Community > Coffee Houses, Bars & Chit Chat

Topic: Strong morals.
singmesweet Joined Mon 07/28/08 Posts: 26661	Wed 09/05/12 07:01 AM
Nietzsche would argue that behaviours stemming from kindness, charity, and the like are signs of overt slave mentalities and as such are less then desirable. What, then, does that make behaviours such as lying, cheating, and one night stands? Would not these actions be preferable as they tie in more closely to our notions of evolution, social and otherwise? Would not a heartless, almost 'collectivist' approach to sexual partners yield more pleasure and viable offspring? I can be a caring, respectable, nurturing gentleman, but at the end of the day, the Master Mentalities are sowing seeds and reaping satisfaction whilst I dwell lonely and abysmal on a dating site. TL;DR Maybe being a dick isn't such a bad thing. Fascinating. So, what is meant by "strong morals" isn't necessarily universal. For example, a woman who does not believe in marriage may be moral in her own eyes, but be immoral in someone else's eyes. I will give another example. In the movie "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince", Harry's friend Ron declares himself to be a free agent when it came to dating. In other words, he did not consider it immoral for him to be with any girl that he wanted to be with. Thus, he did not think of himself as a cheater. If a single man considers himself to be a free agent while he is single, then he may not limit his romantic activities to just one woman, and he would not consider himself to be cheating, because, in his opinion, only a married person can cheat. Two people have to agree to a definition of cheating before either can be accused of cheating. Seriously? Cheating only has one definition, I do not see why anyone would have to agree on it...It has f** all to do with morals, it is but one thing and one thing alone. People do have different ideas about cheating. Some think even if they're dating casually, it's cheating if their partner is with someone else. Some people only consider it cheating if they're in an exclusive relationship. It's all about communications.

Conrad_73 Joined Sat 09/29/07 Posts: 22488	Wed 09/05/12 08:01 AM
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/morality.html http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/moral-practical_dichotomy.html http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/moral_judgment.html http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/moral_cowardice.html

krupa Joined Thu 07/03/08 Posts: 18651	Wed 09/05/12 08:30 AM
Wow...according to the standards listed in the original topic....apparently I have strong morals...... Never saw that coming .... Go figure.

Ruth34611 Joined Sat 08/02/08 Posts: 32402	Wed 09/05/12 10:41 AM
Wow...according to the standards listed in the original topic....apparently I have strong morals...... Never saw that coming .... Go figure.

Ghostrider2u Joined Thu 05/17/07 Posts: 6953	Wed 09/05/12 12:25 PM
I have strong molar's. Huh??? Ummmmm............. Nevermind!!! hahaha...all the better to bite with. Are they your own? YES Indeed!!!!

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48948	Wed 09/05/12 05:49 PM
KC I might be missing it but I think you kind of make David's point when you made a list Everyone has values. Moral values, core values, what ever you want to call them. There are things that I value. I value marriage the OP doesn't. We both value having one partner at a time. Others value the freedom of having lots of partners anytime they want. But we all feel that we are moral as long as we don't violate what we value. Our personal core values. So when the OP opened a threat intending to chat with only people with morals. The challenge begins. Someone finally understands me. Thank you.

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48948	Wed 09/05/12 05:52 PM
Nietzsche would argue that behaviours stemming from kindness, charity, and the like are signs of overt slave mentalities and as such are less then desirable. What, then, does that make behaviours such as lying, cheating, and one night stands? Would not these actions be preferable as they tie in more closely to our notions of evolution, social and otherwise? Would not a heartless, almost 'collectivist' approach to sexual partners yield more pleasure and viable offspring? I can be a caring, respectable, nurturing gentleman, but at the end of the day, the Master Mentalities are sowing seeds and reaping satisfaction whilst I dwell lonely and abysmal on a dating site. TL;DR Maybe being a dick isn't such a bad thing. Fascinating. So, what is meant by "strong morals" isn't necessarily universal. For example, a woman who does not believe in marriage may be moral in her own eyes, but be immoral in someone else's eyes. I will give another example. In the movie "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince", Harry's friend Ron declares himself to be a free agent when it came to dating. In other words, he did not consider it immoral for him to be with any girl that he wanted to be with. Thus, he did not think of himself as a cheater. If a single man considers himself to be a free agent while he is single, then he may not limit his romantic activities to just one woman, and he would not consider himself to be cheating, because, in his opinion, only a married person can cheat. Two people have to agree to a definition of cheating before either can be accused of cheating. Seriously? Cheating only has one definition, I do not see why anyone would have to agree on it...It has f** all to do with morals, it is but one thing and one thing alone. People do have different ideas about cheating. Some think even if they're dating casually, it's cheating if their partner is with someone else. Some people only consider it cheating if they're in an exclusive relationship. It's all about communications. Exactly.

