Social programming + the collapse of religion and values.

AfterInfinity

EnPassant

AfterInfinity

EnPassant

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by EnPassant

 

It begs the question; does mere consent make a thing right or good? Sado-masochism is perverse and consent does not make it right.

In this context yes it makes it right. If it brings sexual fulfillment to their relationship then I would say it's good. You saying sadomasochism is perverse doesn't make it so. All that says is that it's perverse to you. If couples want to be really kinky then all power to them as far as I am concerned.

What you call 'kinky' and what I call sado-masochism may not be the same thing. I am talking about playing out evil against another person; violence, sadism. Some people do 'kinky' games. I don't know about that...but what I am talking about is much darker and violent and it exists a lot in the gay community.

For someone who is straight (I'm assuming), you sure do claim to know a lot about what gay people do.

I'm straight. I have researched this because it has come up on forums before. I also have gay friends and I know what their jokes really mean. They talk about stuff. But there is 'kinky' and there is perverse. And there is darkness.

Have you ever considered the possibility that your friends are not a measuring stick by which to judge all of the homosexual community? I have a few friends who tend on the kinky side of things, but that doesn't mean everyone who shares their hair color or taste in music is as kinky as them. If you have a problem with how your friends do things, talk to them about it...or just stop having those conversations with them. Seriously, it kind of weirds me out that you would even find yourself that compelled by the topic. Their sex lives aren't cause for a public movement.

edit on 14-2-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Apparently 37% practice sado-masochism.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by EnPassant

 

I'm not anti gay in the way you seem to think. I am saying that there is a culture of sado-masochism in the gay world.

That's not a homosexual thing, dude. Seriously. That's just an animal thing. And yes, the human species is classified as animal. Clawing, biting, whips, chains, etc. It's all about unleashing the beast. Inducing chemical reactions and all that good stuff. Excitement, adrenaline, raw emotion and physical release. Again, I think you're jealous.

edit on 14-2-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

The whole question here is whether sexual activity can be perverse. Can it? In questions like this it is often helpful to go to extremes; there are sex crimes, you read about them in the papers. Clearly sex can become evil. That is all I am saying and I don't think anyone here will disagree with me. The question is when do things become truly evil. Where does the slippery slope begin? Sex is not merely 'animal'. All human sexuality is a spiritual reality. And sex that emulates evil, destructiveness cannot be life giving.

EnPassant

Krazysh0t

EnPassant

Krazysh0t
If the people involved get enjoyment out of injuring themselves or others in the course of sex, who are YOU to say that it is wrong? Pain is your body's way of letting you know you are alive. These people have taken this concept and get off on it.

Perversion is a craving for life. What I am saying is that people should have life, not a perverse substitute. Sometimes people indulge in food to satisfy emotional craving. Isn't it better for such people to realise what is wrong and try to fix it instead of giving them some shallow maxim such as; 'if it feels good do it' ?

Perversion is just a meaningless label that humans attach to things that they don't like to try to convince others of their world view.

To argue this way is to argue that there are no values. Perversion exists on all levels of society. For example, justice is often turned into vengeance, a vengeance that has its roots in fear of evil or in evil. If the good exists perversions of it can exist. That is the question. If there are no perversions there are no true values.

First off, you are implying that the values are the opposite of perversion. That is incorrect. Second, values, just like perversion are individually defined. Sure many individuals' values may align to create societal level values. That doesn't mean however that someone in that society who disagrees with those values is perverse though. You need to shake your mindset clear of the duality approach to life. The universe is never so simple to offer an either/or situation. Yet here you are trying to pigeonhole human actions into one. Values/perversion, good/evil these are both simplistic descriptors for things that people use so they don't have to look deeply at issues.

If there are true values there can be perversions. Do you value your life? If you value your life and someone else doesn't do you think they are wrong?

Yes I value my life, no I don't think that someone who doesn't value his life is wrong. He just happens to have different values then me. It also isn't my place to denounce his values as wrong either, regardless of what I believe. So I'm not sure what you were trying to prove with these questions.

EnPassant

AfterInfinity
reply to post by EnPassant

 

I'm not anti gay in the way you seem to think. I am saying that there is a culture of sado-masochism in the gay world.

That's not a homosexual thing, dude. Seriously. That's just an animal thing. And yes, the human species is classified as animal. Clawing, biting, whips, chains, etc. It's all about unleashing the beast. Inducing chemical reactions and all that good stuff. Excitement, adrenaline, raw emotion and physical release. Again, I think you're jealous.

edit on 14-2-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

The whole question here is whether sexual activity can be perverse. Can it? In questions like this it is often helpful to go to extremes; there are sex crimes, you read about them in the papers. Clearly sex can become evil. That is all I am saying and I don't think anyone here will disagree with me. The question is when things become truly evil. Where does the slippery slope begin?

