Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/12/09 06:53 PM, Brick-top wrote: At 5/12/09 06:49 PM, RubberTrucky wrote

Because obviously this society takes everyone's morals into account?

We must have otherwise only one person in power could dictate what is considered 'right and wrong'. And our good friend adolf has already shown dictatorship doesn't work.

Morals are applied as a collective effort and have effect on important things. that doesn't mean that everyone has the same morals, because it's more something as a statistical average.
Specifically applied to relationships, there is no general laws to direct them. everyone has his own idea and everyone just acts like it, thus causing break ups when it is incompatible. examples are for instance what a person considers as infidelity is a subjective issue.

The first and last I can believe, but exactly how many follow this '2 month' rule?

I know a few people who have such rules. of course, 2 months is only one example. But some really do estimate a time to get to know eachother and before that, they won't have sex.

At 5/12/09 07:00 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: Morals are applied as a collective effort and have effect on important things.

Which proves my statement in the first place.

Secondly there are laws to emotional and physical relationships my good sir.

The first and last I can believe, but exactly how many follow this '2 month' rule?

I know a few people who have such rules. of course, 2 months is only one example. But some really do estimate a time to get to know eachother and before that, they won't have sex.

Anecdotal and you've screwed up your own '2 month' rule by saying it's not actually two months. There's a possibility they do it every (whatever) due to convenience and you never stated who they were doing it with.

At 5/12/09 07:07 PM, Brick-top wrote:
Secondly there are laws to emotional and physical relationships my good sir.

Prove that there is a law concerning fidelity or free sexual relations. (of course in a western nation in modern communities)

Anecdotal and you've screwed up your own '2 month' rule by saying it's not actually two months. There's a possibility they do it every (whatever) due to convenience and you never stated who they were doing it with.

Not really necessary. There are in fact unwritten rules about this, they are dependent on the person.
here is an article on dating rules.

At 5/12/09 07:16 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 5/12/09 07:07 PM, Brick-top wrote:
Secondly there are laws to emotional and physical relationships my good sir.

Prove that there is a law concerning fidelity or free sexual relations. (of course in a western nation in modern communities)

Paedophiles.

Nuff said.

Anecdotal and you've screwed up your own '2 month' rule by saying it's not actually two months. There's a possibility they do it every (whatever) due to convenience and you never stated who they were doing it with.

Not really necessary. There are in fact unwritten rules about this, they are dependent on the person.
here is an article on dating rules.

The article was about Relationships and Dating. If I'm not mistaken, the lady we were discussion with earlier does not do this because she has not found someone she can trust. But she can happily have sex with them. That's the problem. I'd avoid using the term 'whore' for the description but after admitting she's immoral what synonym is there?

At 5/12/09 07:23 PM, Brick-top wrote:
Paedophiles.

Nuff said.

That's not about free relationships or fidelity. that's about non-consensual or lacking consent relationships. There are no laws concerning having sex between consensual adults in their own home/time.

The article was about Relationships and Dating. If I'm not mistaken, the lady we were discussion with earlier does not do this because she has not found someone she can trust. But she can happily have sex with them. That's the problem. I'd avoid using the term 'whore' for the description but after admitting she's immoral what synonym is there?

I kind of lol at the fact that you claim that love is something based on lust and a need for having sex and then you still value true relationships over the easy fucks.

Anyway, that's just your opinion. You might not like sex so much, she does and there is no harm done. (I'm assuming she's sensible enough to have safe sex and not spreading diseases)

At 5/12/09 07:35 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 5/12/09 07:23 PM, Brick-top wrote:
Paedophiles.

Nuff said.

That's not about free relationships or fidelity. that's about non-consensual or lacking consent relationships. There are no laws concerning having sex between consensual adults in their own home/time.

I said emotional and physical relationships and now you're adding on these little rules and assuming the lesser aged isn't consenting. A year under the legal age limit is still illegal.

The article was about Relationships and Dating. If I'm not mistaken, the lady we were discussion with earlier does not do this because she has not found someone she can trust. But she can happily have sex with them. That's the problem. I'd avoid using the term 'whore' for the description but after admitting she's immoral what synonym is there?

I kind of lol at the fact that you claim that love is something based on lust and a need for having sex and then you still value true relationships over the easy fucks.

No I said it's a bastardisation of primal instincts. Which is to reproduce and continue the the progression of genes and that will promise the furthering of a species.

Did I say I value true relationships?

QUOTE MINES, CAPS AND ACRONYMS FTW.

Anyway, that's just your opinion. You might not like sex so much, she does and there is no harm done. (I'm assuming she's sensible enough to have safe sex and not spreading diseases)

If it's just an opinion you surely have wasted your time replying.

