butterflyl1on:


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

No! You can never be.

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.

I could turn your query around too: So what if you're in a relationship where the other secretly prefers polyamory, but then choose to hide it from you because they think you'll be hurt (in spite of your assurances)? Which would you prefer? Honesty or Secrecy?

Not knowing people's true intentions is an inescapable dilemma, which is why I try to be as open to people as possible. This occasionally earns me the 'arsehole' epithet, but in the end, there is no mistaking my intent. Going back to your question, I will assume no sense of guilt for a feeling made hidden!

AgentOfAllah:
No! You can never be.


I could turn your query around too: So what if you're in a relationship where the other secretly prefers polyamory, but then choose to hide it from you because they think you'll be hurt (in spite of your assurances)? Which would you prefer? Honesty or Secrecy?

Not knowing people's true intentions is an inescapable dilemma, which is why I try to be as open to people as possible. This occasionally earns me the 'arsehole' epithet, but in the end, there is no mistaking my intent. Going back to your question, I will assume no sense of guilt for a feeling made hidden!

Being honest between both parties wouldn't erase the act/continuous act neither would it justify the act.

What would do that is forgiveness! However how sure would you be that even the forgiveness is absolute?

So would it be better to abstain or to risk it regardless of the others feelings?

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.

Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ, Maria mimo! Man, you don't seem to get the point!

Ahhh....... Well, before I proceed, let me point it out to you that the fact that Lavoisier coined the word "hydrogen" doesn't mean that very thing he named hydrogen is his mere opinion and DOES NOT EXIST. Capice? Thank you.

Like I said, I don't think you get the point at all. No matter what you do, there must be a reason why you're doing it, and since you will never really harm your own interest, in any basic sense, that reason will always have something to do with YOU - no matter how noble you believe yourself to be.

There are many reasons why you might feel compelled to help an abandoned kid who is sick and bleeding:

- Might be for public approval; you might want to receive people's praises for being "good" and "generous".

- You might be seeking self-validation

- It might have to do with the unease YOU feel, whenever you see suffering children. It might disgust you and might make you feel so bad you feel obligated to help to free yourself from the misery and misfortune of witnessing such horror.

- It might be because of a vow you've made to always help the needy, which is sacred and special to YOU.

And so on. In one way or another, it'll always come back to SELF-INTEREST. That's just how humans are. Like I said, even if you're going to lay down your life for a person, it must be SATISFYING, APPEALING and DELIGHTFUL to your spirit FIRST, before you can go ahead with it. If YOU didn't find it appealing, you WOULDN'T do it!

I'm not saying, there's NOTHING noble. My entire point is that true, absolute SELFLESSNESS is a fantasy - an impossibility of the highest originality.

No cause of any kind can be COMPLETELY independent of the INTEREST of the one promoting it. Self-interest is ALWAYS present.

I'll show you a dialogue in my next post, to buttress my point.

---

Tozara

AlmiqhteeAllah:
Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ, Maria mimo! Man, you don't seem to get the point!

Ahhh....... Well, before I proceed, let me point it out to you that the fact that Lavoisier coined the word "hydrogen" doesn't mean that very thing he named hydrogen is his mere opinion and DOES NOT EXIST. Capice? Thank you.

Like I said, I don't think you get the point at all. No matter what you do, there must be a reason why you're doing it, and since you will never really harm your own interest, in any basic sense, that reason will always have something to do with YOU - no matter how noble you believe yourself to be.

There are many reasons why you might feel compelled to help an abandon kid who is sick and bleeding:

- Might be for public approval; you might want to receive people's praises for being "good" and "generous".

- You might be seeking self-validation

- It might have to do with the unease YOU feel, whenever you see suffering children. It might disgust you and might make you feel so bad you feel obligated to help to free yourself from the misery and misfortune of witnessing such horror.

- It might be because of a vow you've made to always help the needy, which is sacred and special to YOU.

And so on. In one way or another, it'll always come back to SELF-INTEREST. That's just how humans are. Like I said, even if you're going to lay down your life for a person, it must be SATISFYING, APPEALING and DELIGHTFUL to your spirit FIRST, before you can go ahead with it. If YOU didn't find it appealing, you WOULDN'T do it!

