FOCUS 1: Rape. It is never cool, ever. Not even if you're raping some dude's sister because he raped yours. FOCUS 2: A man ordering girly drinks. For example, a man shouldn't order a margarita unless he is on a tropical beach somewhere. FOCUS 3: I wish it would rain titties. The only downside to this is that I'm pretty sure all the straight men would be dead within 3 generations.
Do not fuck with a man while he's taking a crap, unless he has passed out. Some things are sacred. In the interests of equality, I'd say don't fuck with a woman while she's shaving/waxing/depilating.... that shit can get nasty.
FOCUS 1: Anyone who thinks that a car's horn is a substitute for a doorbell should be shot and pissed on. I don't know what some peoples' major malfunction is, but this behavior is very common in my area. There have been times where people I know will come up to my house and honk. I just watch them through the window; there is no way in hell that I am going to go outside with that kind of rude behavior. It pisses me off even when I see assholes doing it to people I don't even know. Actually, now that I think about it, any unnecessary use of a car horn is grounds for execution. Trust me, if you want to get on my bad side fast, honk at me.
This is the most laughably wrong thing I've heard since the Fritzl basement jokes stopped. A margarita is what - 35% abv? For fuck's sake it has 3 ingredients, and two of them are full strength spirits. The margarita gets a bad rap because a generation of mindless, tasteless kids decided to introduce the frozen variety, much like they raped my beloved daiquiri. That doesn't make it inherently girly. As you might have guessed by now, I like cocktails. Old Fashioneds, Sidecars, Daiquiris, Japanese Slippers - all of these are what make life worth living. Let's break it down: cocktails: taste delicious get you drunk quickly are socially acceptable just about everywhere have infinite variety are fun to make If loving these is wrong, I don't want to be right.
I will admit, I own a pair of Crocs. I work in a medical office and I'm on my feet all day. I only wear them at work, and obviously in my car back and forth from work. I do not wear them at any other time.
Are Crocs actually more comfortable than say, real shoes? Not having worn them, I have no idea. They don't look particularly comfortable. Or sanitary. And those holes look just the right size for a syringe full of AIDS to drop through. Just sayin. And for the first person that tells me hospitals don't carry syringes full of AIDS - they would say that, wouldn't they? Hmmmm?
What if me and 6 of my male brothers/cousins are raping a 13-year-old girl because her father killed one of my family's goats?? Huh?? WHAT THEN!!! (And then the 13-year-old girl should be stoned to death for being a promiscuous whore, of course. Remember, no culture is better than any other and all cultures the world over have something to offer!!)
They feel like you're constantly walking on wrestling mats, so yeah, they're fucking comfortable. But like most supportive footwear they turn you into a pussy overtime. The best long term strategy for people on their feet all day is minimalist footwear, it's tough at first but you build up the muscles that would otherwise have withered away. Now obviously I'm smugly saying this from my cushy office chair, but a lot of teachers and nurses in the Boston area are attempting this with good results so far.
FOCUS 1: What are some moral absolutes? Things that are inherently wrong regardless of context. Lies and/or liars. Seriously; why bullshit in life? Nothing drives me more nuts than people that do this. Do you really think I am this stupid to buy your nonsense?
You mean that book that condemns eating bacon? (not that I'm for ketchup on steak...or hotdogs, which is downright un-American. Ketchup should be reserved for french fries and practical jokes requiring fake blood). And Crocs are awesome. I have pretty bad plantar fasciitis and when it flairs up, nothing is more comfortable, even my custom orthotic inserts. And they're great for yard work. When I'm done, just hose them off.
And gray elbows. Ick. Focus 1: Line-cutting. I am passive-aggressive to a fault but you cut any line that I'm in and I will get mouthy. Your time is no more important that mine, motherfucker. Wait your turn.
There are no such things as a moral absolute. For something to be a moral absolute, it must hold true for all time and all cultures, otherwise it is not, by definition, absolute. They just don't exist.
That would mean that moral judgments cannot be made across cultures, but what constitutes a culture? A country? A city within it could have a different morality. Eventually, using this reasoning, the only real morals are individual, therefore a moral judgment cannot be made between individuals. This makes the entire concept of morality useless. The defense against this line of reasoning is utilitarianism. Rules are rules because they make people happier much more often than not. Importantly, utilitarianism considers not just the happiness of the acting individual, but that of everyone affected by the action and all of its repercussions; global happiness. Hence, a moral absolute, from the utilitarian perspective, is a rule which increases global happiness in its following, and decreases global happiness in its breaking. Focus 1: Don't rape people. Rapists are unhappy people and raping people is a bad way to fix that. Rapees are unhappy about it, and so is anyone who has to witness or hear about it. Extends to other dominance based activities (in the asshole sense, not the Scootah sense). Focus 2: Killing people? Sure, it most often sucks for everyone involved, but what if you're killing a clown? That's probably cool. Focus 3: These two girls I know, one of them's crazy stacked, she whipped around, smacked the other one with her boobs and knocked her right off her feet. I didn't see it, but I really wish I had.
