Go for it - Boyfriend? not Husband? right. That means she's still for grabs.
GG
Once again you remove the agency of those choices and the differing motivational factors, the future is not the same as 'people'. Complete strict measured equality on unequal people, is ironically, inequality.
Subjective experience varies very widely. I'm sure a large degree of people prefer not to be in pain, yet you find some that enjoy it. But we can't allow the intentional infliction of harm on a broad scale due to a minority's preference. Despite that we accommodate for the weaker will, if possible. Because not being a raging tyrannical asshat is a thing (yay morality)!
Right, because nobody has absolute power. So weaker wills have weight.
If you ask questions rather than just dismiss statements as worthless; you can actually find out why they consider it immoral. A lot of people in this very thread have articulated why quite effectively. That statement alone is useless, but only marginally less useful than I'm angry because X (which still requires an orientation device). You've chosen people who have poor articulation skills as your example, no framework you could give these individuals would help them. Well you could educate them...
Last edited by RapBreon; 2014-05-10 at 02:19 PM.
Yes, it is a chemical reaction in the brain to ensure maximal survival rate of your offspring.
Everybody knows this, I do, you do, everyone does! We often pretend that we don't though since that tingly feeling is a lot nicer when not remembering what it really is...in house drugs.
When I was younger I always dated older women, maybe not that much older but if you are into it you are into it. Just be honest with her, make sure you both want the same things out of whatever kind of relationship you are looking for, and if you do go nuts. Really I don't think you should ever seek validation from other people concerning intimate issues, at the end of the day nobody can tell you about the kind of person or relationship that is right for you. You have to figure that out all on your own. And the best way to do that is by experiencing stuff. So even if it doesn't work out as long as you learn more about yourself and what makes you happy in a relationship, you come out ahead.
Love is that one thing, people can do amazing things in the name of love, or do incredibly terrible things in the name of love. When you ask them why they honestly say " I don't know." That is what feelings/emotions are. I work with humans, and their emotions, it's not as black and white as you think it is but I'm not going to go down this road. Like I said I perfectly understand what both of them are saying. Both are right to an extent.
- - - Updated - - -
But you can't explain WHY those chemicals occur at the times that they do. Like Nixx you try to paint things as black and white, but they just aren't. If there were logical reasons behind our every emotion or thought, then psychology wouldn't be needed.
This is what I mean by blind blanket judgments (an idea we've been moving passed for years now; at least in the justice system). One situation is not the same as another. The end result may be the same, but the decisions do not have to be. Your version of morality condemns accidents as much as maliciousness to the exact same place. I believe the place they should go is different, because as I said, unequal beings treated with measured equality is inequality.
Imagine holding a person on that bus who suffers from extreme social phobia, simply being on that bus is a living nightmare. You are willing to condemn that individual to the same fate as the person who assaulted the girl, because they did not act. You may not think empathy is a good reasoning tool, but when it comes to people, it's another analyzing tool, you can never have enough tools.
I don't see it working on a large scale. Or where dissenting ideas of pleasurable and non-pleasurable are involved. You still have indoctrinate individuals into what is and isn't pleasurable.
Weaker wills have influenced more powerful ones for a pretty long time now. Ability or no.
Only flouts reason? It's used in great effect with reason to justify certain principles all the time. The only issue I really see you taking is with that particular statement. The rest is just pack mentality and indoctrination, that would occur morality or no.
Last edited by RapBreon; 2014-05-10 at 02:42 PM.
That is true to a point. But there are emotions that run so much deeper than this horrible basis you are trying to apply. Logic and reason can be applied to certain situations, but not every situation. If we did, we would stopping the very thing that makes us what we are. Who we are.
I'm done here. I have things to do today. Have a good day Nixx. I do enjoy talking with you. Sometimes you say some profound things, other times, ya make me facepalm :P
To wake up this morning and find this thread...
Kinda made my day.
On a serious note, I think people have mentioned pretty well what the real problem is here aka a boyfriend and 2 kids. Some people didn't really read your whole post and say go for it. Id advise you not to listen. In life we have to make mistakes and from mistakes we become who we are but this one is easy to be smart and take the right decision.
You are 21...you need to realize that no one can really tell you what to do...but you really need to sit down alone and think this through and look at your options properly. Every action has a result,you have to filter those results and figure out which road you want to take...Having sex with her can cause multiple consequences, do you want to be part of that drama? If she's being this way with you, how many more guys is she like this with? Do you really just want to have sex to say you had sex?
The possibilities to the questions you need to be rational about is endless...and lets not forget that sometimes you need to do what you need to..and not what you want to. If your issue is you cannot get women and this is the only one thats given you attention like you want and that's why you're attached, then you need to think about that as well...thats not healthy and is also not a proper reason to love someone. Attachment is fine if you have control over it and have boundaries for yourself and others. There's a healthy way to go about attachment but yours is not a good one.
It could be that you are scared that you wont have the opportunity again , don't settle , who knows what your life will bring you..dear god you're only 21. These events are something that further down the road you will have to share with someone, now with a certain acceptance some people are fine with their actions and share them honestly, but you will have to know that it will make people question if you understand what love is or if you just jump the gun on a person who show's you attention.
In my personal opinion..don't do it, but the decision is entirely up to you and what your willing to live with.
I'm going to say it again despite me sounding like a broken record. Differing levels of culpability. The obligation to help is less than the obligation to not stab someone. The primary difference is one isn't legally enforced because it's a minefield. So instead it is socially enforced via community backlash (the article).
If you're willing to recognise accident, consequentialism collapses under its own premise. It requires a supporting structure for it to make sense. You deny virtue ethics, but you propose some kind of 'reason' instead. But there are many types of reason. What is logical to you, may not be logical to others.
