Vader182 wrote:Okay but why should we care? We're not chee's moral police. If you really think her decisions are wrong, then let her take responsibility for her reactions by herself.
The moral police response is a tired one. Telling me I'm 'wrong' for finding something 'wrong' with her behavior makes you as much a 'moral policeman' as it does Keegan or myself for saying anything. It doesn't work. People adhering to purely relativistic morals typically promote freedom of thought or behavior until some people, say group A begins 'oppressing' other people, except group A was feeling 'oppressed' by the 'freedom' people in the first place, since it clashes with multiple facets of social contract/worldview.
I don't think I'm telling you you're wrong for finding something wrong as much as I'm saying it really shouldn't matter because it affects no one. Honestly, I don't know what else to say beyond that.
This sums up my entire point, literally. Regardless of your moral perspectives, imposing behavior surely to propagate a fuss just because you have the right to, literally destroys the basic harmony throughout society. I mean, imagine if everybody carried that mindset- chaos. That's of course not to say we should dismiss or necessarily restrict the individuality of a person, or to condemn this person for acting in a way he/she feels comfortable in behaving, moral complications aside. I wondered if you'd take the bait so to speak with my comment about culpability, and you did. See, you sorta admitted you're operating on an idealized level distant from how things usually work, and please don't take offense at my saying so. If you can do something to prevent a negative consequence and you don't, by definition of the word and rationality, you are partially to blame. That is objective reason. However, by dismissing this idea as promoting the 'muggers' or whatever the case may be, you're essentially saying you shouldn't base your arguments and rational on objective truths. That is not to say you shouldn't take motion to limit the chances of this problem 'in general' like reducing crime how you can, balhblahblah.
Yeah I see your point, I suspected this is what you were getting at. Maybe I should reframe my point to say this: if there's something that can be done to avoid a negative consequence on an individual level, and a person doesn't do it, then yes. I mean if you have sensitive skin and you go out on an extremely sunny day without sunblock then don't be surprised if you get burns. That makes sense since the sun is a force of nature that we've come to accept. However, people should be able to do harmless things without the threat of negative reactions that
can and should be stopped. From my perspective society focuses far too much attention on what people supposedly did to get themselves in a bad situation rather than who actually caused the situation to occur in the first place. We rarely see any progress on this front, mostly because we're so bent on finding someone easy to blame. Of course it depends on the situation as every one isn't the same. Maybe this discussion is becoming to broad ...
You're proving my point man, and it's why Keegan and some other people would take issue with posting explicit stuff online, or parading around with that sort of a persona. It's because everybody's so entitled to do whatever they want and act as though there aren't consequences- but there always, always are. No matter what you're doing, good or bad, it affects people limitlessly. People should not, ever, do whatever they want, they should act in a manner that promotes some sense of values, and 'free free free' does the opposite.
This very closely depends on your definition of values, or rather it depends on the fact that everyone has a different way of defining their values. I don't disagree with the fact actions have consequences, but if someone does something that does no harm to others, it really shouldn't matter. When a person posts "explicit" pictures online, other people may or may not get offended yes, but I don't see how it's inherently morally wrong. It may be against your personal values, but it might be not against that poster's values. I mean as long as it's still following the concept that it's not harming anyone then there's really no problem here.
It's rather silly that anything to do with sexuality or sexual "promiscuity" is treated in a way that says people involved have no values or have no morals or whatever. The only conclusion I've been able to come up with is the fact that humans are often too afraid of sex and of themselves so they've come up with repressive restrictions that make those things seem very negative.
If she plays cranium she gives good brainium.