I'm not saying, there's NOTHING noble. My entire point is that true, absolute SELFLESSNESS is a fantasy - an impossibility of the highest originality.

No cause of any kind can be COMPLETELY independent of the INTEREST of the one promoting it. Self-interest is ALWAYS present.

I'll show you a dialogue in my next post, to buttress my point.

So you believe there can be no action without a motive (reason) right? This means there can be no effect without a cause right?

DoctorAlien:


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?

Name one society where 99% of its inhabitants are rapist, murderers and racist. How is rape and murder beneficial to the society?

butterflyl1on:


Being honest between both parties wouldn't erase the act/continuous act neither would it justify the act.

A pleasurable act is its own justification. Honesty is just a matter of course.

What would do that is forgiveness! However how sure would you be that even the forgiveness is absolute?

So would it be better to abstain or to risk it regardless of the others feelings?

You aren't paying attention! Again, I repeat: Not knowing people's true intentions is an inescapable dilemma, so I will assume no sense of guilt for a feeling made hidden! It's not my job to act on another human's behalf, just as I wouldn't appreciate another human acting on my behalf, or second guessing me. If you cannot be honest with me, you have no business being my wife, simple! So the question of hidden feelings isn't my concern at all!

AgentOfAllah:
A pleasurable act is its own justification. Honesty is just a matter of course.


You aren't paying attention! Again, I repeat: Not knowing people's true intentions is an inescapable dilemma, so I will assume no sense of guilt for a feeling made hidden! It's not my job to act on another human's behalf, just as I wouldn't appreciate another human acting on my behalf, or second guessing me. If you cannot be honest with me, you have no business being my wife, simple! So the question of hidden feelings isn't my concern at all!

Remember I said people can be complacent based on their complex and cannot be like you?

Do not expect to much from your wife because your experiences vary and she may not be as emotionally grounded as you claim to be.

So you demand that if you are a sexual deviant your wife must accept it regardless of her own feelings and if her feelings are not presented to you in a logically convincing argument then it is not worth considering and would be discarded right?

butterflyl1on:


Remember I said people can be complacent based on their complex and cannot be like you?

Do not expect to much from your wife because your experiences vary and she may not be as emotionally grounded as you claim to be.

So you demand that if you are a sexual deviant your wife must accept it regardless of her own feelings and if her feelings are not presented to you in a logically convincing argument then it is not worth considering and would be discarded right?

Of course not! We're either compatible or we're not. I would probably not end up with a woman who can't accept this about me...just as she should not accept to end up with a man like me. We both must look out for our personal interests first, and if being together doesn't enhance this, we have no business being together at all.

dalaman:


Name one society where 99% of its inhabitants are rapist, murderers and racist. How is rape and murder beneficial to the society?

The question is not whether we can find such a society. The question is:

If such a city exists where 99.9% of the members are racists, murderers and adulterers, and they believe and say with reasons known to them that racism, murder and adultery is good and beneficial to them, is racism, murder and adultery not virtually beneficial to the society? If no, who said so and why?

If yes(i.e. that their actions are beneficial to the society), then you must agree that their opinions must matter because this is what you said: "Their opinion is not needed because they haven't shown how their actions are beneficial to the society..."

Now, if their opinions matter, they should be consulted before rules concerning racism, murder and adultery are laid down. And guess what they will say? They will say that racism, murder and adultery are not evil and should be allowed because the racists, murderers and adulterer(which make up 99.9% of the society) believe and proclaim with reasons which they know best that racism, murder and adultery is beneficial to them.

In such a society, should racism, murder and adultery be declared good and allowed? If yes, why? If no, why?

Your question of how rape and murder are beneficial to the society should be channeled to Hitler and those who supported his views. They certainly can tell you how murder (of 6 million Jews) is beneficial to the society.

And when they tell you how murder is beneficial to the society, why should their opinion be inferior to your own opinion(that murDer is not beneficial to the society)?

AgentOfAllah:

Of course not! We're either compatible or we're not. I would probably not end up with a woman who can't accept this about me...just as she should not accept to end up with a man like me. We both must look out for our personal interests first, and if being together doesn't enhance this, we have no business being together at all.