At 5/12/09 07:48 PM, Brick-top wrote:
I said emotional and physical relationships and now you're adding on these little rules and assuming the lesser aged isn't consenting. A year under the legal age limit is still illegal.

You claimed that societies laws follows the morals of every person or maybe just the normal people. You also claim to be morally outraged by people having random sex encounters. so you're claiming that the society should intervene into these matters, but it does not. If you can provide that law, then you are right and what Benwahakubi does is morally as well as legally wrong. But if you can't, then morals =/= laws.

Paedophilia is something completely different, though it is indeed a decision based upon public morals. The age is a formal convention made to disable elder people to take advantage of children with little notion of sexuality. at a point one must decide when a person is able to have sex voluntarily.

No I said it's a bastardisation of primal instincts. Which is to reproduce and continue the the progression of genes and that will promise the furthering of a species.

Did I say I value true relationships?

I assume that if you frown upon one night stands and having sex just for sex, that you do value relationships. The conclusion is easily made.

If it's just an opinion you surely have wasted your time replying.

It's important enough for you to spar. I don't feel the time is wasted, really.

At 5/12/09 08:03 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: You claimed that societies laws follows the morals of every person or maybe just the normal people. You also claim to be morally outraged by people having random sex encounters.

No, I said we take them into account. But a person moral code (most certainly the biological moral code hardwired into all of us) can be implemented into law and it has been.

That's where society comes from in a legal sense and in a social sense.

so you're claiming that the society should intervene into these matters, but it does not. If you can provide that law, then you are right and what Benwahakubi does is morally as well as legally wrong. But if you can't, then morals =/= laws.

WRONG.

I said laws come from morals of those in that society. I said everyone's morals are taken into account.

I DID NOT say all the morals are made to law.
I DID NOT say random sex should be illegal.

Paedophilia is something completely different, though it is indeed a decision based upon public morals. The age is a formal convention made to disable elder people to take advantage of children with little notion of sexuality. at a point one must decide when a person is able to have sex voluntarily.

In Britain is 16 in the US it's 18. Both nations are first world nations. Who's right? If I have sex with a 16 year old in both nations I'd be breaking the law in one but they would be consenting and according to to British law they're mentally and physically capable for it.

Besides, Children are taught about sex when they're 11. I remember the video tapes. They're aware of it at least so it still applies.

No I said it's a bastardisation of primal instincts. Which is to reproduce and continue the the progression of genes and that will promise the furthering of a species.

Did I say I value true relationships?

I assume that if you frown upon one night stands and having sex just for sex, that you do value relationships. The conclusion is easily made.

Uhhh no. I said they're a bastardisation of primal instincts and it was considered immoral by others especially those in her 'home land' for mainly theological reasons.

If it's just an opinion you surely have wasted your time replying.

It's important enough for you to spar. I don't feel the time is wasted, really.

It's not important to me. I'm writing articles on my thoughts about Evolution and the second I leave this computer this discussion will be forgotten.

At 4/27/09 05:21 PM, aninjaman wrote:

At 4/27/09 05:20 PM, Truemen wrote: I am in love with someone, but I've never felt being loved back. So love is bullshit, it ruins your life.

Says a 15 year old.

Says the 12 year old.

It's an emotion. You feel it.

At 5/12/09 08:19 PM, Brick-top wrote:
No, I said we take them into account. But a person moral code (most certainly the biological moral code hardwired into all of us) can be implemented into law and it has been.

Yes.

I said laws come from morals of those in that society. I said everyone's morals are taken into account.

I DID NOT say all the morals are made to law.
I DID NOT say random sex should be illegal.

I asumed it. I said Benwa shouldn't take everyone's morals into account before her actions, you said that if people didn't then there wouldn't be a law. I said that laws don't apply on everyones morals, you said that in those cases dictatorial come into existence. gotta love the derailing of this discussion. :3

In Britain is 16 in the US it's 18. Both nations are first world nations. Who's right? If I have sex with a 16 year old in both nations I'd be breaking the law in one but they would be consenting and according to to British law they're mentally and physically capable for it.

Exactly. Each has there own sets of morals, a lot in common, a few personal. Some we have to live by, some we can choose. We can be outraged if someone breaks our moral code and causes damage to ourselves, but it's futile as an outsider to decide which is more moral than something else when it comes to personal morals.

Uhhh no. I said they're a bastardisation of primal instincts and it was considered immoral by others especially those in her 'home land' for mainly theological reasons.