kc0003 Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 26382	Wed 09/05/12 08:03 PM
KC I might be missing it but I think you kind of make David's point when you made a list Everyone has values. Moral values, core values, what ever you want to call them. There are things that I value. I value marriage the OP doesn't. We both value having one partner at a time. Others value the freedom of having lots of partners anytime they want. But we all feel that we are moral as long as we don't violate what we value. Our personal core values. So when the OP opened a threat intending to chat with only people with morals. The challenge begins. Someone finally understands me. Thank you. perhaps... but if you look at it from her point, she clearly states her meaning of such morals, so then, wouldn't it be likely that she meant people that agreed with her outline for these morals?

Hikerjohn Joined Sun 08/19/12 Posts: 1028	Wed 09/05/12 08:07 PM
KC I might be missing it but I think you kind of make David's point when you made a list Everyone has values. Moral values, core values, what ever you want to call them. There are things that I value. I value marriage the OP doesn't. We both value having one partner at a time. Others value the freedom of having lots of partners anytime they want. But we all feel that we are moral as long as we don't violate what we value. Our personal core values. So when the OP opened a threat intending to chat with only people with morals. The challenge begins. Someone finally understands me. Thank you. perhaps... but if you look at it from her point, she clearly states her meaning of such morals, so then, wouldn't it be likely that she meant people that agreed with her outline for these morals? That would right on. The. She would have put 'people with my morals' not 'people with morals'.

kc0003 Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 26382	Wed 09/05/12 08:12 PM
KC I might be missing it but I think you kind of make David's point when you made a list Everyone has values. Moral values, core values, what ever you want to call them. There are things that I value. I value marriage the OP doesn't. We both value having one partner at a time. Others value the freedom of having lots of partners anytime they want. But we all feel that we are moral as long as we don't violate what we value. Our personal core values. So when the OP opened a threat intending to chat with only people with morals. The challenge begins. Someone finally understands me. Thank you. perhaps... but if you look at it from her point, she clearly states her meaning of such morals, so then, wouldn't it be likely that she meant people that agreed with her outline for these morals? That would right on. The. She would have put 'people with my morals' not 'people with morals'. seems implied when she says things like “That means people who would only have sex if they're in a relationship with someone they love” along with the rest of HER list.

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48948	Wed 09/05/12 08:30 PM
KC I might be missing it but I think you kind of make David's point when you made a list Everyone has values. Moral values, core values, what ever you want to call them. There are things that I value. I value marriage the OP doesn't. We both value having one partner at a time. Others value the freedom of having lots of partners anytime they want. But we all feel that we are moral as long as we don't violate what we value. Our personal core values. So when the OP opened a threat intending to chat with only people with morals. The challenge begins. Someone finally understands me. Thank you. perhaps... but if you look at it from her point, she clearly states her meaning of such morals, so then, wouldn't it be likely that she meant people that agreed with her outline for these morals? That would right on. The. She would have put 'people with my morals' not 'people with morals'. seems implied when she says things like “That means people who would only have sex if they're in a relationship with someone they love” along with the rest of HER list. The apparent premise of this thread is that there are Mingle2 members who don't have strong morals. The OP gave me the initial impression that the creator of this thread has a "more-moral-than-thou" attitude. I wanted to demonstrate that not everyone has the same beliefs about what is moral and what isn't moral.