For sake of this thread kindly state the kind of man you are with relation to the OP.

Who knows, your type of woman may be reading it.

butterflyl1on:


For sake of this thread kindly state the kind of man you are with relation to the OP.

Who knows your type of woman may be reading it.

What is this? A conversation or a profiling exercise? This is getting too personal for my taste.

I decline

AgentOfAllah:

What is this? A conversation or a profiling exercise? This is getting too personal for my taste.

I decline

Lol you have said enough already.

AlmiqhteeAllah:
I'll show you a dialogue in my next post, to buttress my point.

Hi, butterflyl1on, I guess I won't be able to post the dialogue any more. Everything I've been typing disappeared seconds after I submitted it for posting [my phone has got a rather chronic epilepsy, so bear with me ].

Although, I still think I've made my point clear enough in my posts.

butterflyl1on:


So you believe there can be no action without a motive (reason) right? This means there can be no effect without a cause right?

My assertion is STRICTLY about HUMANS, please. When it comes to other things, I can't say that with as much certainty. Thank you.

AlmiqhteeAllah:
My assertion is STRICTLY about HUMANS, please. When it comes to other things, I can't say that with as much certainty. Thank you.

Well cause and effect is pretty much in all things.

AgentOfAllah:

What is this? A conversation or a profiling exercise? This is getting too personal for my taste.

I decline

perhaps he has a crush on you

butterflyl1on:


Lol you have said enough already.

I thought so too!

OliviaPope:
perhaps he has a crush on you

Then he should just ask...haha

butterflyl1on:


Well cause and effect is pretty much in all things.

I dodged your bullet.

DoctorAlien:


The question is not whether we can find such a society. The question is:

If such a city exists where 99.9% of the members are racists, murderers and adulterers, and they believe and say with reasons known to them that racism, murder and adultery is good and beneficial to them, is racism, murder and adultery not virtually beneficial to the society? If no, who said so and why?

If yes(i.e. that their actions are beneficial to the society), then you must agree that their opinions must matter because this is what you said: "Their opinion is not needed because they haven't shown how their actions are beneficial to the society..."

Now, if their opinions matter, they should be consulted before rules concerning racism, murder and adultery are laid down. And guess what they will say? They will say that racism, murder and adultery are not evil and should be allowed because the racists, murderers and adulterer(which make up 99.9% of the society) believe and proclaim with reasons which they know best that racism, murder and adultery is beneficial to them.

In such a society, should racism, murder and adultery be declared good and allowed? If yes, why? If no, why?

Your question of how rape and murder are beneficial to the society should be channeled to Hitler and those who supported his views. They certainly can tell you how murder (of 6 million Jews) is beneficial to the society.

And when they tell you how murder is beneficial to the society, why should their opinion be inferior to your own opinion(that murDer is not beneficial to the society)?

Am trying to have a meaningful conversation with you but it seems you are only interested in sounding stupid and chasing your long tail.

I am talking about a real society while you are talking about a fictional one.

There is no society in the world where 99% of the people are rapist, murderers and racist. There is no such society anywhere. Such a society can not exist. That's why I asked you to give me and example of such a society and also give me the beneficial effects of racism, murder and rape to any society.

I can play you games very well if you want to act dumb and stupid. .


Don't start with Hitler because your God (and his prophets) if we are to go by the bible is NO different from Hitler. He sanctioned rape, slavery and genocide and even fell out with Saul because Saul refused to follow the instructions to competely exerminate a group of people.

dalaman:


Am trying to have a meaningful conversation with you but it sms you are only interested in sounding stupid and chasing your long tail.

I am talking about a real society while you are talking about a fictional one.

There is no society in the world where 99% of the people are rapist, murderers and racist. There is no such society anywhere. Such a society can not exist. That's why I asked you to give me and example of such a society and also give me the beneficial effects of racism, murder and rape to any society.

I can't even finish mentioning all the logical fallacies you managed to smuggle into this short post: from Strawman fallacy through red herring to ad hominem.

You failed to answer my questions. I was never arguing whether the society in question could be found. My argument started with, "if such a society exists..." It is shocking that you went as far as claiming that such a society "can not exist". How you reached that conclusion I am not able to say.

