Most and least moral posters

[Speed of Sound]

If they were married, yes, it would be ok.  But most posters here aren't married.

We're talking about moral in a non-religious sense.  You can still be a very moral person, unmarried and not a virgin.

Maybe if you had sex once or twice, and had reverted from your ways.  But if not, then no, absolutely not.  I'm sorry, but you can't be truly moral unless you abide by God's laws, or at least try to and accept Jesus as the son of god, and be saved.  Non-Religious Morality is an oxymoron.

I don't even want to get into this argument, I'm sick and tired of dealing with this "it's ok if he's done this or that, he can still be moral" bs.  So, whatever, stick with your beliefs.  If you live by them, see where you'll end up.  I've had enough.

Ok that's fine, then stop calling decent people 'immoral' because they don't fit your own ridiculously restrictive criteria.

Why don't you go walk up to God right now and tell him his laws are ridiculas?  Just shoot and kill yourself and have a little chat with him at the gates of heaven about why his laws are so un-educated and outdated.

WTF???

Anyways, Preston, go to a seminary if you think you are so much more moral then everybody. Saying that bisexuals and gays can't be moral is just idiotic.

"Lest ye be judged...."

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know the verse.  Anyway, I'm not judging, it's god who's doing the judging, I'm just pointing it out.

whatever you say, Preston. Whatever you say.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Maybe if you had sex once or twice, and had reverted from your ways.  But if not, then no, absolutely not.  I'm sorry, but you can't be truly moral unless you abide by God's laws, or at least try to and accept Jesus as the son of god, and be saved.  Non-Religious Morality is an oxymoron.

so someone like Gabu is less moral than someone like Elie Hobeika, Ante Pavelic or Billy Wright?

[Max Power]

If they were married, yes, it would be ok.  But most posters here aren't married.

We're talking about moral in a non-religious sense.  You can still be a very moral person, unmarried and not a virgin.

Maybe if you had sex once or twice, and had reverted from your ways.  But if not, then no, absolutely not.  I'm sorry, but you can't be truly moral unless you abide by God's laws, or at least try to and accept Jesus as the son of god, and be saved.  Non-Religious Morality is an oxymoron.

I don't even want to get into this argument, I'm sick and tired of dealing with this "it's ok if he's done this or that, he can still be moral" bs.  So, whatever, stick with your beliefs.  If you live by them, see where you'll end up.  I've had enough.

Ok that's fine, then stop calling decent people 'immoral' because they don't fit your own ridiculously restrictive criteria.

Why don't you go walk up to God right now and tell him his laws are ridiculas?  Just shoot and kill yourself and have a little chat with him at the gates of heaven about why his laws are so un-educated and outdated.

WTF???

Anyways, Preston, go to a seminary if you think you are so much more moral then everybody. Saying that bisexuals and gays can't be moral is just idiotic.

"Lest ye be judged...."

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know the verse.  Anyway, I'm not judging, it's god who's doing the judging, I'm just pointing it out.

So god says that gay people are immoral and evil? Do you speak for god?

And you are judging. You are saying somebody is immoral for being themselves. That's judgement to me.

[PBrunsel]

Moral: rCosmo Kramer of course. He brings Bibles to bars.

Immoral: BRTD (to rock the boat) 'cause he can't shut the living Hell up about breasts and strippers! For the sake of my sanity don't give a damn who wants to lose their stinkin' virginity in your damn apartment building! Whew... I have waited a looooooooooong time to say that.

[Ebowed]

Dazzle, I'm a bit curious as to why you regard me moral; perhaps if you knew me more personally you'd know about my fits of rage where I want to kill people over minor things.

[TeePee4Prez]

As far as the most moral posters go, there are a few candidates who are the most moral in a conventional sense:

Frodo
Ebowed
Keystone Phil
Gabu
Nym90

I know there are others, too, that I will think of later.

For least moral, I think the choice is clear:  opebo.
Flyers2006 also exhibits a certain aggressive rejection of certain types of morality, as does BRTD, but I wouldn't go so far as to call them immoral.  I think that their morals will evolve over time as they mature.

Well thank you for disagreeing with Frodo.  What do u mean by "aggressive rejection of certain types of morality?"

[Gabu]

"The truth is not kind.  And you say neither am I."
    --Toad the wet sprocket, AD 1991

Hey, another Toad the Wet Sprocket fan, awesome.

At any rate, I think that all this topic is really proving is that we have many different senses of what it means to be "moral", and that no two people in this topic are likely talking about exactly the same thing, even though they're all using the same word.

[dazzleman]

Well thank you for disagreeing with Frodo.  What do u mean by "aggressive rejection of certain types of morality?"

just that you aggressively reject the moral teachings of the Christian religion, and that you are, in my opinion, overcorrecting for some of the extremism inherent in Catholic moral teaching by adopting NARAL-type extremism, which in my opinion is worse.

I don't think this makes you an immoral person, as I said.  I think you're in a reaction phase right now, which is not unusual.  It's something I went through also.