kc0003 Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 26382	Wed 09/05/12 08:41 PM
KC I might be missing it but I think you kind of make David's point when you made a list Everyone has values. Moral values, core values, what ever you want to call them. There are things that I value. I value marriage the OP doesn't. We both value having one partner at a time. Others value the freedom of having lots of partners anytime they want. But we all feel that we are moral as long as we don't violate what we value. Our personal core values. So when the OP opened a threat intending to chat with only people with morals. The challenge begins. Someone finally understands me. Thank you. perhaps... but if you look at it from her point, she clearly states her meaning of such morals, so then, wouldn't it be likely that she meant people that agreed with her outline for these morals? That would right on. The. She would have put 'people with my morals' not 'people with morals'. seems implied when she says things like “That means people who would only have sex if they're in a relationship with someone they love” along with the rest of HER list. The apparent premise of this thread is that there are Mingle2 members who don't have strong morals. The OP gave me the initial impression that the creator of this thread has a "more-moral-than-thou" attitude. I wanted to demonstrate that not everyone has the same beliefs about what is moral and what isn't moral. when I read it my initial thought wasn’t that at all, rather it was coming from a place of pain and anguish. not wanting to relive her past experience a thread was born.

prashant01 Joined Wed 05/06/09 Posts: 14148	Tue 09/11/12 07:58 AM
KC I might be missing it but I think you kind of make David's point when you made a list Everyone has values. Moral values, core values, what ever you want to call them. There are things that I value. I value marriage the OP doesn't. We both value having one partner at a time. Others value the freedom of having lots of partners anytime they want. But we all feel that we are moral as long as we don't violate what we value. Our personal core values. So when the OP opened a threat intending to chat with only people with morals. The challenge begins. Someone finally understands me. Thank you. perhaps... but if you look at it from her point, she clearly states her meaning of such morals, so then, wouldn't it be likely that she meant people that agreed with her outline for these morals? That would right on. The. She would have put 'people with my morals' not 'people with morals'. seems implied when she says things like “That means people who would only have sex if they're in a relationship with someone they love” along with the rest of HER list. The apparent premise of this thread is that there are Mingle2 members who don't have strong morals. The OP gave me the initial impression that the creator of this thread has a "more-moral-than-thou" attitude. I wanted to demonstrate that not everyone has the same beliefs about what is moral and what isn't moral. when I read it my initial thought wasn’t that at all, rather it was coming from a place of pain and anguish. not wanting to relive her past experience a thread was born. Finally ,it seems very hard to determine exactly which values shall be considered as of high morals.....do it mean that whatever values you believe in...doesn't matter...just adhere to those strictly under all circumstances...so u become a person with high moral values.

soufiehere Joined Sat 10/24/09 Posts: 45399	Tue 09/11/12 09:13 AM
Yes. And nobody has any business getting uptight and being on this thread if they have a problem with my morals. I want someone to tell me ONE negative thing about them. All threads are open to anyone who takes the time, and makes the effort, to comment (except the religious threads which are geared to specificity.) Everyone's opinion is valid. Everyone has their own morals and standards. They will certainly differ from person to person and we celebrate those differences, in forum discussions. Higher or lower standards are entirely subjective. Do your thang :-)

Torgo70 Joined Fri 06/27/08 Posts: 27387	Tue 09/11/12 09:19 AM
I have no morals, or is that taste? Might be both.

Ruth34611 Joined Sat 08/02/08 Posts: 32402	Tue 09/11/12 09:25 AM
I have no morals, or is that taste? Might be both. It's both.

pyxxie13 Joined Wed 09/28/11 Posts: 3835	Tue 09/11/12 11:02 AM
This was a very entertaining thread. I have to agree with Dodo and Hiker... Everyone is different, it doesn't make them right or wrong. If you do not care for their morals or opinions...move on. Simple.