I am disappointed that you could not meet logical reasoning with logical reasoning.

DoctorAlien:


I can't even finish mentioning all the logical fallacies you managed to smuggle into this short post: from Strawman fallacy through red herring to ad hominem.

You failed to answer my questions. I was never arguing whether the society in question could be found. My argument started with, "if such a society exists..." It is shocking that you went as far as claiming that such a society "can not exist". How you reached that conclusion I am not able to say.

I am disappointed that you could not meet logical reasoning with logical reasoning.

Am not interested in your fictional society. Am only intrested in real human societies that exist. If you want to talk about fictional societies then look for someone to do that with.

If you claim such a society can exist then point to one simple. Am not interested in empty assertions.

An example of a society that consist of 99% murderers, rapist and racist can be found where? And they have shown that their actions is beneficial to the society how?

dalaman:


Am not interested in your fictional society. Am only intrested in real human societies that exist. If you want to talk about fictional societies then look for someone to do that with.

If you claim such a society can exist then point to one simple. Am not interested in empty assertions.

An example of a society that consist of 99% murderers, rapist and racist can be found where? And they have shown that their actions is beneficial to the society how?

Still going farther off the lane.

It's disappointing.

DoctorAlien:


Still going farther off the lane.

It's disappointing.

You want me to follow you and be playing your silly games?

I said it's IMPOSSIBLE for a society to exist with 99% of its inhabitants as rapist, murderers and racist.

Such a society can not exist anywhere .

Even rapist, murderers and racist can NOT tell you how and why their actions are beneficial to any society.

But then you want to start talking about Hitler as if your own God(and his prophets ) is better than him from the biblical stories.

DoctorAlien:


Still going farther off the lane.

It's disappointing.

But the dalaman is apt to suggest such a society cannot exist. The only way such a society is feasible is if it's a one (wo)man society where the sole inhabitant is all three (racist, murderer and rapist), and has lost 1% of their body.

dalaman:


You want me to follow you and be playing your silly games?

I said it's IMPOSSIBLE for a society to exist with 99% of its inhabitants as rapist, murderers and racist.

Such a society can not exist anywhere .

Even rapist, murderers and racist can NOT tell you how and why their actions are beneficial to any society.

But then you want to start talking about Hitler as if your own God(and his prophets ) is better than him from the biblical stories.

You dismiss my argument simply because it started with if? You then went on to claim that the "society" I described "cannot" exist, which means that probability for its existence is 0. Why such a society cannot exist, you failed to tell us.

Nice logic.

AgentOfAllah:

But the dalaman is apt to suggest such a society cannot exist. The only way such a society is feasible is if it's a one (wo)man society where the sole inhabitant is all three (racist, murderer and rapist), and has lost 1% of their body.

Why one percent of their body?

AgentOfAllah:

But the dala man is apt to suggest such a society cannot exist. The only way such a society is feasible is if it's a one (wo)man society where the sole inhabitant is all three (racist, murderer and rapist), and has lost 1% of their body.

Cannot exist or does not exist (maybe for now)?

Why can a society where 99.9% of the members see nothing wrong with racism, murder and adultery not exist?

DoctorAlien:


You dismiss my argument simply because it started with if? You then went on to claim that the "society" I described "cannot" exist, which means that probability for its existence is 0. Why such a society cannot exist, you failed to tell us.

Nice logic.

A society with 99% of its members as rapist, murderers and racist will exterminate each other out. The society will cease to exist in no time because it is made up of rapist, murderers and racist. They will keep killing, raping and discriminating against each other till they wipe each other off completely.

dalaman:


You want me to follow you and be playing your silly games?

I said it's IMPOSSIBLE for a society to exist with 99% of its inhabitants as rapist, murderers and racist.

Such a society can not exist anywhere .

Even rapist, murderers and racist can NOT tell you how and why their actions are beneficial to any society.

But then you want to start talking about Hitler as if your own God(and his prophets ) is better than him from the biblical stories.

Such society can exist!
It happened during the time of Noah in the buybull

DoctorAlien is right after all

chemystery:

Such society can exist!
It happened during the time of Noah in the buybull

DoctorAlien is right after all

dalaman:


Why one percent of their body?

Mathematical convergence..because 99%