The nature of religon

Originally Posted by SMX

I'm basically saying that your responds gave away some huge flags on how your mind probably evaluates 'right' and 'wrong.' Because I didn't want to get off topic, which I will if I took the time to arugue against your statement, I just said nevermind.

Minion was saying that your interpretation of what actions might and might not affect other people can vary from person to person, and as such, that sort of standard ("only you can be the judge of whether what you do is right and wrong") is an unreliable system within which to work in.
:ReadingComprehension101:

Let us use an example: Porn.

It is the common understanding that there is nothing wrong with looking at pornography, and is in fact something natural. We need to "flush our prostate" or whatever crap people say. Not only that, but it doesn't hurt anyone else. Right? No one is harmed.



BUT! that is not true. Pornography has a significant effect upon your ability to make lasting and worthwhile relationships with people of the opposite sex. Pornography can make you objectify the other sex, so that they are nothing but a hunk of sex-meat. Or pornography can make you have problems with intimacy, because you are used to associating sex with images, and nothing truly physical. And there are numerous other reasons why pornography is wrong.
Nonetheless, your spouse is significantly harmed by these problems. So, what usually would not be considered harful to others, is in fact, harmful to others.
There are numerous other things which have already been said to be unwise through various religious contexts (like Christianity), which people usually deny as being unwise, when in fact these religions were right all along.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Religion has a lot of potential functions.

On a personal level, I believe it is the human brain's attempt to battle despair.

You see, since we (generally) have the ability to reason out our own existence and make sense of our life's situation, we soon come to wonder "why?" For some reason we want to find meaning and purpose in everything. Most of us are not content with simply existing, we want meaning to exist. In all my pondering, I cannot figure out why we desire meaning in everything. I for one know that if I do something that would ordinarily be enjoyable for too long, I get anxious - not bored. I feel that I have to do something that I find productive, even if only subjectively so.

That said, I believe that each and every one of us has some type of subjective belief that gives ultimate purpose to our overall existence. This is often religion, as most (if not all, I don't know) include some concept of a conscious existence after death, and generally this existence is greater - or at least vastly different - than the previous life. Nevertheless we will face something more magnificent after life; this may or may not be based on how well we performed during life.

As an atheist (perhaps nihilist); I often question my existence and at varying intervals realize that THERE IS NO MEANING. When I realize this and fully grasp the weight of this truth, I usually despair.

Why is there no meaning to life? It's actually somewhat of a paradox:

• Imagine starting to read a book. Although the book appears to have definite size and fits in your hand, you find that no matter how many pages you turn, you're always somewhere in the middle of the book. You read this book for years and years. Things happen to the characters, the settings change, events occur. But as you continue to read, you get frustrated. It's neverending!
  Why is it so frustrating? You cannot draw a conclusion from it. It has no end; thus it - as a whole - has no meaning. Parts of it do, but they ultimately build up to nothing.
  This would be the nature of everlasting life or ceaseless consciousness. It is meaningless because it does not end.
• But what if you do die? Does that give meaning to your life? Some say you can find immortality by making history. But history in itself is only temporary. All will be lost to time. What is important now; what is important for hundreds of years could be trivial in the face of an ever-increasing history. Even if you made history that lasted for as long as there were beings to study it, it's ultimately useless.
  This universe is doomed. It's going to collapse; rip apart, reach maximum entropy, or all of the above, and all history will be erased.
  And if it wasn't erased, would it matter? If the universe were everlasting; it would be meaningless in itself, and for the reasons stated above.

That which is temporary and that which is everlasting is equally meaningless. Cool, huh?

The mind does not like to despair. It might be accurate to say that this is necessary by nature; if a creature despairs, it will let itself waste away. From an evolutionary aspect, survival is key to existence, so despair is a no-go for any organism with the slightest ability to reason. The mind does not want to deal with the meaningless of its existence, and it will find a way to avoid it if possible. This includes creating a false reality or refusing to let go of nonsensical or illogical reality (often times, religion.)

Religion of course has multiple purposes, so besides being the mental enemy of despair, many other things tag along with it. Some of them are good for the mind/body, others are negative but necessary. I - knowing my existence carries no purpose - sometimes wish I could still have religion. Unfortunately, my mind's logic, subjective or not, rejects it.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I surprisingly agree with a lot of what you are saying.
However, I believe that (and this is semi-cyclical reasoning, I know) there is a reason for us desiring a reason and meaning for our life. Obviously, without meaning and reason, we despair, as you say. This is no good. There is a purpose for our despairing after "realizing" that there is no meaning in our life.