What do you mean by "evil sex"? Rape? Sodomy? S&M? Orgies? And what does it have to do with the topic?

Krazysh0t

EnPassant

Krazysh0t

EnPassant

Krazysh0t
If the people involved get enjoyment out of injuring themselves or others in the course of sex, who are YOU to say that it is wrong? Pain is your body's way of letting you know you are alive. These people have taken this concept and get off on it.

Perversion is a craving for life. What I am saying is that people should have life, not a perverse substitute. Sometimes people indulge in food to satisfy emotional craving. Isn't it better for such people to realise what is wrong and try to fix it instead of giving them some shallow maxim such as; 'if it feels good do it' ?

Perversion is just a meaningless label that humans attach to things that they don't like to try to convince others of their world view.

To argue this way is to argue that there are no values. Perversion exists on all levels of society. For example, justice is often turned into vengeance, a vengeance that has its roots in fear of evil or in evil. If the good exists perversions of it can exist. That is the question. If there are no perversions there are no true values.

First off, you are implying that the values are the opposite of perversion. That is incorrect. Second, values, just like perversion are individually defined. Sure many individuals' values may align to create societal level values. That doesn't mean however that someone in that society who disagrees with those values is perverse though. You need to shake your mindset clear of the duality approach to life. The universe is never so simple to offer an either/or situation. Yet here you are trying to pigeonhole human actions into one. Values/perversion, good/evil these are both simplistic descriptors for things that people use so they don't have to look deeply at issues.

If there are true values there can be perversions. Do you value your life? If you value your life and someone else doesn't do you think they are wrong?

Yes I value my life, no I don't think that someone who doesn't value his life is wrong. He just happens to have different values then me. It also isn't my place to denounce his values as wrong either, regardless of what I believe. So I'm not sure what you were trying to prove with these questions.

Values are not really the opposite of perversions. There are perversions, of values, of varying degrees. But perversions are perversions of something. I am trying to define that something and I define it as life, wholesome life.

The question I asked was if you value your life and someone else doesn't value your life, do you think that person is wrong? If you think it is wrong for someone to sin against you then you see your life as a value. And if values exist standards exist. Life is sacred, whatever you understand that word to mean. Anything that destroys life, deliberately or carelessly, is evil. If s+m is less than true life it is wanting.

reply to post by EnPassant


So anything that defies your refined tastes is evil and should be abolished?

AfterInfinity

EnPassant

AfterInfinity
reply to post by EnPassant

 

I'm not anti gay in the way you seem to think. I am saying that there is a culture of sado-masochism in the gay world.

That's not a homosexual thing, dude. Seriously. That's just an animal thing. And yes, the human species is classified as animal. Clawing, biting, whips, chains, etc. It's all about unleashing the beast. Inducing chemical reactions and all that good stuff. Excitement, adrenaline, raw emotion and physical release. Again, I think you're jealous.

edit on 14-2-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

The whole question here is whether sexual activity can be perverse. Can it? In questions like this it is often helpful to go to extremes; there are sex crimes, you read about them in the papers. Clearly sex can become evil. That is all I am saying and I don't think anyone here will disagree with me. The question is when things become truly evil. Where does the slippery slope begin?

What do you mean by "evil sex"? Rape? Sodomy? S&M? Orgies? And what does it have to do with the topic?

edit on 14-2-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

I am talking about psychopaths and rapists. Sadists, cruelty. This is evil in sexual terms. Sex can be evil. I hardly have to prove the point. The question then becomes; when does the slippery slope begin? s+m is playing at being evil and can become evil.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by EnPassant

 

So anything that defies your refined tastes is evil and should be abolished?

We live in a world where values are being eroded. I was not a big fan of George Bush but he did say something that everyone needs to listen to; Call evil by its name. Don't pretend it is something else. I'm with him on that one.

sk0rpi0n
To add to the OP, one way this mysterious ''programming'' has manifested in would be the general mass outrage that is voiced against countries that have strict laws against homosexuality, for example Iran and Russia. You wouldn't want the Iranians telling you how to live, so on what basis can you object to how Iranians run their country? And consider the recent demonizing of Vladmir Putin and calls to boycott the Sochi games because of Russian laws to curb homosexuality. Again the Russians are only running their country by their laws that they deem fit for their society. So why do people start parroting injected ''values'' onto others.

Because homosexuals obviously produce less children which helps toward Agenda-21. Also there are a certain set of people present in nearly every country who desire to undermine and destroy the traditional culture of those nations, diluting the culture, traditions and identity of each nation. Once that job is done, they head back to their "other" home country, where religious tradition, cultural and racial identity are HIGH PROTECTED and VALUED. A nation they hold dual nationality in, which REFUSES foreigners, calls African immigrants "N|gg#rs" openly in the street, and....

