or your OPINIONS, these are rights that you CANNOT take away because they are UNALIENABLE.

Not because some imaginary man in the sky gave them to us.

It isn't based in religion and it isn't based on morality it's based in the LAW that we as a society agreed are good and proper.

the problem with your ilk is that you believe this and not only is the morality of the country going down but so are my GOD GIVEN rights....

You can keep the above to yourself, it has no place on ATS in a civil and proper discussion. I haven't attacked your character and I would hope you refrain from doing the same. It really doesn't help your argument, it just makes it look like you've run out of steam so you're resorting to name calling.

Also, those who are 'removing' your "god given rights" are mostly folk who subscribe to the idea that God does indeed exist. All those major players in political power in the US are Christians. So, look in the mirror for who is ruining your right to do what you please.

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Thanks for your reply Tenth,

If you were to purposely have unprotected sex while knowingly infected with an STD, than of course that's immoral because you are causing HARM to another person

I agree and though I don't know you, you seem like a decent enough sort and I suspected you would feel that way.

What if someone knew they had engaged in some high risk sexual behavior, but didn't know whether they had an STD or not, then had unprotected sex with someone and gave them AIDS? Even if the sex was protected, condoms do break. Would that push your line a little further?

If it only effects you and nobody else, than the idea of morality is entirely subjective. Only when it begins to effect other people, their rights, property and health does it really become an issue IMO.

But sex really isn't one of those things that effects only you. Sex is something that a society has an interest in attempting to regulate through moral and cultural norms. While those moral and cultural norms might indeed be subjective, they certainly don't have to be.

reply to post by imwilliam

Would that push your line a little further?

isn't that exactly what makes this so subjective? That there are a variety of circumstances that multiple people have different ideas about?

That's why IMO I can't judge in that way unless I know all the facts. If you choose to have unprotected sex and forgo testing in an age where we know there is a high risk of contracting STD's from that behavior, than it certainly could be immoral of you to do that, but there are a variety of other adjectives I could ascribe to that.

Uneducated, ignorant, etc..

While those moral and cultural norms might indeed be subjective, they certainly don't have to be.

True, but IMO they have to be, because our society is fluid. It doesn't remain the same year over year. What was considered immoral 100 years ago is common place today. Like women voting or the rights of African Americans for example.

Sure, there are things that aren't subjective, like harming other people. We've all decided that's bad.

~Tenth

I think one of the biggest signs in the past deacde and a half was the belief that "PRE-EMPTIVE ATTACKS" was a legitimate form of defence.

I think George Carlin describes it best during one of his talks about the softening of the languge use to avoid the reality.

reply to post by xuenchen

That's kinda what I was suggesting in the OP.

Somehow - I did not get that from your OP

I did get that you were concerned about moral decay from your thread's title

I also got that you think things here in America are out of kilter. Kinda wondering now where you were really going with this

:-)

reply to post by tothetenthpower

Like women voting or the rights of African Americans for example.

Was it ever "right" to deny women or African Americans the right to vote? Legal . . . sure . . . part of the culture . . . yes . . but right in a moral sense?

Sure, there are things that aren't subjective, like harming other people. We've all decided that's bad.

Are you suggesting there is such a thing as a moral absolute? Would hurting people if we all decided it was ok make it morally right? Now maybe if it was a cultural norm to hurt people, a person who did so would be less culpable, but would it be right?

Maybe those are questions for another thread.

Cheers Tenth

reply to post by imwilliam

Was it ever "right" to deny women or African Americans the right to vote? Legal . . . sure . . . part of the culture . . . yes . . but right in a moral sense?

Cultural norms are synonymous with morality in most societies. Of course I don't believe it was moral, but some people still think that treating others that don't' conform to their skin color as less than, is still very much moral. Not only that, but RIGHTEOUS even.

Are you suggesting there is such a thing as a moral absolute? Would hurting people if we all decided it was ok make it morally right? Now maybe if it was a cultural norm to hurt people, a person who did so would be less culpable, but would it be right?

I think there is grounds for moral absolutism in very LIMITED circumstances. There's absolutely no black/white absolutism.

Which is why we have juries in our legal system, so that we can vet the situations based on nothing else but the details at hand.

~Tenth

Which is why we have juries in our legal system, so that we can vet the situations based on nothing else but the details at hand.

And what if they're wrong? Or are you saying they're always right, sort of by fiat?


Sorry, it's way past this old man's bed time. I'll check back in tomorrow.

reply to post by imwilliam

And what if they're wrong? Or are you saying they're always right, sort of by fiat?

If the law was practiced with the integrity of the persons behind it in mind, than yeah, we'd be right all the time.

Unfortunately this does also rely on quality of character of the people working in the court and in the jury box.

Everything is subjective if you look hard enough.

~Tenth