It is because it is not true, and we know it!

The conclusion that life is meaningless is at odds with something at the very core of our being, and this battle within causes the despair. It seems that we are designed to not be able to cope with meaningless.

Solomon pretty much said the exact same thing as you in Ecclesiastes. He basically said "All life is meaningless, and all pursuits are in vain, for all things are forgotten and pass away." That way of thinking is nothing new. But, Solomon realized that there IS something which gives meaning to our lives, and that is through the one who designed us to despair without Him.

It seems to me that your conclusion that "life is meaningless" is a dangerously premature one. How can you know that with certainty? It would seem more logical to say that we are not meant to believe that, because that causes despair.

As soon as you allow yourself to enter into that slight loop of reasoning, it all becomes clear.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Well I basically supported my "premature" conclusion with the paradox:
It would be impossible to draw meaning from that which has not ended.
Anything that has ended will eventually be lost to time, therefore it is the same as if it had never existed. The amount of time it takes for this point to be reached is indefinite, however still logically/scientifically proven.

Quote:

It is because it is not true, and we know it!

I do not believe we are born with the inherent belief that life has meaning.

My only guess as to why we seek meaning in everything is because our brain realizes the trend that is finding meaning in things. Throughout life, there are lessons to be learned. Some of them can be called subjective ("Don't talk back to your mother, she will slap you if you do"; applies to some but not all), and some of them are pretty much objective ("Don't touch fire, it will be painful"; if this is not true for someone, I'd like to meet them).

At a very early age our brain notices that learning is essential to avoid pain and seek pleasure; and part of learning is logically reasoning out meaning from events that don't have obvious meaning. Learning about the nature of mankind cannot be determined with a single burn or slap, it takes years of fuzzy logic and observation; and it can change on a whim when another aspect is shown. Fire will always burn if you touch it, this will never change unless part of you is paralyzed.

Unlike other animals (arguably) we can actually decode our own existence. A dog, for example, is not intelligent enough to psychologically analyze itself. It is too simple for this. It cannot despair out of lack of life's meaning, for it most likely does NOT take the time to ask itself the meaning of life.

Humans are different. Thanks to our advanced intelligence, it would make sense to say that we will one day figure out how our brain works in its entirety, so much that we will be able to duplicate it programmatically. It's actually somewhat of an ironic thing that we can do that.

Because of this, and because of the trend that is "events have meaning" (this is especially apparent in the fact that we try to derive meaning from things that don't even necessarily have it. For example, some try to take objects that appear in dreams as means of predicting the future, when scientific evidence shows dreams are actually compilations of past thoughts), we want to find meaning that which is most important - life. Not so much our life, but our very consciousness. Our thoughts and feelings and experiences, we believe they must mean something because everything else seems to mean something.

I wonder if all people even reach the stage of "life is meaningless", even briefly. Surely people question religion or any other belief, but do any of them actually think that life is meaningless? I know I've brought it up to a few people, and their reaction was basically, "Oh come on, that's ridiculous!" It was almost as if they had never considered it; like they assumed life had meaning, they just didn't know which meaning it was or what it was at all.

So what happens when the ultimate trend - the trend that an event equals a meaning - has no application to the very "IS" that is consciousness? For most people, nothing precedes consciousness. It is all there is; the one thing that can be grasped, that can be proven ("I think, therefore I am"). Even if our life were a long dream, even if our life was someone else's dream, existence is existence; pleasure is pleasure; pain is pain.

Brain and mind can't handle it; the ultimate trend has no application to consciousness. It can't be true. Maybe for some other events, but existence in itself? The mind shuts down; the mind despairs. Why live? It's lived not only because it can, physically, but because it thought it was going somewhere, but it's not. It's trapped. This is the limit; the end of the road.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Existentialism man, existentialism is where it's at. ;D

Also, I believe that the first statment in your paradox is insubstantiable.
Nor can you really substantiate your next claim either. You say logically and scientifically as if they were the same thing. However, there have been numerous instances where what is scientifically proven has not always conformed to what seems logical at the time.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

So can one reasonably say there are some scientific explanations that defy logic?

