AgentOfAllah:


Good argument, but I don't think I've ever opined that man should do whatever he feels like. In fact, I've only ever said man should do whatever he wants, as long as it doesn't harm others. So if you can tell me of the negative consequences of consensual sex with multiple partners, you may yet convince me that it is wrong.

This is what you seem not to understand.

Consent can be of face value and can also be from the heart.

Face value could be due to a complex the person has but deep down they are hurting.

How can you tell when consent is absolute? Do you have the ability of knowing the innermost thoughts of others?

butterflyl1on:


So confirming what you said earlier, it's all about selfish interests. You do not believe in sacrifice or endurance in marriage but will simply go where your selfish feelings lead.

Seems you didn't pay attention to my post. Like I said, if she can convince me why I should sacrifice that urge, I will be happy to listen!

Isn't that a bit too mechanical? Where then is the love? You talk like you do not believe in love or that love holds no value to you.

I believe in love...but love is selfish! So also are sacrifice and endurance!

AgentOfAllah:
Seems you didn't pay attention to my post. Like I said, if she can convince me why I should sacrifice that urge, I will be happy to listen!


I believe in love...but love is selfish! So also are sacrifice and endurance!

What kind of love have you been taught?

Love is definitely not selfish. Anyone that says love is selfish is not practising love. Love is not about you but about the other person. Doing everything to please the other person but this is different from self love.

Sacrifice isn't selfish and neither is endurance. You call them so because of your worldview but in reality they can all be selfless.

butterflyl1on:


This is what you seem not to understand.

Consent can be of face value and can also be from the heart.

Face value could be due to a complex the person has but deep down they are hurting.

How can you tell when consent is absolute?

You can't...and by this same token, you can never tell when or whether someone means anything they say. But that's all we've got to work on, isn't it? Someone can as well lie that they are faithful and devoted, but cheat on you, right? You just have to choose which you prefer, and I prefer upfront honesty.

AlmiqhteeAllah:
What fvcking shiit is this guy saying?



Racism - you're discriminating against another and DEHUMANIZING them on a dubious basis - skin colour! Nothing, either in heaven or on earth, can justify this fuckery. Savvy?

Murder - You're causing HARM to another for no just reason. Taking their life against their will. That is evil.

Adultery - You're breaching a contract - going back on an agreement. That's wrong.

You'very succeeded in telling us your own opinion. You also went ahead to give us the reasons why you're of that opinion. Kudos.

But:

On racism, racists disagree with you. They have a reason why they see racism as good. To them, racism is not wrong, and so they engage in it. How is your opinion superior to theirs?

On murder, Adolph Hitler disagrees with you. Murdering 6 million Jews is not evil to him. He has a reason too to back his opinion. How is your opinion on murder superior to that of Hitler?

On adultery, those who cheat on their spouses disagree with you. They have reasons for comitting adultery. Adultery is not evil to them. How is your opinion on adultery superior to theirs?

butterflyl1on:


Well God says I am not an animal but a special breed of creation who can only act and think like an animal when I forsake my maker.

God should open its biology textbooks.

AgentOfAllah:

You can't...and by this same token, you can never tell when or whether someone means anything they say. But that's all we've got to work on, isn't it? Someone can as well lie that they are faithful and devoted, but cheat on you, right? You just have to choose which you prefer, and I prefer upfront honesty.

You prefer upfront honesty but you can never be sure if such honesty is absolute coming from the other person.

So which is better, assuming you have gotten absolute consent even when the person is secretly hurting or denying yourself this pleasure so the person can be unequivocally happy simply because you are not sure of the level of consent?

Is it better to take a selfish risk when the other is hurting secretly or it is better to put the other first.

AgentOfAllah:

God should open its biology textbooks.

Everything does not begin and end with biology

AgentOfAllah:

God should open its biology textbooks.

You've killed me oo.

This is fvcking funny

butterflyl1on:


What kind of love have you been taught?

Love is definitely not selfish. Anyone that says love is selfish is not practising love. Love is not about you but about the other person. Doing everything to please the other person but this is different from self love.