Don't know north vaginian rules, though. But you did kind of call her a hypocrite for being hateful towards those who have betrain her and still wanting random sexual encounters. Which is the origin of this page spar. You kind of made it seem that you were outraged yourself also. (you also considered her actions immoral)

It's not important to me. I'm writing articles on my thoughts about Evolution and the second I leave this computer this discussion will be forgotten.

I kind of took the chivalry route. but it's basically fun to go along with.

To sum up, her choice is not a hypocrite one, and she doesn't really break any of society's rules. Her choice does offend some people maybe, but it's not something she should be bothered with, since it's her life.
What is kind of a personal issue is the fact that I hate it when especially girls get portrayed as evil stupid sluts because of their sexual activity. I find it stupid that people would judge and slander a girl for things she does in her life. It's simply uncalled for.

me thinks it's a chemical reaction. even if it was considered magic, then wouldn't magic be some sort of chemical reaction to.

:AHAAA

I think love is a higher step of a good friend ship

At 5/12/09 09:00 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: I asumed it. I said Benwa shouldn't take everyone's morals into account before her actions, you said that if people didn't then there wouldn't be a law. I said that laws don't apply on everyones morals, you said that in those cases dictatorial come into existence. gotta love the derailing of this discussion. :3

Nope. I said everyone's morals are taken into account in a society and the origins of law come from morals.

Exactly. Each has there own sets of morals, a lot in common, a few personal. Some we have to live by, some we can choose. We can be outraged if someone breaks our moral code and causes damage to ourselves, but it's futile as an outsider to decide which is more moral than something else when it comes to personal morals.

In US standards, technically Brits are paedophiles. That's my point. A 16-17 year old in the united states can be perfectly aware of what they're doing but it's a violation of the law.

Hence forth, the paedophile example stands.

Don't know north vaginian rules, though. But you did kind of call her a hypocrite for being hateful towards those who have betrain her and still wanting random sexual encounters. Which is the origin of this page spar. You kind of made it seem that you were outraged yourself also. (you also considered her actions immoral)

Read my posts. The majority of the time I said her actions were immoral by others.

If I'm ever truely outraged I'm not on NG. I'm outside or in another room and it's highly unlikely I'm going to go to the effort in carrying this junk outside.

To sum up, her choice is not a hypocrite one, and she doesn't really break any of society's rules. Her choice does offend some people maybe, but it's not something she should be bothered with, since it's her life.
What is kind of a personal issue is the fact that I hate it when especially girls get portrayed as evil stupid sluts because of their sexual activity. I find it stupid that people would judge and slander a girl for things she does in her life. It's simply uncalled for.

I can use the very same argument against her original claim about people saying "I love you".

I think its cool how complex love is, like if you were in love with two different people they could give you a different, but still good feeling.

At 5/12/09 06:39 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: I don't get where the problem is.
A person just acts upon his own morals. He shouldn't take everyone's morals into account and that doesn't mean that he may not be offended by another persons immorality.

^ This is exactly what I mean.

It's not like I am murdering, raping or pushing drugs. Those things are real morality.

Also, from my experience love can make your whole world change. It can make everything start to revolve around that feeling...which is kind of scary actually.

At 5/12/09 06:34 PM, Brick-top wrote:
Saying "I love you" without meaning = Immoral (according to her)
Having 'occasional' sex with different people she (apparently) does not trust = Immoral (according to others and myself)

At 5/12/09 07:23 PM, Brick-top wrote: I'd avoid using the term 'whore' for the description but after admitting she's immoral what synonym is there?

Why, that's quite neutral of you.

At 5/12/09 09:27 PM, Brick-top wrote:
In US standards, technically Brits are paedophiles. That's my point. A 16-17 year old in the united states can be perfectly aware of what they're doing but it's a violation of the law.

I'm guessing the Americans don't really agree with that. Or the americans who think that the age limit must be there.

Hence forth, the paedophile example stands.

If you claim that paedophilia laws have to do with fidelity and lose sexual contacts, then yes.

I can use the very same argument against her original claim about people saying "I love you".

Meh, she's been hurt before, can't blame her for not wanting to have people use this against her. self defence really.

At 5/12/09 09:37 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: Why, that's quite neutral of you.

Find me a more appropriate, less vague synonym. I left it open for you but you never bothered.

At 5/12/09 09:27 PM, Brick-top wrote:
In US standards, technically Brits are paedophiles. That's my point. A 16-17 year old in the united states can be perfectly aware of what they're doing but it's a violation of the law.

I'm guessing the Americans don't really agree with that. Or the americans who think that the age limit must be there.

Who cares?

Hence forth, the paedophile example stands.

If you claim that paedophilia laws have to do with fidelity and lose sexual contacts, then yes.

