Originally Posted by Ele
There are no circumstances in the universe in which that sort of behaviour would ever be considered acceptable.
That's a pretty bold statement considering what kind of fucked up shit is going on in the animal kingdom. Animals raping each other, or eating their children, for example. There are numerous examples of nature making animals do things that we humans would consider inherently immoral.
Just because we humans are social animals and are very dependent on each other and therefore don't hurt each other, doesn't mean everyone is. Immoral acts are only immoral from our perspective. From the perspective of evolution, it's not about not getting hurt, it's about insuring the survival of the species. By any means.
And I would argue the same for beauty.
Yeh cow killed it. Saw this a few days ago, was no point making a comment because I couldn't say anything that cow hadn't already said hahahaha.
I don't think this as a bad thing tho?
To come to the conclusion of a discussion so soon is not often possible, (and you have to admit alot of what could have been here, would most likely have been 3 pages of people with very shallow ideas of the world.
I don't think this as a bad thing tho?
To come to the conclusion of a discussion so soon is not often possible, (and you have to admit alot of what could have been here, would most likely have been 3 pages of people with very shallow ideas of the world.
Last edited by AussieCunt; Apr 5, 2017 at 09:26 AM.
<Icky> Damn my mouth is on fire but my loins stir like the straits
Originally Posted by Zockinator
That's a pretty bold statement considering what kind of fucked up shit is going on in the animal kingdom. Animals raping each other, or eating their children, for example. There are numerous examples of nature making animals do things that we humans would consider inherently immoral.
Yes, the animal kingdom is vicious. That's beside my point, though. My point was that, to any sane person (I did preface my claim with that proviso), torturing and raping a child (a human child) isn't OK, under any circumstances. I still think that holds true.
You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would argue with you that it's OK to torture and rape children, depending on context..
All this example does is it speaks to my broader point that we can establish somewhat 'objective' standards (about intangible things) that anyone with a sane mind can agree upon. Is it true objectivity? No (as has already been discussed). Does this matter? For everyday purposes, not really.
Last edited by Ele; Apr 5, 2017 at 03:32 PM.
Was going to edit my post to give some bones to chew.
But oh-well i'll make one more post im lazy and tired hope this makes sense
The underlying definition of beauty I suppose can come from 'nature/nurture'.
It's extremely natural for a person to consider beauty to be certain traits, (usually similar to their own or showing signs of health/strength) It is a survival trait to pick and chose 'features' and no that isn't necessarily some shallow part of their character, that's a part of their physiological makeup. However there are the people out there who decide actively what 'attractive' is so idk
I feel the only place to argue on this, is if it's even worth arguing about.
Theres a few bones to chew if anyone else comes through.
But oh-well i'll make one more post im lazy and tired hope this makes sense
Originally Posted by Zockinator
That's a pretty bold statement considering what kind of fucked up shit is going on in the animal kingdom. Animals raping each other, or eating their children, for example. There are numerous examples of nature making animals do things that we humans would consider inherently immoral.
Just because we humans are social animals and are very dependent on each other and therefore don't hurt each other, doesn't mean everyone is. Immoral acts are only immoral from our perspective. From the perspective of evolution, it's not about not getting hurt, it's about insuring the survival of the species. By any means.
And I would argue the same for beauty.
The underlying definition of beauty I suppose can come from 'nature/nurture'.
It's extremely natural for a person to consider beauty to be certain traits, (usually similar to their own or showing signs of health/strength) It is a survival trait to pick and chose 'features' and no that isn't necessarily some shallow part of their character, that's a part of their physiological makeup. However there are the people out there who decide actively what 'attractive' is so idk
I feel the only place to argue on this, is if it's even worth arguing about.
Theres a few bones to chew if anyone else comes through.
<Icky> Damn my mouth is on fire but my loins stir like the straits
