Superthread LI. Honouring Bruce the Ultra Moist

[sensesmaybenumbed]

Is that what Nemesis calls it?

 

[Drew-Sta]

George Burgess did not make the picture public. An ex of his did.

I've seen the picture accidentally. Playing for Souths or being a fan of Souths must make you automatically well endowed.

Speaking of amateur porn, I much prefer amateur natural looking porn to "professional" porn. Fake women and guys on roids going at it is not hot. A couple of real normal people doing it is much more attractive.

It's true. On twitter twitpics can appear without you clicking a link.

But then what would I have to complain about?

BM? :sarcasm:

Sounds awfully subjective to me

Well, to an extent, yes. The foundation you base your morals in is subjective; it needs to be as you end up choosing it as the basis of what you believe is right and wrong! Men and women in Australia choose a foundation that identifies female circumcision (as an example) as morally wrong, while men and (I suppose, but I also suspect it is enforced on them) women choose to a foundation and says it is ok in other cultures. Both are opposites, but both are chosen in a subjective manner.

But if your foundation provides you with a subjective moral reasoning, i.e saying everyones morals are correct because we aren't allowed to challenge their foundations, then you have no ground to stand on when you say 'You can't do that' or 'That is wrong'.

For example, you're not allowed to say female circumcision is wrong if you believe all morals are subjective because your foundation identifies that everyone is right in their own way. This becomes a 'thin edge of the wedge' scenario and opens the door to everything being 'ok' because its subjective rather than objective.

I also think we have an inherent understanding of moral absolutes, too. We know theft is wrong, because it 'is'; to be morally subjective means you can say theft is wrong if the person thieving believes it is not wrong.

Does that make sense?

 

[BunniesMan]

Female circumcision is wrong. No ifs or buts. Just like male circumcision.

Cutting off bits of children who have no way of giving their consent is wrong in any situation except for when life is in danger.

 

[Ozzy]

I have a job bro. I even pay taxes.

Sure you do. I assume it's as a constable. BTW I'm not your bro.

 

[Drew-Sta]

Female circumcision is wrong. No ifs or buts. Just like male circumcision.

Cutting off bits of children who have no way of giving their consent is wrong in any situation except for when life is in danger.

I'm using it as an example as its pretty cut and dried sarcasm as to the morality of it.

But yes, it is wrong. And I believe that because, similarly to you, there is an objective morality about things like that. It's not acceptable in any circumstance.

 

[sensesmaybenumbed]

Female circ is not 'morally' wrong. It's just wrong. There is absolutely no benefit from it. All it causes is pain, disfigurement and tearing during birth.

It is a barbaric practice. End of story. Any bizarre justification that some illiterate goat herder used 1500 years ago is irrelevant.

 

[whall15]

Female circumcision is wrong. No ifs or buts. Just like male circumcision.

Cutting off bits of children who have no way of giving their consent is wrong in any situation except for when life is in danger.

I have to agree with BM.

 

[Dani]

George Burgess did not make the picture public. An ex of his did.

I've seen the picture accidentally. Playing for Souths or being a fan of Souths must make you automatically well endowed.

Speaking of amateur porn, I much prefer amateur natural looking porn to "professional" porn. Fake women and guys on roids going at it is not hot. A couple of real normal people doing it is much more attractive.

You still looked at it long enough to know he was well endowed...

 

[Scott Gourley's Lovechild]

Female circ is not 'morally' wrong. It's just wrong. There is absolutely no benefit from it. All it causes is pain, disfigurement and tearing during birth.

It is a barbaric practice. End of story. Any bizarre justification that some illiterate goat herder used 1500 years ago is irrelevant.

Perhaps a distant relative of IanG?

 

[Drew-Sta]

Female circ is not 'morally' wrong. It's just wrong. There is absolutely no benefit from it. All it causes is pain, disfigurement and tearing during birth.

It is a barbaric practice. End of story. Any bizarre justification that some illiterate goat herder used 1500 years ago is irrelevant.

I totally agree. I'm simply saying its not a subjective 'right or wrong', but objective.

I have to agree with BM.

As do I. No disagreement from me at all. Was simply using an example I know people recognise as reprehensible and an out and out 'wrong' to make my point.

You still looked at it long enough to know he was well endowed...

... sounds like you did too :sarcasm:

 

[sensesmaybenumbed]

Perhaps a distant relative of IanG?

LOL

I totally agree. I'm simply saying its not a subjective 'right or wrong', but objective.

Ah, thanks for the clarification.. All good.

 

[Dani]

... sounds like you did too :sarcasm:

Not denying that...

 

[BDR]

Your talk of foundations isn't very clear or logical to me Drew, but I appreciate the point you make.

It is most likely a mix of both, because there are some things built into us that we recognise as fundamentally wrong (murder, theft, rape etc) but what you were talking about earlier with the exposure of teens to sexual material is subjective in my opinion. There are a lot of things that fall into the same category.

 

[Ozzy]

I have to agree with BM.

Whall you may disagree with male circumcision that is your choice but to say that there are no ifs or buts is wrong. There is medical argument on both sides. As for female circumcision, I don't think there is any medical pro for it. I also disagree with it. I read that it is done purely so the female won't enjoy sex.

BTW why was this brought up here? It should be inthe fight club forum.

 

[Joker's Wild]

Sure you do. I assume it's as a constable. BTW I'm not your bro.

You're half right

 

[sensesmaybenumbed]

BTW why was this brought up here? It should be inthe fight club forum.

You take that back!

 

[Ozzy]

You take that back!

Thems fightn' words!!!

 

[Ozzy]

You're half right

:lol: Note he didn't deny living with his parents. Bm denial in 3... 2.... 1.....

 

[BunniesMan]

You still looked at it long enough to know he was well endowed...

Something that significant is hard to miss. Even just in the time it took to scroll past it.

Whall you may disagree with male circumcision that is your choice but to say that there are no ifs or buts is wrong. There is medical argument on both sides. As for female circumcision, I don't think there is any medical pro for it. I also disagree with it. I read that it is done purely so the female won't enjoy sex.

BTW why was this brought up here? It should be inthe fight club forum.

There is no medical argument if you have a shower every day and keep that stuff clean.

You destroy thousands of nerve endings that add to sexual pleasure while giving no real benefit for anyone who adheres to basic rules of hygiene.

 

[BunniesMan]

:lol: Note he didn't deny living with his parents. Bm denial in 3... 2.... 1.....

I didn't deny living with my parents because I do.

Don't live in a basement. I have my own room with a window and everything.

I also have a job. I pay tax.