I'd say there are some that concepts that would seem illogical, but when broken down into the smallest chunks of logic, could not be claimed to be illogical.

My paradox, however, is not science (most likely cannot be), it is raw philosophy. I can only support it with logical reasoning, which is inherently subjective. I trive to illustrate the concept in an earlier post.

Since it is impractical to prove a universal negative, these are only ideas at best. I can only support them with logic.

That said, I've seen you discredit some of my key philosophical concept, but I don't see any substantiations behind your rebuttal. I know that it cannot be proven; if it could, then it wouldn't be philosophy. So what are your arguments against my paradox besides the mere idea that it cannot be proven?

FELIPE NO

Yes, things that would seem illogical at first but are defied by science make more logical sense after a closer analysis. And my point is that you would not know for sure if your logic is complete. You are not entirely sure that you have broken it down to the most elemental details.

As for the paradox once again. Like you said, it is impractical to try and prove a universal negative. However, though you may be able to support them with logic, I do not believe they are supported by complete logic. Meaning, all the possibilities have not been considered, and thus are not reasonable a priori notions to start with.

You say for example that it is impossible to draw meaning from something that is not complete. However, my contention is that is an invalid claim, not entirely supported by a consideration of all possibilities.
For example, God could come to the world and say "This is your purpose in life. This is why you live." Then, we would have to admit that it IS possible for us to know the meaning of our lives even before we see the end, right? Disproof by counterexample. Let us not get into the argument of whether God HAS done this or not just yet (although I would like to say right now, that I do believe this is the case)

As for the following axiom:
"Anything that has ended will eventually be lost to time, therefore it is the same as if it had never existed. The amount of time it takes for this point to be reached is indefinite, however still logically/scientifically proven."

First of all, although it sounds really cool philosophically to say "anything that has ended will eventually be lost to time," that is a logically incoherent statement. How can something be lost to time? Do you mean the memory of someone or something? This may be true. But that would nonetheless be a logical falsehood if you are implying that the world would not be any different if such a thing(or someone) had not existed. Perhaps my decision to pee in the woods might not be affected by whether there were 3 or 2 rocks for me to hide behind as I pissed, but those are small things, bearing little impact on the universe as a whole. However, the human life is still a very powerful thing, regardless of whether anyone remembers your name and what you did. You still had an impact on the world around you.
Just because someone doesn't remember you completely doesn't mean that you did not make a difference.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Fyodor D.

Yes, things that would seem illogical at first but are defied by science make more logical sense after a closer analysis. And my point is that you would not know for sure if your logic is complete. You are not entirely sure that you have broken it down to the most elemental details.

I believe this is true with any philosophical argument. The limitations of personal human experience, intelligence, reasoning, and objectivity make any argument valid only up to a point. That said, any argument that is not apparently logically unsound should NOT be disregarded on that basis alone. If there were no limitations to the validity, it would be a truth and not a philosophy. No philosophy is 100% true.

Originally Posted by Fyodor D.

As for the paradox once again. Like you said, it is impractical to try and prove a universal negative. However, though you may be able to support them with logic, I do not believe they are supported by complete logic. Meaning, all the possibilities have not been considered, and thus are not reasonable a priori notions to start with.

It is impossible to consider all possibilities, as there are an infinite number of possibilites to consider. Again, subjectivity comes into play when I try to consider any possibility that I think is valid. That is my only choice. If you think I have missed a valid possibility, you should mention it.

Originally Posted by Fyodor D.

You say for example that it is impossible to draw meaning from something that is not complete. However, my contention is that is an invalid claim, not entirely supported by a consideration of all possibilities.
For example, God could come to the world and say "This is your purpose in life. This is why you live." Then, we would have to admit that it IS possible for us to know the meaning of our lives even before we see the end, right? Disproof by counterexample. Let us not get into the argument of whether God HAS done this or not just yet (although I would like to say right now, that I do believe this is the case)

This is a tricky thing to bring up because it involves the notion that a higher being responsible for the existence of the universe(s) and humanity exists. This is a separate debate in itself, so I feel there is no way for me to argue against this without bringing up the age-old topic of "Does God exist?" That would be beating not only a dead horse but the descendents of a dead horse. However, it is true to say that only way this could happen is for God to exist. Not only that, but God would have to truly have a meaning for our existence and not be bullshitting. This sounds terribly sacriligious, perhap to you. The nature of God is up for debate; some believe he has intelligence on par with a human's but the power to create worlds (I could believe this if I believed in a God; humans will eventually create an AI which could very likely be sentient and could very likely be almost as smart if not as smart as we, yet we would still be in control of the on/off switch. We would be Gods, but superior only by our physical power.) Some believe he's greater than us in ever aspect.