[dazzleman]

Dazzle, I'm a bit curious as to why you regard me moral; perhaps if you knew me more personally you'd know about my fits of rage where I want to kill people over minor things.

Well, I have fits of rage too sometimes, so don't feel too bad.

It's just an overall impression I have from the tone of your posts.  Of course, I don't really know you; I can only form a superficial impression.  But I don't recall seeing you take an aggressive anti-Christian position, and I have not seen you argue that morals are for ignorant old people, as some Democrats do in both cases.

[Jake]

Most: Jake

Whoa, maybe I need to start posting my personal life on the forum so y'all know what I'm actually like

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

OKCupid says that I'm both more moral and less spiritual than most people.

[dazzleman]

Most: Jake

Whoa, maybe I need to start posting my personal life on the forum so y'all know what I'm actually like

What do you have going on that will make people believe that you're not moral?  Sounds as if it could be interesting!

[angus]

Possibly, but we can take as a start the standard Merriam-Webster:  concerned with the difference between right and wrong.  I agree that it's a little hard to pick a most moral, but there's clearly a consensus on least.  Just to throw another monkey wrench in, I'd offer up Nym90 as a good choice for most moral as well.  That said, no I do not imply that union support = morality.  That'd be as silly as virginity = morality.  Perhaps it's just coincidence.  But one can make the case that one goes out of his way to support unions or stay a virgin precisely out of a strong sense of right and wrong.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm definitely not a big fan of Unions or of Virginity.  But then my thinking is probably closer to Dick Cheney than Saint Francis of Assisi anyway, and in any case I certainly haven't claimed any moral leverage over anyone else.  I only aim to speak up when I hear ambulance-chasing shysters like John Edwards claiming moral leverage over businessmen like Cheney.  Truth be told, they're both capable of being assholes.  I am more a fan of the ocassional reality check than anything else.  And it's important to remind folks that just because you've been convicted three times of DWI and you don't support welfare and workers unions and your oil-drilling company gets a no-bid sweetheart deal from the your best friend's son, now president, doesn't make you anti-morality.  (Okay, I'll stop picking on Cheney, but he is such an easy target isn't he?  But then so is John Edwards.  This is why neither of them are at the top of the ticket.  Suffice it to say that neither Cheney nor Edwards would make the "Most Moral" shortlist.  I'll leave Bush and Kerry out of this.  For the moment.)

[dazzleman]

And it's important to remind folks that just because you've been convicted three times of DWI and you don't support welfare and workers unions and your oil-drilling company gets a no-bid sweetheart deal from the your best friend's son, now president, doesn't make you anti-morality. 

Has Cheney really been convicted 3 times of DWI?  I guess he doesn't have to worry about that now that he has a government chauffeur.

I wonder why this was never publicized the way Bush's DWI was publicized.

BTW, haven't you mentioned that you've been busted for DWI more than once?  Isn't there a little bit of the pot calling the kettle black here?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And it's important to remind folks that just because you've been convicted three times of DWI and you don't support welfare and workers unions and your oil-drilling company gets a no-bid sweetheart deal from the your best friend's son, now president, doesn't make you anti-morality. 

Has Cheney really been convicted 3 times of DWI?  I guess he doesn't have to worry about that now that he has a government chauffeur.

I wonder why this was never publicized the way Bush's DWI was publicized.

BTW, haven't you mentioned that you've been busted for DWI more than once?  Isn't there a little bit of the pot calling the kettle black here?

It was twice, you mindless Cheney bashers.

Seriously now, the Bush one got more attention because
1. He was 30
2. He was at the top of the ticket
3. He had tried to cover it up
4. Cheney's were DUIs, which might be slightly less serious

On the other hand, Cheney managed to get busted in Wyoming in 1960. That takes skills.

[dazzleman]

It was twice, you mindless Cheney bashers.

Seriously now, the Bush one got more attention because
1. He was 30
2. He was at the top of the ticket
3. He had tried to cover it up
4. Cheney's were DUIs, which might be slightly less serious

On the other hand, Cheney managed to get busted in Wyoming in 1960. That takes skills.

1960?  So he must have been about 18 years old at the time.  No wonder nobody really cares.  I don't want to be judged by some of the things I did at 18 even now, never mind when I'm past 60 years old.

When was he busted for DWI most recently?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It was twice, you mindless Cheney bashers.

Seriously now, the Bush one got more attention because
1. He was 30
2. He was at the top of the ticket
3. He had tried to cover it up
4. Cheney's were DUIs, which might be slightly less serious

On the other hand, Cheney managed to get busted in Wyoming in 1960. That takes skills.

1960?  So he must have been about 18 years old at the time.  No wonder nobody really cares.  I don't want to be judged by some of the things I did at 18 even now, never mind when I'm past 60 years old.

When was he busted for DWI most recently?

I'm not sure of the years, but Cheney was 21 and 22 when he got busted. Bush got busted in 1976, just 2 years before he ran for Congress.