I did mention ignorance as a defence and leaps of logic earlier. This is why circumstances are important.
Necessary is up for definition. But I agree.
Influence can come in more ways than directly and intentionally.
I did say in tandem. Emotion alone is like reason alone, limited in scope. If nothing else emotion breeds motivation and at its height, it breeds passion. At its lowest, it's pretty destructive. They serve different purposes, but have the potential to compliment each other or destroy each other. Most great scientific progress didn't come from a people who ignored emotions, their passion drove them to continue their quest for X.
As for attempting to justify a principle with just emotion, I want to try anyway; I'm curious to see your rebuttal. Back to the example of the individual with severe social phobia, I can empathise with their plight. Thus, I don't agree with blanket universal judgements. I suppose I'm employing an emotion as a reasoning tool still. Hmmm. But in the same way, why would you even bother responding if you weren't invested somehow? Your reason certainly doesn't beg you to respond. Maybe you are emotionally attached to some kind of value that makes responding worthwhile for you. I'm legitimately curious about this.
Last edited by RapBreon; 2014-05-10 at 03:23 PM.
Are they your kids?
If not, her kids are not your problem and of your concern.
Do you know or care about her BF?
If not, then whatever happens to him again is not your problem.
Do you plan to have a long term relationship with her? Or just a 1 night thing?
If just a 1 night thing, then her family's issues are not your problems.
Do you care about if her kids and BF hates you?
If not, whatever happen to them again, is not your problem.
Should you bang her?
If all the above answers you give is "not your problem", then, go for it. Yeah you may cause issue within their family, but, do you really care about what they feel and think of you? I know I won't, therefore whatever happen to them I am not interested about. They can hate me and curse me all they want, but I am not going to lose sleep over it. The only thing that directly affect you here is, do you wanna do her or not, that is the only thing in this situation that involve you that you care about.
The OP could do that if they wanted to be entirely selfish of course but if he applies that mindset then honestly she'd be better off not getting involved with him in any way shape or form. Selfish people aren't exactly the best kind to get into a relationship with after all.
Edit: I misread, so I've redone this entire point.
I said you have an obligation to not cause harm to people (I'm not sure I said and can't be fucked checking to be honest, I'm pretty sure that was part of reductionism though). Your argument is that the cause is the same if you allow it to continue, so preventing and causing are no different. Logically, I do not disagree. However, people are complex and I feel this approach largely ignores the psychology of decision making. Being the primary root cause of an act is a vital part of that decision making process.
I also do believe you have an obligation to prevent harm to people, under specific circumstances. Unlike the above which is much broader though still willing to accept circumstance (sometimes harm is necessary 'for the greater good'). Sometimes other obligations takes precedence, hence the weighting of obligations against one another.
The full wording would be full legalese like; "you have an obligation to not cause harm to people with reasonable foreseeability by either acting with malicious intent or recklessly". Which we have discussed over the length of our discourse. But we're reaching the conclusion now it seems. So recaps are in order.
I'm sure people would take umbrage at 'random killings'. But people are sent to their deaths often 'for the greater good'. Spies, soldiers, etc. I agree in our current social milieu you have a fair point. I mean this is the entire notion that leads the courts to believe convicting innocents is worse than letting offenders go free.
However, in a society where community is the emphasised value, not the self. It could devolve to that point (would it be a devolution? It might be a desired thing to be sacrificed for the good of everyone else). People do incredibly rash and dangerous things for their families and sometimes even their country. The sheer unbridled egocentricism of our society would be its saving grace against what you have described. Regardless, this notion is still supported by other forces and values.
To me necessary is defined by those enacting their will.
Paralyzing fear has only the intention of inflicting itself upon the one who feels it. Explosive anger intends to share. Additionally, less blameworthy? Not particularly. If someone has crippling anger issues it runs deep, I typically wouldn't hold them as responsible. Calculated misdeeds are the issue for me.
To be entirely honest, I find it philosophically difficult to blame anyone for anything, this is a very unpopular stance, the importance of choice placed upon the individual in society is very real, but I feel overstated. That being said, in the real world, there does need to be a line drawn for the sake of order. I draw that line at calculated deeds with forethought, damage is known. Because that seems the most reasonable place to draw it, full control of mental faculties is retained and reasoning skills aren't inhibited beyond their natural state for the individual in question. Obviously people with impaired mental skills go in a different box, but even then, putting stuff in boxes, I dunno.
I'm out of line here. My apologies. Just something to think about I suppose.
Edit: I apologise for the floodgates I have opened below. This will be a field day for the MMO-C crowd.
On another note, you and my partner would get along famously, she likes to stare at walls as well. She also really likes Ice King >.>
- - - Updated - - -
There is nothing inherently wrong with being a sociopath. If the person is comfortable with it, there really isn't much of an issue. And to be honest it doesn't sound like sociopathy, just a general low mood. But hey I'm no practitioner of psychology.
Last edited by RapBreon; 2014-05-10 at 05:37 PM.
I have one of these: http://www.thinkgeek.com/product/c208/
Our bond is growing strong :].
everyone is proud of you
OT: don´t mess with someones girlfriend
- - - Updated - - -
so you rely on influence but think people are terrible because they´re demanding... hum, i think you should talk to someone more qualified than the people of mmoc-offtopic
Have you not considered a simple 3some with said milf and boyfriend?f
Doing either makes you an asshole, no matter how you look at it. Even then though, he considers her a friend. That alone should be reason enough not to possibly fuck up her life for such selfish reasons. Frankly though, the whole discussion about right or wrong is pointless anyway, because no matter what shitty, selfish, antisocial advice people here will give him, the chance of him getting anything from her are next to zero anyway. The most dmg will probably directed at him proportional to how poorly he chooses.
Last edited by Cosmic Janitor; 2014-05-10 at 04:49 PM.