This to me presents a circular argument that would be similar to the following dialogue; I say something is true or false based on a set of evidence, you say but what if the opposite is true or false based on other evidence, and I once again say that something is true or false based on a set amount of evidence.

I actually don't know how to approach this criticism without getting into the debate of if God exists. Basically if God (as I'm assuming you defined him) existed, I would be totally wrong. If he didn't, then my argument still stands. But the evidence for/against God is pretty even, so there's no where to go in any direction besides arguing if God does or doesn't exist, which is just as circular.

Originally Posted by Fyodor D.

As for the following axiom:
"Anything that has ended will eventually be lost to time, therefore it is the same as if it had never existed. The amount of time it takes for this point to be reached is indefinite, however still logically/scientifically proven."

First of all, although it sounds really cool philosophically to say "anything that has ended will eventually be lost to time," that is a logically incoherent statement. How can something be lost to time? Do you mean the memory of someone or something? This may be true. But that would nonetheless be a logical falsehood if you are implying that the world would not be any different if such a thing(or someone) had not existed. Perhaps my decision to pee in the woods might not be affected by whether there were 3 or 2 rocks for me to hide behind as I pissed, but those are small things, bearing little impact on the universe as a whole. However, the human life is still a very powerful thing, regardless of whether anyone remembers your name and what you did. You still had an impact on the world around you.
Just because someone doesn't remember you completely doesn't mean that you did not make a difference.

Any action/event will have an impact on something or someone, which will trickle unto something/someone until that tiny action has perhaps impacted the universe. I believe this is where "the Butterfly Effect" term originates; how the smallest thing can set off a large thing. That said, anything I do will essentially impact the universe, albeit in a subjectively significant way; the removal of any given event would most likely drastically alter the course of time, but the effects would most likely not be immediate.

Nevertheless, the universe's existence - from a scientific point of view - is finite. Unless God exists or a greater being can stop the universe from constantly expanding, it will, based on current science, reach maximum entropy and all will be frozen forever. This cannot be said to be the actual destruction of the universe, but it does end all possibilities for life or any other kind of action to ever occur. Other models say the universe will collapse; some say it will rip apart. But it is true that the universe is ever-expanding, and since matter cannot be created or destroyed, maximum entropy would be the most obvious end.

Any impact I make on the world or universe is temporary and ultimately pointless; if it is not pointless now or even hundreds of years from now, it will be in several billion when my action no longer has anything to impact and when the impact is no longer existant.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Minion

I don't think you would be going off topic much by answering my question. It's a simple question. How do you know your preception of right and wrong or what "affects people" is valid?

A better question would be, how do the alleged dictators of right and wrong, like society, religion, whatever, know its understanding of right and wrong is valid?

In order for me to respond more appropriately, I’d have to get into the nature of right and wrong, not so much religion. I really don’t feel like doing that.

Originally Posted by Fyodor D

Minion was saying that your interpretation of what actions might and might not affect other people can vary from person to person, and as such, that sort of standard ("only you can be the judge of whether what you do is right and wrong") is an unreliable system within which to work in…

I understand what he’s saying. I’m choosing to back off because to continue forward would mean opening up a can of worms I don’t feel like getting into. But, I can’t resist this one:

Take your porn scenario for example. On what basis do you have to say that porn causes people to develop intimacy issues, the fact that a correlation exists? This may be true, but I’ll never forget this scenario purpose to be me before:

Let’s say you were driving to work on the freeway. You happen to notice ten broken down cars on the road. In every instance a person was sitting on the hood of the car. They also were all taking to someone on their phone. Is it logical to assume that because they are all talking to someone on the hood of their car, that this is the cause of their car breaking down?