[angus]

Interestingly, it is our own Least Moral poster who often compared himself favorably to VP Cheney.  Both his line of thinking and his physical attributes.  I distinctly remember several posts in which the "old opebo" (i.e., the Pre-Epiphany opebo) waxed fondly of our Vice President.  Of course, I do not mean to imply that our honorable vice president is as amoral as opebo.  It's just an interesting coincidence.  To be fair, the old opebo didn't like edwards any more than the new opebo does.  Not that Edwards is any more moral.  Just less likable.  Don't confuse morality with personability either.  History shows that morality doesn't win you many friends.  Lots of nice people get into trouble once in a while.  Hell, jesus managed to get himself crucified, after all.  In the literal sense!

Dazzleman, like Bush, I've only been arrested for DWI once.  And unlike Bush, I was never convicted.  That's what lawyers are for.  Hey, I never said Democrats are useless.  Obviously they have their place.  Mainly when you need good, but unscrupulous legal, representation.  Yeah, like O.J., I'm a big fan of the Democrats when it comes to hiring an attorney.

[TeePee4Prez]

Well thank you for disagreeing with Frodo.  What do u mean by "aggressive rejection of certain types of morality?"

just that you aggressively reject the moral teachings of the Christian religion, and that you are, in my opinion, overcorrecting for some of the extremism inherent in Catholic moral teaching by adopting NARAL-type extremism, which in my opinion is worse.

I don't think this makes you an immoral person, as I said.  I think you're in a reaction phase right now, which is not unusual.  It's something I went through also.

Well, I feel I've had such teachings shoved down my throat.  Maybe I am a bit overcorrecting, but I don't buy everything NARAL says.  For example, I do oppose PBA except for life and physical health of the mother. 

[Citizen James]

Rather hard to say, as I know little to nothing of the personal lives of the other posters here.  (other than perhaps the longstanding joke that many post so often they have no lives).

The rule of resprocisity (aka the golden rule) is probably the closest there is to a universal morality. 

Ideological consistancy (that is, not being a hypocrite - which is a lot harder than people realize if they take an hard and fast look at things) is often considered a valuable quality.

Then there's the question of knowledge.  (I suppose you could call it innocence).  Does a lack of understanding consequences assuage someone from guilt, or is it independent?  An toddler with a gun is a dangerous thing, especially since they don't understand the consequences.   Would that also apply to the menally ill, or confused, or simply ignorant.   If a person was raised on hatered and intollerance, and is not familiar with the historical and cultural background of the scriptures they find holy are they moral for believing what they were taught, immoral for preaching intollerance, or simply confused and confuddled?

I do my best to live a moral life, the best I know how.   To try and put the sort of soul searching that underlies trying to do so, well, I don't think I can.  It's a deeply personal thing for each one of us.   

I think the best any of us can do is try to do our best to live well with what we know.

That's my opinion on the matter anyway.

[opebo]

I also have some fierce, explosive gas right now.  Probably from that Japanese Tou Fu we got from Wal-Mart instead of the usual chinese stuff we get.  Azumaya extra firm.  Definitely not recommended.  Stick with the Wu Chong brand.  Anyway, this all deserves a better response than I'm capable of giving in my current bloated, humorless state.  Hasta luego.

Eating food from Walmart will of course cause gas.  In fact American food in general causes all sorts of horrible gastrointestinal problems - no doubt due to not being fresh, and all the processing.  I can't wait to get back to the land of Real Food!

[Jake]

Because all American food comes pre-packaged, pre-cooked, and well past its date of freshness.

[opebo]

Because all American food comes pre-packaged, pre-cooked, and well past its date of freshness.

All I can say is I have gastrointestinal problems here fairly often - there virtually never.

[Jake]

Personal problem most likely or maybe your family eats sh**tty food.

[Emsworth]

My example of a 45-year-old man sexually abusing a child is a good illustration of bedrock moral standards.  Opebo claims that my disapproval of this is strictly subjective.  But he fails to look at the reasons I may disapprove of it.  I disapprove of it because a child is most likely unable to defend himself/herself against unwanted advances, and such sexual contact at a very young age is emotionally devastating for the child, and can harm him/her for life.

Okay, now I will accept that this is immoral. But that is my personal view, which need not necessarily apply to everyone else.

The fundamental problem is that there are numerous different definitions of morality. Some people define it in terms of harm done to others. Others define it based on religious scripture. Still others use logical forumlations such as Kant's categorical imperative. How can we decide which standard to use to determine what is moral or immoral? The answer: we can't. Everyone will judge morality by different standards; therefore, there is no universal morality.

Consider the case of killing, which I'm sure you agree is a heinous and "immoral" action. Some may see the death penalty as moral. Some may see war as moral. Some may see abortion as moral (strange as such a view may seem). In all these cases, different people have, by applying different standards, arrived at different definitions of morality.

Of course, in the case of child molestation, it is very difficult to imagine a standard under which one would deem such an action moral. But, objectively, there could theoretically be such a standard. Hence, the notion that there is one set of objective morals that governs all of society fails, simply because morals, by their very nature, are subjective judgments.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Certainly: that is your conception of morality. Someone else's conception may be different, and we cannot objectively say that one is inherently superior.