Sacrifice isn't selfish and neither is endurance. You call them so because of your worldview but in reality they can all be selfless.

He made a VERY DEEP philosophical statement and you're taking it at face value, brushing it aside, dismissing it just like that? It's actually not that simple! You need to SERIOUSLY think about what he said! I'm sure he knows what he's talking about. The definition of SELFISHNESS is much more COMPLEX than you imagine.

Have you read WHAT IS MAN?, an essay by Mark Twain?

---

Tozara

DoctorAlien:


You'very succeeded in telling us your own opinion. You also went ahead to give us the reasons why you're of that opinion. Kudos.

But:

On racism, racists disagree with you. They have a reason why they see racism as good. To them, racism is not wrong, and so they engage in it. How is your opinion superior to theirs?

On murder, Adolph Hitler disagrees with you. Murdering 6 million Jews is not evil to him. He has a reason too to back his opinion. How is your opinion on murder superior to that of Hitler?

On adultery, those who cheat on their spouses disagree with you. They have reasons for comitting adultery. Adultery is not evil to them. How is your opinion on adultery superior to theirs?

Reads more like the ramblings of a slowpoke, no offence. You're unbelievable, to be honest! I won't be indulging this mountain of batshit. Thank you!

DoctorAlien:


I believe you're saying that violation of agreement is wrong IN YOUR OWN OPINION, not that it is necessarily wrong.

Which principle do racism, murder and adultery violate?

Its not my own opinion but laid down principles.

Racism is wrong because it violates the principles laid down by civilized societies that all humans are created equal and should not be judged or discriminated upon based on the color of their skin.

Murder is wrong because it also violates the principle laid out by civilized societies that you shouldn't take the life of another human unjustly.

Adultery violates the principle and agreement made btw two people to remain married and commited to each other alone so long as the remain alive.

AlmiqhteeAllah:
He made a VERY DEEP philosophical statement and you're taking it at face value, brushing it aside, dismissing it just like that? It's actually not that simple! You need to SERIOUSLY think about what he said! I'm sure he knows what he's talking about. The definition of SELFISHNESS is much more COMPLEX than you imagine.

Have you read WHAT IS MAN?, an essay by Mark Twain?

Love isn't selfish. It is not selfish when someone else is involved. It's only selfish when it's you alone.

As long as another is in the picture then your love FOR them transcends your feelings.

I also know what I am talking about. 2 people do not mean 1 person. 2 people mean an interchange. Love is give and give from the man. Love is also give and give from the woman. It becomes take when the give is received and acknowledged. But each partner focuses on give and give.

dalaman:


Its not my own opinion but laid down principles.

Racism is wrong because it violates the principles laid down by civilized societies that all humans are created equal and should not be judged or discriminated upon based on the color of their skin.

Murder is wrong because it also violates the principle laid out by civilized societies that you shouldn't take the life of another human unjustly.

Adultery violates the principle and agreement made btw two people to remain married and commited to each other alone so long as the remain alive.

Who makes up civilized societies? Are racists, murderers and adulterers not part of civilized societies? Were racists, murderers and adulterers consulted for their opinions on racism, murder and adultery before the laws concerning these things were made?

Who said that you cannot violate an agreement?

DoctorAlien:


Who makes up civilized societies? Are racists, murderers and adulterers not part of civilized societies? Were racists, murderers and adulterers consulted for their opinions on racism, murder and adultery before the laws concerning these things were made?

Who said that you cannot violate an agreement?

The point is that those who violate these agreements have their own perfectly good reasons for doing so. (in their own eyes).

Same way the one who upheld the agreement has his own perfectly good reasons for upholding them (in his own eyes).

butterflyl1on:


The point is that those who violate these agreements have their own perfectly good reasons for doing so. (in their own eyes).

Same way the one who upheld the agreement has his own perfectly good reasons for upholding them (in his own eyes).

Gbam!

And, in a world of subjective morality, the opinion of the former is not superior to the opinion of the latter, and vice versa.

butterflyl1on:
Abeg make Una no vex o but let us talk to ourselves.