Now, let’s apply this to porn. Is it that porn is causing these things to happen. Or, is that indulging in porn is the affect of greater issues within people. Is it unreasonable to assume that people who already have underlining intimacy issue for reasons totally outside of pornography turn to porn because it allows them to be sexually satisfied without having to be intimate with another person? Who’s to say what is what, objectively? It not as easy as saying “there are numerous other reasons why pornography is wrong” because ‘wrong’ is variable.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by SMX

I understand what he’s saying. I’m choosing to back off because to continue forward would mean opening up a can of worms I don’t feel like getting into. But, I can’t resist this one:

Take your porn scenario for example. On what basis do you have to say that porn causes people to develop intimacy issues, the fact that a correlation exists? This may be true, but I’ll never forget this scenario purpose to be me before:

Let’s say you were driving to work on the freeway. You happen to notice ten broken down cars on the road. In every instance a person was sitting on the hood of the car. They also were all taking to someone on their phone. Is it logical to assume that because they are all talking to someone on the hood of their car, that this is the cause of their car breaking down?

Now, let’s apply this to porn. Is it that porn is causing these things to happen. Or, is that indulging in porn is the affect of greater issues within people. Is it unreasonable to assume that people who already have underlying intimacy issue for reasons totally outside of pornography turn to porn because it allows them to be sexually satisfied without having to be intimate with another person? Who’s to say what is what, objectively? It not as easy as saying “there are numerous other reasons why pornography is wrong” because ‘wrong’ is variable.

I am VERY familiar with correlation/causation issues. This is almost my dad's whole life as an insurance company pharmaceutical policymaker, and I hear it a lot. Anyways, I can assure you that pornography is a CAUSE for intimacy problems, not a correlation, or an effect of intimicay issues. This is exactly what Minion was saying. You clearly would not want to admit that pornography is a cause of problems.

Anyways, just to back up my claim that it is a correlation, not a causation. What brings something from correlation status to causation status in a purely scientific inquiry is, in this case, a significantly high amount of absence of said effect (intimacy issues) in those people who have not participated in the act in question(pornography viewing). Which is the case as well. Therefore, it is logical to conclude causation, not just correlation.

Don't talk to me about analyzing data and problems. I know full well how to do this.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I wonder if I'm the only person that sees that you still haven't explained how pornography causes intimacy issues. You basically just said because it happens frequently, you consider it a causation. But, I guess that's another topic.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

That would require more time than I have got right now.
Which is the main reason why i have not responded to Legato's post either.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by SMX

A better question would be, how do the alleged dictators of right and wrong, like society, religion, whatever, know its understanding of right and wrong is valid?

In order for me to respond more appropriately, I’d have to get into the nature of right and wrong, not so much religion. I really don’t feel like doing that.

Well, since you can't answer any of my questions, I'll answer one of yours.

http://www.obscenitycrimes.org/clineart.cfm

Most amazing jew boots

I really admire how you probably sat there actively chose to use the word "can't" instead of the more accurate word "won't", cute. Thanks for the article though, I'll read when I get off work.

Most amazing jew boots

Ah, I see. It's not that you have trouble communicating your ideas; just that you are far too brilliant to bother with such a trifle as me.

Enjoy the article. I hope you find that it is not beneath your intellectual requirements.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Minion

Ah, I see. It's not that you have trouble communicating your ideas; just that you are far too brilliant to bother with such a trifle as me.

Pick one!

[_] Man, it’s boring
[_] Duuuuuuuuuuuuh
[y] Incapable of seeing the obvious
[_] What!?

Originally Posted by Minion

Enjoy the article. I hope you find that it is not beneath your intellectual requirements.

I didn't. But I loved how it was mostly about addictions to pornography and not how/why porn - itself - is bad. I mean, usually when something becomes an addiction, it tends to be bad. But I don't know man. What do you hold responsible, the person or the object? Don’t bother answering that, because ‘the answer’ isn't even relevant to the topic. The fact that multiple angles exists of seeing the issue, without something to arbitrate what's 'wrong' absolutely, still backs up my original point. You can't just say it's wrong. You can say, "I understand it as wrong because [insert reasoning]."

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Yeah, I would say that it's the addiction to pornography, here, that is bad. Pornography in and of itself is pretty benign. Pornography can cause an addiction to pornography, which can cause a lot of intimacy issues. The argument is that seeing pornography once in a great while and watching pornography rather than finding a mate is like the difference between a few drinks on a Saturday night with friends and drinking at ten in the morning.

So, I would argue that pornography causes problems indirectly.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

was mostly about addictions to pornography and not how/why porn - itself - is bad.

Are ya sure you read the article?