First of all, I'm not saying you can't judge across time and space. We do it all the time, and I personally am quite comfortable with it. However, this is not moral absolutism. Here's the definition for you sports' fans. From wiki (which does a nice thumbnail on it): As noted in my first post, by definition, moral absolutism ignores context. See bolded above. So in Utilitarianism, you are necessarily weighing consequences - you have to in order to determine which outcome yields more happiness. This is the opposite of moral absolutism. Your argument fails on this ground - in so far as you're trotting out Utilitarianism as an argument that moral absolutes exist. An absolute moralist would say 'it's never permissible morally to kill someone.' Ever, under any circumstances, because under moral absolutism context and consequences don't matter. A Utilitarian would say 'it may be permissible to kill someone if in so doing, the total utility outweighs not killing them.' Then you have to look at context and make the decision. Under Utilitarian principles, is it permissible to kill a serial rapist to save the doctor who cures cancer? Of course, your utility in so doing (most utilitarians would say) outweighs the negative utility in killing a scumbag. Look, these are not my personal views. I think murder, rape, child molesting, etc. are horrible and evil, however, my personal moral beliefs do not rise to the level of universal moral absolutes. As I said, I have no problem judging other cultures, religions, etc, against my personal moral beliefs. But even I'm not arrogant enough to believe that my morals are absolutely correct in every possible situation in time and space.
I'm copying from memory an essay called A Defence of Ethical Objectivism by Louis Pojman, I couldn't find it, unfortunately. You're quite right, I didn't include the "in every case" qualifier for my definition of a moral absolute, which is really the most important part. I am still saying that some acts (such as rape, which I promise I'm not using to be shocking, it's just the best example I can think of) reduce utility in every case. This is strengthened by the fact that utility in the ethical sense can be treated as utility in the economic sense. This means that it's subject to opportunity cost. 9/10 people enjoy gang rape but those 9 and certainly the remainder would get much more net enjoyment from a normal relationship. In this way, morals can be applied universally. They are used as a tool in pursuit of happiness, although, lacking reasoned thought, few explain them as such. You're right to say that many of the rules held up as moral absolutes are not, I wasn't kidding about murder, but some rules are always best followed (don't treat murder as a form of recreation). This is evidenced by the places where these rules are not followed being, or rapidly turning into, shitholes so horrifying that they're actually improved by the addition the heavily armed American teenagers. We just debatin' homie. I'm sure you're a chill dude.
I just purchased another pair of Crocs clogs for work*. The first pair, 5 or 6 years ago, was out of desperation (nerve damage + plantar fasciitis + working retail) and I won't lie, I was skeptical. Are they the best looking pair of shoes, fuck no. Are they comfortable beyond belief, hells yes. I have these that I wear in the winter. They're almost as comfy (they have a crocs insole) but they look a LOT better. And with pants on, you can't see that little crocs embroidery. *Work includes getting wet, dirty and being outside. Back somewhere towards the focus: Animal abuse/neglect, child abuse/neglect and rape are wrong wrong wrong. I cannot think of any instance where any of those would be ok.
Crocs and ketchup are wrong, obviously. Rape should be reserved for those deserving of sick punishment, but only with a pineapple or something large wrapped carefully in sandpaper. No lube necessary. Murder. I can think of so many conditions that make murder an option to me. We have been finding reasons to for centuries now, it's natural and organic. It sucks, to be sure. It is a part of life. Is it weak to restrain yourself? In some situations, hell yeah it is.
Lying, cheating and stealing are all a priori morally wrong things to do. They all defeat each other. It comes down to asking yourself "is this how I would want everybody to behave?" It becomes very clear that if everybody lied, then very quickly there would be no reason to believe anything at all. So instead you should act out examples of good behaviour. Same thing with cheating and stealing. Is it good to lie sometimes, in order to bring about a greater good or to prevent bad from happening? folks seem to be harping on Utilitarianism which is unfortunate.
As long as our Utopia forbids Crocs and ketchup on steaks, I'm all for it. What it comes down to is there are NO moral absolutes. There is so much grey area in life that keeps that from being any sort of possibility.