VOTES CONSERVATIVELY ON EVERY DOMESTIC ISSUE!

What strange nation is this you ask?? ISRAEL

EnPassant

AfterInfinity

EnPassant

AfterInfinity
reply to post by EnPassant

 

I'm not anti gay in the way you seem to think. I am saying that there is a culture of sado-masochism in the gay world.

That's not a homosexual thing, dude. Seriously. That's just an animal thing. And yes, the human species is classified as animal. Clawing, biting, whips, chains, etc. It's all about unleashing the beast. Inducing chemical reactions and all that good stuff. Excitement, adrenaline, raw emotion and physical release. Again, I think you're jealous.

edit on 14-2-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

The whole question here is whether sexual activity can be perverse. Can it? In questions like this it is often helpful to go to extremes; there are sex crimes, you read about them in the papers. Clearly sex can become evil. That is all I am saying and I don't think anyone here will disagree with me. The question is when things become truly evil. Where does the slippery slope begin?

What do you mean by "evil sex"? Rape? Sodomy? S&M? Orgies? And what does it have to do with the topic?

edit on 14-2-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

I am talking about psychopaths and rapists. Sadists, cruelty. This is evil in sexual terms. Sex can be evil. I hardly have to prove the point. The question then becomes; when does the slippery slope begin? s+m is playing at being evil and can become evil.

So you're saying that homosexuals commonly practice to be rapists?

reply to post by EnPassant


Someone not valuing my life is VASTLY different than someone not valuing their own life. Though it is all perceptions, I could think less of the person for not valuing my life, but as long as that person doesn't act on those lack of values (harming me) then I could care less what he thinks of me. I'm also not going to judge him for it either, those are his decisions to make and he has every right to make them.

You seem to be desperately trying to demonstrate some sort of moral superiority here for what you consider to be the correct ways to act, yet I'm not buying it. The only rule to live by is the Golden Rule and that isn't even really a rule as so much a guideline (as S&M is clearly a violation of it). Every other value, perversion, moral, etc are human made and being human made means that one persons ideas are going to different than another's. All people being equal, what makes your ideas of values, virtue, perversion, morals more correct than someone else's? Because they might not contribute to society as much as you? They are a leach? They harm themselves with vices? All terrible reason, keep your opinions about them to yourself, you aren't anymore special than me so don't tell me how to live or even worse, try to legislate it.

Krazysh0t values, just like perversion are individually defined. Sure many individuals' values may align to create societal level values. That doesn't mean however that someone in that society who disagrees with those values is perverse though. You need to shake your mindset clear of the duality approach to life. The universe is never so simple to offer an either/or situation. Yet here you are trying to pigeonhole human actions into one. Values/perversion, good/evil these are both simplistic descriptors for things that people use so they don't have to look deeply at issues.

That depends on whether there is a God. If there is no God humans determine their own values. If there is a God there are values above human reality and morality comes from above.

EnPassant

Krazysh0t values, just like perversion are individually defined. Sure many individuals' values may align to create societal level values. That doesn't mean however that someone in that society who disagrees with those values is perverse though. You need to shake your mindset clear of the duality approach to life. The universe is never so simple to offer an either/or situation. Yet here you are trying to pigeonhole human actions into one. Values/perversion, good/evil these are both simplistic descriptors for things that people use so they don't have to look deeply at issues.

That depends on whether there is a God. If there is no God humans determine their own values. If there is a God there are values above human reality and morality comes from above.

Prove its existence then you have an argument in that regard. Heck let's go over your head. "Hey God, please prove your existence to the participants of this thread so we can get a clear idea of what is morally just and what isn't. If no answer, I will assume you either do not care what humans think is morally just or just don't exist. Thank you, Krazysh0t."

Ok let's wait for an answer.

AfterInfinitySo you're saying that homosexuals commonly practice to be rapists?

No. I am saying that sexual reality is spiritual reality. Evil in sexual terms is just that, evil. I spoke about rapists to show that sexual reality can be evil.

EnPassant

AfterInfinitySo you're saying that homosexuals commonly practice to be rapists?

No. I am saying that sexual reality is spiritual reality. Evil in sexual terms is just that, evil. I spoke about rapists to show that sexual reality can be evil.

edit on 14-2-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)

And what does that have to do with homosexuals and sexual perversion? And what does that have to do with the topic?

AfterInfinity

EnPassant

AfterInfinitySo you're saying that homosexuals commonly practice to be rapists?

No. I am saying that sexual reality is spiritual reality. Evil in sexual terms is just that, evil. I spoke about rapists to show that sexual reality can be evil.

edit on 14-2-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)

And what does that have to do with homosexuals and sexual perversion? And what does that have to do with the topic?