Today I read something on Nairaland from someone about masturbation and also noted how quickly atheists jumped to his support without critically analysing the other details that were attached to his masturbation and this got me thinking about the stand of atheists when morality is involved.

Now we as Christians know that morality is objective (this means we follow Gods divine law about morality) but an atheist would tell you that it is not. They would say that morality is subjective (which means it is subject to the laws given by the government in that country and how they are interpreted) .

Based on this I wish to ask a question directed at my atheist nairalanders

We know that the constitution of Nigeria and every other nation does not recognise fornication or adultery as a crime so does not legally frown at it. However they frown at rape. As long as the sexual act is consensual between two adults be they married or not, according to the law this is not a crime.

So a married woman can have consensual sex with someone who is not her husband and vice versa and not be seen as a crime as long as both gave consent as adults.

Also a single guy or girl can have multiple partners as long as it was always consensual and the person is an adult according to the law.

So here is my question to atheists.

Is Fornication or adultery wrong?

If you believe and follow a subjective morality would you say it is wrong for your wife or husband to sleep with another man or woman besides you as long as it was consensual?

If you are single, would you say it's perfectly fine and there is nothing wrong with your girlfriend or boyfriend sleeping with other people as long as it was Consensual?

Would you get angry if you saw your wife or husband or boyfriend or girlfriend sleeping with other people even when this was consensual?

I need answers please.

Cc Felixomor, dalaman (Abeg call the others for me)

Cc lalasticlala and mynd44 can we get more contributions please?

=====================================================

As one who is Spiritual but not religious, meaning I believe in a higher power, just not the gods created by man, I will say all Morals are Subjective. You can try all you want to believe that yours are Objective but they’re not.

Life is separate from the Spirit, the Spirit is only an intervening force that tries to direct the consciousness of Life/Man.

Spirit creates Conscious thought and it is that Conscious thought that makes man consider (Right and Wrong) which is always subjective (a choice).

What is Life?

Life is a force that survives and thrives using mechanisms. Outside of (Survival and Hunger) it induces action using Desire manipulation. We do things to produce Dopamine in our brains, which makes us Happy. That is the simplicity of Life.

Now to answer your question; Masturbation, fornication, and rape are all activities that happen through the natural manipulating effect of Life. Outside of Rape, there are many cultures that are sexually open beyond the level of Polygamy.

How do we control it? (“It” meaning Desire) Listen to the Spirit, which acts in your brain to grow your Conscience. It is only Man that interprets the Spitit as a god and gives it power to dictate Morality.

Civic Law can develop outside of Morality, simply because it keeps the peace. 320ro.com

DoctorAlien:


Gbam!

And, in a world of subjective morality, the opinion of the former is not superior to the opinion of the latter, and vice versa.

Gbam for you too and let me buttress this based on the context of the OP.

If a man is married to a woman who is sexually active and the man cannot measure up to her sexual demands and she decides for the sake of her sanity and her satisfaction not to break up with her husband but to seek sexual satisfaction from a capable partner outside her marriage, to her she has a perfectly good reason and would not want to hurt her husband in the process so kept him in the dark about her activities.

When she is with him, she pretends to find sexual satisfaction just so she would not bruise his pride and the man is happy even though he is being deceived.

She would say as long as her home is happy due to ignorance she would keep at it.

The man can say this is wrong but she can claim she is right. Afterall she protected his pride through pretence and only went about seeking satisfaction only where he failed but she has always acknowledged his other areas of success.

DoctorAlien:


Who makes up civilized societies? Are racists, murderers and adulterers not part of civilized societies? Were racists, murderers and adulterers consulted for their opinions on racism, murder and adultery before the laws concerning these things were made?

Who said that you cannot violate an agreement?

They are part of civilized societies but they are considered as offenders. Society has labeled them as offenders as such their opinion is not needed and doesn't matter at all based on laid down rules and principles of how a society should function.