I said Emotional and physical relationships are in the law.

You said prove it.

Paedophiles. In the US a person can have the mental and physical capabilities to consent but it would still be illegal.

That was the whole point of bringing it up in the first place.

Meh, she's been hurt before, can't blame her for not wanting to have people use this against her. self defence really.

So wait, if I get (metaphorically) fucked over by someone who I've slept with and 'occasionally' sleeps with other people I can justify what I say?

Ummm....no. Plenty of us have 'had our warming, loving hearts broken by an evil monster who we let into our lives and trusted with our very souls bla bla" and guess what? I'm not losing sleep over it except when my friends make it seem really funny. Then I'm just laughing for hours at my expense.

At 5/12/09 09:49 PM, Brick-top wrote:
Find me a more appropriate, less vague synonym. I left it open for you but you never bothered.

Free spirited?

You said prove it.

Actually, I said.

At 5/12/09 07:16 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:
Prove that there is a law concerning fidelity or free sexual relations. (of course in a western nation in modern communities)

So wait, if I get (metaphorically) fucked over by someone who I've slept with and 'occasionally' sleeps with other people I can justify what I say?

Well, you can hold a principle that you will never allow yourself to be taken advantage of like that again. But you would accept that person as your lover again, of course.

No, I believe in jabbing my veiny cock in wet vaginaz.

I belive in lust

About it

At 5/12/09 10:00 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: Free spirited?

I said LESS vague and it's not descriptive.

Prove that there is a law concerning fidelity or free sexual relations. (of course in a western nation in modern communities)

And I said this:

"Secondly there are laws to emotional and physical relationships my good sir."

Paedophilia and using the 16-18 laws makes it a prime example.

Well, you can hold a principle that you will never allow yourself to be taken advantage of like that again. But you would accept that person as your lover again, of course.

If someone is emotionally distraught over a bad experience how can disallow them in a Relationship but allow them to perform sexual intercourse?

Even if your link, the former came before the latter.

At 5/12/09 10:08 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 5/12/09 10:00 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: Free spirited?

I said LESS vague and it's not descriptive.

Sexually free spirited? It's at least a lot better then a whore, cause a whore kind of implies that sex is used for monetary profit only.

Prove that there is a law concerning fidelity or free sexual relations. (of course in a western nation in modern communities)

And I said this:

"Secondly there are laws to emotional and physical relationships my good sir."

Paedophilia and using the 16-18 laws makes it a prime example.

Of course it does, I wouldn't have specified the requested example if I was wanting to have you state the obvious. Likewise, you could also say that in muslim countries you can't be gay.

If someone is emotionally distraught over a bad experience how can disallow them in a Relationship but allow them to perform sexual intercourse?

sex=/= relationship. it's as simple as that.

At 5/12/09 10:14 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

I said LESS vague and it's not descriptive.

Sexually free spirited? It's at least a lot better then a whore, cause a whore kind of implies that sex is used for monetary profit only.

Whore:
"A person considered sexually promiscuous."

If the shoe fits wear it.

I checked the definition before making the claim. I wouldn't want to shoot myself in the foot.

Of course it does, I wouldn't have specified the requested example if I was wanting to have you state the obvious. Likewise, you could also say that in muslim countries you can't be gay.

Then my original statement is correct.

Actually in Muslim nations you can be gay but it's hazardous. However with the crime rates it's hazardous to do anything except sit in the departure lounge.

sex=/= relationship. it's as simple as that.

You're right.

Her:
"Her, I barely know you, let's have sex, I'm not in for a relationship."
"Okay."

Relationships:
"Hey, let's get to know each other to see if we're interested in each other. Then hang out, learn more and eventually through investigation of each others personality gradually take it to higher levels"
"How very formal, but I give this a thumbs up to a rather bizarrely presented example."

Dammit Jim you've got it!

Rubber I know you're going to reply to my post so I'll save this page and respond to it tomorrow afternoon.

At 5/12/09 10:28 PM, Brick-top wrote:
Whore:
"A person considered sexually promiscuous."

Hmm, the basic translation to my non English language is just the sleeping for money part. Still 'whore' isn't really a neutral term.

Then my original statement is correct.

Yes, it is. It's not what I opposed, though.

On the third note, relationships require commitment. Casual sex requires consent and that's it.

What is love
baby don't hurt me
don't hurt me
no more

I wouldn't know anything about love except loving your family, and loving foods.

I think love and emotion is something genuine.

Pleasure is something contrived chemically. They can stimulate certain parts of the brain and make you feel an orgasm.

Love, however, has to be meant.

No.

/thread.