Pear82 Joined Tue 09/11/12 Posts: 60	Wed 09/12/12 04:17 AM
I never cheated in any relationship, however when not in a relationship, I have "fallin' in love, for one night" on many occasions. Where does that leave me? In the "Sinner's Pit" with the rest of us. Your funny Ruth!...Can I sit in the sinner's pit too? If the answer is yes then I will bake a peach and pear crumble!! (and bring it with me of course!) - By the way how many sinners am I baking for?

sweetestgirl11 Joined Fri 09/12/08 Posts: 30087	Wed 09/12/12 06:50 AM
This was a very entertaining thread. I have to agree with Dodo and Hiker... Everyone is different, it doesn't make them right or wrong. If you do not care for their morals or opinions...move on. Simple. agreed - this seems to make the most sense so far nothing worse than a "holier than thou" attitude - morality is relative and the best we can hope for is someone who shares ours to some extent, and good communication regarding any differences or sensitive issues - such as exclusivity

PacificStar48 Joined Tue 10/02/07 Posts: 13764	Wed 09/12/12 11:49 AM
I want people with strong values and morals to chat here! That means people who would only have sex if they're in a relationship with someone they love. This is for people who are against that "open relationships" crap, one night stands and friends with benefits! This is for people who would never cheat on their partners or do anything sexual or cross emotional boundaries with someone who is in a relationship!!! I can understand the desire to want to start a chat that has some basic boundries; especially ones that you have, or think you would, suffered pain when they have been crossed. I think it is human nature to want to socialize with people of "like" minds. The thing about trying to establish a group with a moral code is defineing it. Some of the OP's ideas sound good on first pass. But how would you define words like sex, open relationship, one night stand, friends with benifits, cheat, and the one that is very emcompassing emotional boundries. I know I define each of those words but my definition might be really different than another persons. I personally define sex as way more than intercourse but unlike some stringent communities where kissing is sex I would be an amoral person because I frequently kiss my close friends and even my long term hospice patients on the cheek, or fore head, or hand as a show of kindness and affection. What about the one night stand between sweethearts where one goes off to war and never returns. Is that person amoral? Or is it just a quickie in a bar bathroom? Friends with Benifits sounds pretty trashy when it is just a boink buddy with friends from the office but what about two lovers in a nurseing home with little hope of ever leaveing? Or a spouse that is entangled with a comatosed partner for years. What about the young woman who desperately wants a child but can't afford invetro before cancer treatment that will leave her childless. Is it just sex or is it someone that will come over if you have to move furniture or need someone to talk over work or parenting crisis? And how do you define cheat? There are so many degrees of that you could list pages of variations. Yea most of us know when our definition has been crossed but always getting that accross to another person is kind of a long process. And what you might feel at one stage of your life can change. A lot of my morals have been adjusted as I either got or saw life experiences. Got to know people and their circumstances. I know at one point in my life I thought I would always be single and that genuine love and fidelity were pretty much a crock. I thought if two people wanted to live together it should be nobodies business. I thought that as long as people were careful, practiced safe sex that nobody got hurt. I thought cheating was the lowest thing a person could do and marriage was absolute until the divorce papers heard the final decree. And I had a very narrow definition of what justified divorce. I actually even thought if you really loved someone and they you that they wouldn't lie, steal, cheat blah blah blah. Well now I see that while a lot of things don't seem right occasionally there are shades of grey. I have learned that casual sex is rarely all the casual. One person or the other, often both, usually ends up short changed. Where ever you have sex someone is footing the bill and you give up a little bit of yourself. Sometimes you only realize how much much later on. Especially when you find you REALLY love someone and wish you had only memories of them. That you only had "firsts" with them. I have learned there is no such thing as safe sex. You start swapping bodily fluids with some one you are taking big risks. Nothing brings that home like an unplanned pregnacy or an incureable STD. A lot of people suffer. Sometimes much more than anyone can really imagine. It doesn't even have to be incureable to make life really miserable. Even treatable STD's cause sterility, incontinence, impodence, kidney and liver failure, prevent certain kinds of employment and a host of problems people don't even think of. You watch a young Mother die of herpes complications it leaves a really big desire to have your sex partners "checked". I have learned that shacking up never ends well. There is always a cost if nothing but your time. Someone always ends up feeling ripped off. And even if it does end up in marriage all the time spent before still does not change many of the adjustments that have to be made when you actually do marry or split. At least divorce carrys the weight of law to see that one or the other doesn't get the absolute shaft. I know a lot of people say that only the lawyers made out but there is more justice than just two people conspireing to get over on the other. I can think of a lot of other things but leave some thought and philosphy for after the laundry is folded. lol Ya all have a good day.