Racism, rape and murder have been shown to be evil to the society as a whole if allowed to go unchecked purely based on reason and logic, as a whole it is detrimental to the society if allowed to go unchecked . No benefit of racism, murder and rape have been shown to be good or beneficial to the society as a whole based on reason and logic.

butterflyl1on:


The point is that those who violate these agreements have their own perfectly good reasons for doing so. (in their own eyes).

Same way the one who upheld the agreement has his own perfectly good reasons for upholding them (in his own eyes).

Why make an agreement in the first place if you have good reasons to violate it?

dalaman:


Why make an agreement in the first place if you have good reasons to violate it?

The reasons for violation come later and the pressure can be greater than the agreement itself

butterflyl1on:


Gbam for you too and let me buttress this based on the context of the OP.

If a man is married to a woman who is sexually active and the man cannot measure up to her sexual demands and she decides for the sake of her sanity and her satisfaction not to break up with her husband but to seek sexual satisfaction from a capable partner outside her marriage, to her she has a perfectly good reason and would not want to hurt her husband in the process so kept him in the dark about her activities.

When she is with him, she pretends to find sexual satisfaction just so she would not bruise his pride and the man is happy even though he is being deceived.

She would say as long as her home is happy due to ignorance she would keep at it.

The man can say this is wrong but she can claim she is right. Afterall she protected his pride through pretence and only went about seeking satisfaction only where he failed but she has always acknowledged his other areas of success.

And if they leave you you'll say you've made sense with this pile of hot thrash abi? Sometimes you truly need to read what you are posting to see of it makes sense at all.

Once she has violated the agreement to remain faithful to her husband then she has no justification for her actions. It is that simple.

butterflyl1on:


The reasons for violation come later and the pressure can be greater than the agreement itself

Then you simply cancel the agreement if you are under any pressure or have any reason to break it.

Once an agreement is made violating it is wrong. If there is any reason to opt out then the agreement needs to be canceled. Remaining in an agreement and violating it is never justifiable.

butterflyl1on:


Love isn't selfish. It is not selfish when someone else is involved. It's only selfish when it's you alone.

As long as another is in the picture then your love FOR them transcends your feelings.

I also know what I am talking about. 2 people do not mean 1 person. 2 people mean an interchange. Love is give and give from the man. Love is also give and give from the woman. It becomes take when the give is received and acknowledged. But each partner focuses on give and give.

Hehehe. Have you ever heard of the concept of Homo Duplex? French sociologist Emile Durkheim coined the term "homo duplex", meaning that a human being is composed of two parts, which he labelled "sacred" and "profane".

"Sacred" comes from the Latin SACRARE, "to make holy, to consecrate". The sacred refers to our religious and spiritual dimension, to the things on which we confer special, holy status, the things we hold in highest regard and mean the most to us. (Your LOVE for your spouse falls under this category).

"Profane" is from the Latin PROFANARE, meaning "to desecrate, to render unholy, to violate." It's basically just the opposite, the flipside of the sacred.

A human being in this view has a dual nature, with a holy and unholy part. We are all Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde.

People invest much more in the sacred than the profane. The sacred is something for which you will give your life. It's your holy cause, the thing that defines who you really are and what you really believe or support. It binds you, commits you, seperates you from everyone who does not share your cause. REALISE THAT THE LOVE YOU HAVE FOR A PARTICULAR PERSON IS A SACRED CAUSE FOR WHICH YOU CAN GIVE ANYTHING AND MAKE ENORMOUS SACRIFICES.

Those who are profane are cynical, selfish people with no cause other than their own self-interest and self-preservation.

But realise this: there is a bizzare CORRESPONDENCE between the sacred and the profane. In one way or another, the cause taken up by an individual is really just an extension of himself. In all cases, the individual seeks to advance his cause - his self-interest - and do harm to any cause opposed to his. In these terms, the "sacred" is revealed as merely the profane in disguise, dignified by being associated with more than one person. It's this notion that a person is fighting on behalf of something greater than himself, yet which is also secretly an EXTENSION OF HIMSELF, that has proved so seductive and powerful. A person can believe he's serving a higher purpose while just serving his own purpose. He can dress up his selfishness in noble robes and admire himself in his seemingly altruistic guise, when in fact he's as selfish as ever.