The question is about the erosion of moral values. I approached this question by trying to establish the objective reality of values. I did this by suggesting that if there are perversions of values then those values exist. But what I'm getting back is that perversions are not perversions of anything, they are just subjective states. I am also getting the teaching that everyone determines, subjectively, their own values. That there should, within certain limits, be no guiding lights. But the decay of society is a direct result of the extinguishing of those lights.

You might not think this is politically correct but the fact is that most people will not think for themselves; they need others to tell them what to do. This is how it has always been, even in tribal societies - they had their codes. Without moral lights people will become lost because they will have nobody to tell them what to do. Tell them? Yes. Most people cannot or will not think for themselves. You can see this if you look at the people around you. Ask people what they think; you will find that what they believe they think has been fed to them by television, the press, the media. How do kids dress these days? They dress according to what MTV dictates or what the drug taking celebrities tell them to wear. They need leadership.

EnPassant

AfterInfinity

EnPassant

AfterInfinitySo you're saying that homosexuals commonly practice to be rapists?

No. I am saying that sexual reality is spiritual reality. Evil in sexual terms is just that, evil. I spoke about rapists to show that sexual reality can be evil.

edit on 14-2-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)

And what does that have to do with homosexuals and sexual perversion? And what does that have to do with the topic?

The question is about the erosion of moral values. I approached this question by trying to establish the objective reality of values. I did this by suggesting that if there are perversions of values then those values exist. But what I'm getting back is that perversions are not perversions of anything, they are just subjective states. I am also getting the teaching that everyone determines, subjectively, their own values. That there should, within certain limits, be no guiding lights. But the decay of society is a direct result of the extinguishing of those lights.

You might not think this is politically correct but the fact is that most people will not think for themselves; they need others to tell them what to do. This is how it has always been, even in tribal societies - they had their codes. Without moral lights people will become lost because they will have nobody to tell them what to do. Tell them? Yes. Most people cannot or will not think for themselves. You can see this if you look at the people around you. Ask people what they think; you will find that what they believe they think has been fed to them by television, the press, the media. How do kids dress these days? They dress according to what MTV dictates or what the drug taking celebrities tell them to wear. They need leadership.

edit on 14-2-2014 by EnPassant because: (no reason given)

So? Humans tend not to contemplate things seriously, that doesn't mean that it excuses a charismatic person from getting in front of a crowd and convincing them that being promiscuous or having anal sex is sexually perverse. It also doesn't make it true either.

reply to post by EnPassant

The question is about the erosion of moral values. I approached this question by trying to establish the objective reality of values. I did this by suggesting that if there are perversions of values then those values exist. But what I'm getting back is that perversions are not perversions of anything, they are just subjective states.

In order to have something that is perverse, you must first have something that is reasonable or acceptable. We call those "morals" or "values".

am also getting the teaching that everyone determines, subjectively, their own values. That there should, within certain limits, be no guiding lights. But the decay of society is a direct result of the extinguishing of those lights.

It has been demonstrated that morals are not absolute. What is considered morally respectable here is considered blasphemous and abominable in other places, and vice versa.

You might not think this is politically correct but the fact is that most people will not think for themselves; they need others to tell them what to do. This is how it has always been, even in tribal societies - they had their codes. Without moral lights people will become lost because they will have nobody to tell them what to do. Tell them? Yes. Most people cannot or will not think for themselves.

And who should do the telling?

You might not think this is politically correct but the fact is that most people will not think for themselves; they need others to tell them what to do. This is how it has always been, even in tribal societies - they had their codes. Without moral lights people will become lost because they will have nobody to tell them what to do. Tell them? Yes. Most people cannot or will not think for themselves.


And who should do the telling?

I would agree most people have a need to be led as it is easier to follow and thus the path of least resistance in many ways.

However the questions as above arises to which there is no satisfactory answer.

So we are left to ponder either how can people be taught to think for themselves without being led or which is the best way to stop those leading from becoming too powerful.

The 1st is a paradox and the answer to the second was The American Constitution if you think about it (probably a few minor alterations) - with all it's checks and balances (you know like the right to bear arms, free speech.....) and how long has that lasted before its been slowly torn apart?

So that didn't work either and we went to all the bother of invading a country across 1000's of miles ocean to try again in peace.

But it remains a good template and perhaps it needs enforcing?

AfterInfinity
It has been demonstrated that morals are not absolute. What is considered morally respectable here is considered blasphemous and abominable in other places, and vice versa.

This is not a demonstration. It is merely a variation in secondary things. If life is sacred morality is objective. Do you consider your own life to be sacred, to have an objective value or is it subject to whatever others decide?

And who should do the telling?

That's a hard question. Somebody needs to. My point is that if everyone is told to make their own morality most will look to others to tell them. Let's hope those who are doing the telling get it right.