Should masturbation be legal.

[Brambila]

You realize you can be be moral without being theistic, right? If you're not on that page, then theres no reason to continue this conversation.

I believe somebody could be moral and atheist/agnostic, yes.

Then why do you condemn atheists/agnostics?

When have I?

[Ebowed]

Okay-- what is your consistent form of morality?

Created by a combination of logic, science, and conscience.

Concerning the entire "self-centered" issue, I don't think it is right for anyone to be entirely self-centered.

This doesn't have anything to do with masturbation.  It's more wrong, arguably, to become frustrated on purpose when there is a simple and harmless solution to the problem.  Anyone who masturbates isn't "entirely" self-centered, anyway.

[HardRCafé]

Okay-- what is your consistent form of morality?

It's not a hard question, but no one's able to answer it.  Hmm.

[Ebowed]

Okay-- what is your consistent form of morality?

It's not a hard question, but no one's able to answer it.  Hmm.

Oh yeah, when it comes to the deep and meaningful philosophical discussions, everyone looks in awe to the stunning brilliance of your contributions.

[HardRCafé]

I suppose since you cannot answer a simple question, pointing and laughing is as good a subterfuge as any.

Morality is for silly old people anyway.

[Ebowed]

Morality is for silly old people anyway.

Yes, because clearly I (or anyone else posting here) have no morals.  The question has already been answered; you are merely a jackass.

[Brambila]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What is it based on to make it true, consistent, and stable? In other words, how do you know that your moral view is correct?

[Alcon]

I suppose since you cannot answer a simple question, pointing and laughing is as good a subterfuge as any.

You're the one complaining about pointing and laughing as a subterfuge?  Next you're going to be chastising people for one-sentence posts. 

[Gabu]

I suppose since you cannot answer a simple question, pointing and laughing is as good a subterfuge as any.

Morality is for silly old people anyway.

Do you ever post anything remotely worthwhile or which actually contributes to the topic at hand, and which is not just an underhanded snipe from the sidelines?

Why do you even still post here?

[Ebowed]

In other words, how do you know that your moral view is correct?

I don't "know" that my moral view is correct.  I merely feel that, if need be, it would be a fair system to implement.  It's entirely subjective.

[Brambila]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Exactly. This is what I mean by no consitent form of morality. If your morality is subjective, then you're saying somebody else's morality is at minimum possibly just and correct as yours. What I'm arguing is that morality is not an invention of humans-- that is what human law is. Morality is a natural law. Natural Law is for me, is also for you, is also for those a thousand years ago, is also for those a thousand years from now.  This is a consisent form of morality. This morality we determine by nature-- it transcends our personal opinion.

[minionofmidas]

Wow. Long time no see. Hi.

[HardRCafé]

Why do you even still post here?

That's actually a good question.  I come here for election news, but people seem more preoccupied with cheerleading and making fun of Naso than anything real.

[DuEbrithil]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Exactly. This is what I mean by no consitent form of morality. If your morality is subjective, then you're saying somebody else's morality is at minimum possibly just and correct as yours. What I'm arguing is that morality is not an invention of humans-- that is what human law is. Morality is a natural law. Natural Law is for me, is also for you, is also for those a thousand years ago, is also for those a thousand years from now.  This is a consisent form of morality. This morality we determine by nature-- it transcends our personal opinion.

of course there is no consistent form of morality. if we had a consistent form of morality, there would be no war and everyone would love one another.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Why do you even still post here?

That's actually a good question.  I come here for election news, but people seem more preoccupied with cheerleading and making fun of Naso than anything real.

This isn't an election year.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What's the point of bumping a thread like this?

[538Electoral]

It's already legal.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

It's already legal.

I hope (for your sake) this startling misunderstanding of the United States penal code does not count as a legal admission in court - it is very clear as far back as the Articles of Confederation that the the nation was intended as a land free of such a vice. The laws were codified further in the infamous "Wank War" during the Andrew Jackson administration, and some blame the toughening of the old penalties (namely, death penalty in a pique of Gilded Era populism) were a key impetus behind the rise of the IWW (International Wankers of the World).