There is NO SUCH THING as pure love, altruism or self-sacrifice that is 100% detached from the person's SELF-INTEREST. It is PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

Whatever love or self-sacrifice you're indulging in, it must SATISFY YOUR SPIRIT in one way or another before you can really immerse yourself in it. You must find it delightful and emotionally suiting in some way. If you DON'T find the very act APPEALING IN ANY WAY AT ALL, you definitely won't get absorbed by it. Such is human nature.

Plato said that we can NEVER fall in love with something we find ugly (either physically or metaphysically). If you fall in love with a person, you must find something about them beautiful (their appearance, their character, their intellect, or whatever else). If you fall in love with an idea, you must find SOMETHING about that idea beautiful (it must appeal to your higher self, your sense of being, or whatever else). Simply put, SOMETHING about the thing you love must resonate with you (ie you find it beautiful) on some level. If it doesn't, you will NOT be able to love it. You may be able to love something even if it has flaws, but it must possess beauty on some level for you to be able to love it at all. Something you find utterly repulsive in every way would be an impossible thing to love.

So, you see, when you remove all the propaganda, it's all about SELF-INTEREST in the end.

---

AgentOfAllah, this is what you mean, isn't it?

---

Tozara

dalaman:


They are part of civilized societies but they are considered as offenders. Society has labeled them as offenders as such their opinion is not needed and doesn't matter at all based on laid down rules and principles of how a society should function.

Racism, rape and murder have been shown to be evil to the society as a whole if allowed to go unchecked purely based on reason and logic as a while it is detrimental to the society of allowed to go unchecked . No benefit of racism, murder and rape have been shown to be good or beneficial to the society as a whole based on reason and logic.

Society labeled racists, murderers and adulterers as offenders? Do they see themselves as offenders? If no, why should the opinion of the rest of the civil society (that they are offenders) be true? How is their opinion not needed? I ask again: were racists, murderers and adulterers consulted for their opinions before the rules were laid down on ho the society should function?

Racists, murderers and adulterers disagree with you, and they have reasons why they believe these things are good. Adolf Hitler had a reason for the Holocaust. How is your opinion superior to theirs?

AlmiqhteeAllah:
Hehehe. Have you ever heard of the concept of Homo Duplex? French sociologist Emile Durkheim coined the term "homo duplex", meaning that a human being is composed of two parts, which he labelled "sacred" and "profane".

"Sacred" comes from the Latin SACRARE, "to make holy, to consecrate". The sacred refers to our religious and spiritual dimension, to the things on which we confer special, holy status, the things we hold in highest regard and mean the most to us. (Your LOVE for your spouse falls under this category).

"Profane" is from the Latin PROFANARE, meaning "to desecrate, to render unholy, to violate." It's basically just the opposite, the flipside of the sacred.

A human being in this view has a dual nature, with a holy and unholy part. We are all Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde.

People invest much more in the sacred than the profane. The sacred is something for which you will give your life. It's your holy cause, the thing that defines who you really are and what you really believe or support. It binds you, commits you, seperates you from everyone who does not share your cause. REALISE THAT THE LOVE YOU HAVE FOR A PARTICULAR PERSON IS A SACRED CAUSE FOR WHICH YOU CAN GIVE ANYTHING AND MAKE ENORMOUS SACRIFICES.

Those who are profane are cynical, selfish people with no cause other than their own self-interest and self-preservation.

But realise this: there is a bizzare CORRESPONDENCE between the sacred and the profane. In one way or another, the cause taken up by an individual is really just an extension of himself. In all cases, the individual seeks to advance his cause - his self-interest - and do harm to any cause opposed to his. In these terms, the "sacred" is revealed as merely the profane in disguise, dignified by being associated with more than one person. It's this notion that a person is fighting on behalf of something greater than himself, yet which is also secretly an EXTENSION OF HIMSELF, that has proved so seductive and powerful. A person can believe he's serving a higher purpose while just serving his own purpose. He can dress up his selfishness in noble robes and admire himself in his seemingly altruistic guise, when in fact he's as selfish as ever.

There is NO SUCH THING as pure love, altruism or self-sacrifice that is 100% detached from the person's SELF-INTEREST. It is PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

Whatever love or self-sacrifice you're indulging in, it must SATISFY YOUR SPIRIT in one way or another before you can really immerse yourself in it. You must find it delightful and emotionally suiting in some way. If you DON'T find the very act APPEALING IN ANY WAY AT ALL, you definitely won't get absorbed by it. Such is human nature.

Plato said that we can NEVER fall in love with something we find ugly (either physically or metaphysically). If you fall in love with a person, you must find something about them beautiful (their appearance, their character, their intellect, or whatever else). If you fall in love with an idea, you must find SOMETHING about that idea beautiful (it must appeal to your higher self, your sense of being, or whatever else). Simply put, SOMETHING about the thing you love must resonate with you (ie you find it beautiful) on some level. If it doesn't, you will NOT be able to love it. You may be able to love something even if it has flaws, but it must possess beauty on some level for you to be able to love it at all. Something you find utterly repulsive in every way would be an impossible thing to love.

So, you see, when you remove all the propaganda, it's all about SELF-INTEREST in the end.

---

AgentOfAllah, this is what you mean, isn't it?

Et voila! I wouldn't have had the patience to put it so succinctly...I always knew you had my back Almightee Oga at the top...Forever your agent!

AlmiqhteeAllah:
Hehehe. Have you ever heard of the concept of Homo Duplex? French sociologist Emile Durkheim coined the term "homo duplex", meaning that a human being is composed of two parts, which he labelled "sacred" and "profane".

"Sacred" comes from the Latin SACRARE, "to make holy, to consecrate". The sacred refers to our religious and spiritual dimension, to the things on which we confer special, holy status, the things we hold in highest regard and mean the most to us. (Your LOVE for your spouse falls under this category).

"Profane" is from the Latin PROFANARE, meaning "to desecrate, to render unholy, to violate." It's basically just the opposite, the flipside of the sacred.

A human being in this view has a dual nature, with a holy and unholy part. We are all Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde.

People invest much more in the sacred than the profane. The sacred is something for which you will give your life. It's your holy cause, the thing that defines who you really are and what you really believe or support. It binds you, commits you, seperates you from everyone who does not share your cause. REALISE THAT THE LOVE YOU HAVE FOR A PARTICULAR PERSON IS A SACRED CAUSE FOR WHICH YOU CAN GIVE ANYTHING AND MAKE ENORMOUS SACRIFICES.

Those who are profane are cynical, selfish people with no cause other than their own self-interest and self-preservation.

But realise this: there is a bizzare CORRESPONDENCE between the sacred and the profane. In one way or another, the cause taken up by an individual is really just an extension of himself. In all cases, the individual seeks to advance his cause - his self-interest - and do harm to any cause opposed to his. In these terms, the "sacred" is revealed as merely the profane in disguise, dignified by being associated with more than one person. It's this notion that a person is fighting on behalf of something greater than himself, yet which is also secretly an EXTENSION OF HIMSELF, that has proved so seductive and powerful. A person can believe he's serving a higher purpose while just serving his own purpose. He can dress up his selfishness in noble robes and admire himself in his seemingly altruistic guise, when in fact he's as selfish as ever.

There is NO SUCH THING as pure love, altruism or self-sacrifice that is 100% detached from the person's SELF-INTEREST. It is PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

Whatever love or self-sacrifice you're indulging in, it must SATISFY YOUR SPIRIT in one way or another before you can really immerse yourself in it. You must find it delightful and emotionally suiting in some way. If you DON'T find the very act APPEALING IN ANY WAY AT ALL, you definitely won't get absorbed by it. Such is human nature.

Plato said that we can NEVER fall in love with something we find ugly (either physically or metaphysically). If you fall in love with a person, you must find something about them beautiful (their appearance, their character, their intellect, or whatever else). If you fall in love with an idea, you must find SOMETHING about that idea beautiful (it must appeal to your higher self, your sense of being, or whatever else). Simply put, SOMETHING about the thing you love must resonate with you (ie you find it beautiful) on some level. If it doesn't, you will NOT be able to love it. You may be able to love something even if it has flaws, but it must possess beauty on some level for you to be able to love it at all. Something you find utterly repulsive in every way would be an impossible thing to love.

So, you see, when you remove all the propaganda, it's all about SELF-INTEREST in the end.

---

AgentOfAllah, this is what you mean, isn't it?

What someone "coined" is that persons opinion. Same way anyone else can "coin " theirs.

Love is not self targeted but toward others especially when others are in the equation and we have love FOR them.

This differs from self love as I said earlier. You mixed in self love with selfless love in your post.

I see a kid who is sick and bleeding, empathy draws me to him. Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. It's not about me. So my empathy stirs my love FOR this person and I decide to help. Not for my sake or my good but for their sake and their good. Not because I have e anything to gain but because they have EVERYTHING to gain.

Mine is simply to help out the best I can.

AgentOfAllah:

Et voila! I wouldn't have had the patience to put it so succinctly...I always knew you had my back Almightee Oga at the top...Forever your agent!

Haha! You're the boss. The agent rules!

DoctorAlien:


Society labeled racists, murderers and adulterers as offenders? Do they see themselves as offenders? If no, why should the opinion of the rest of the civil society (that they are offenders) be true? How is their opinion not needed? I ask again: were racists, murderers and adulterers consulted for their opinions before the rules were laid down on ho the society should function?

Racists, murderers and adulterers disagree with you, and they have reasons why they believe these things are good. Adolf Hitler had a reason for the Holocaust. How is your opinion superior to theirs?

Racist, muderers and rapist are already labeled by the society as offenders because their actions are harmful to the society as a whole if allowed to go on checked. Their opinion is not needed because they haven't shown how their actions are beneficial to the society and it is on that basis that they are tagged as offenders whose opinion does not matter at all in the scheme of things.

I can play your games as well and say that the only society that accepts rape, racism and murder is the biblical society that had your God as it's law givery.

Remember when Moses and his fellow chosen men went about sharing virgins that belong to the other people among themselves and murdering off the non virgins according to the biblical tale? Civilized societies do not accept that and if Moses the prophet of your Gof were to live in one he'll be labeled an offender.

butterflyl1on:



What someone "coined" is that persons opinion. Same way anyone else can "coin " theirs.

Love is not self targeted but toward others especially when others are in the equation and we have love FOR them.

This differs from self love as I said earlier. You mixed in self love with selfless love in your post.

I see a kid who is sick and bleeding, empathy draws me to him. Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. It's not about me. So my empathy stirs my love FOR this person and I decide to help. Not for my sake or my good but for their sake and their good. Not because I have e anything to gain but because they have EVERYTHING to gain.

Mine is simply to help out the best I can.

How did you jump from empathy to love na? You can have empathy without love at all.

dalaman:


How did you jump from empathy to love na? You can have empathy without love at all.

And you can have empathy with love.

dalaman:



Racist, muderers and rapist are already labeled by the society as offenders because their actions are harmful to the society as a whole if allowed to go on checked. Their opinion is not needed because they haven't shown how their actions are beneficial to the society and it is on that basis that they are tagged as offenders whose opinion does not matter at all in the scheme of things.

Who said that the actions of racists, murderers and adulterers are harmful? Certainly not the racists, murderers and adulterers. You agreed that racists, murderers and adulterers are part of the society. How can you say then that the society labeled them as offenders? Do the racists, murderers and adulterers, who are part of the society see themselves as offenders? If no, who said that they're offenders?

They believe that their actions are beneficial to themselves. Now, what if racists, murderers and adulterers make up 99% of the society? Are their actions not virtually beneficial to the society?