Quote:

THE EFFECTS OF NON-VIOLENT PORNOGRAPHY

...

Additionally, empirical research suggests that when experimental subjects are exposed to repeated presentations of hardcore non-violent adult pornography over a six-week period, they:


Develop an increased callousness toward women; trivialize rape as a criminal offense; to some it was no longer a crime at all;

Develop distorted perceptions about sexuality;

Develop an appetite for more deviant, bizarre, or violent types of pornography (escalation); normal sex no longer seemed to "do the job;"

Devalue the importance of monogamy and lack confidence in marriage as a lasting institution; and

View non-monogamous relationships as normal and natural behavior.




(Zillman, D., and Bryant, J. "Pornography's Impact on Sexual Satisfaction." Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1988: vol 18, no. 5, pp 438-453; and Zillman, D., and Bryant, J., "Effects of Prolonged Consumption of Pornography on Family Values." Journal of Family Issues (Dec. 1988): vol. 9, no. 4, pp 518-544.).

Additionally, it doesn't take a genius to see how giving young women - some not very far from being children - the opportunity to make money by allowing themselves to be exploited is damaging.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Ummm, you do know that the context of that piece was still in reference too those addicted to pornography, right?

Quote:

The issue which has caught the attention of some behavioral scientists is whether it is the violence or the sex that is doing most of the "harm" when it is fused together in so-called aggressive pornography or porno-violence. Some will say, "Just eliminate the violence. The sex is OK."

^The thesis of the selection that you conveniently chose not to quote.

What’s being deciphered here is “harm,” in which “harm” is being defined as the effects of addiction previously mentioned in the essay. ANYTHING can be detrimental when it become an addiction. This does not necessarily make it inherently wrong, absolutely. Fuck.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

First, that selection you quote is not the thesis. That is the ANTITHESIS of their intended thesis.
They first said:
"some say there will be no problem if you take out the violence" (antithesis)

But then went on to contest that idea:
"Most therapists, however, as well as most ordinary citizens, would not regard the following examples as healthy models of sexual behavior, but all are frequently depicted in "non-violent" pornography:"
list
"All of the above, while lacking violence, still have the potential of having negative effects on some viewers because they model unhealthy sex role behavior or give false information about human sexuality. Additionally, non-violent porn can contribute to acquiring a great variety of sexual addictions."

And no, in regards to your comments about addiction. Because it is not just the fact of addiction which is the primary detrimental aspect.
They SAY addiction, but that is the only due to the fact that it is the most convenient way of describing consistent exposure.

Let us also not forget the pornography is inherently addictive.


NONETHELESS, after all of this bullshit, Minion's point still stands that what you THINK is not harmful to anyone, is in fact harmful. THUS your own opinions are not a reliable source for a moral code.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Man, you must really enjoy arguing. Because now, you’re just nitpicking.

So I didn’t use the formally correct term for thesis. Well whoop-dee-doo. If you want to be a prick, and call out ridiculous technicalities, technically, an antithesis is still a fucking thesis. It’s just a thesis that opposes the opposition’s. That’s exactly what I fucking said in my post. Are we really so hung up on totally stupid and irrelevant shit, that w.e. h.a.v.e. t.o. s.p.e.l.l. o.u.t. e.v.e.r.y. f.u.c.k.i.n.g t.h.i.n.g. l.i.k.e. t.h.i.s?

As far as causation goes, you guys line of logic is the same line of logic that asserts that video games and music “causes” violence. You can even think that it does if you want. I don’t care, I really don’t. I’m saying that it’s not as black and white as you’re making it out to be on the objective scale, damn. The gray area is what line of influence from an object “causes” the problem. This is the reason why I didn’t want to get into with you people that always think in absolute terms. You people consistently miss very basic points, take totally irrelevant crap, and beat a dead horse with it. Am I saying:

Person A analyzes a situation, whether it’s porn or whatever.
Person A concludes result A is ‘right.’

Person B analyzes the same situation, same facts.
Person B concludes that result B is ‘right.’

Without an objective entity (note not necessarily even ‘god’ because an objective entity could be something like the laws of physics) evaluating one of them as ‘right’ or 'wrong' their conclusions are relative to their analysis of ‘what is.’

I don’t care if you consider porn to be wrong or not. My point wasn’t even to say that porn is some perfectly angelical gift of sex viewing that does absolutely no harm to anyone in any instance. My point was to say that porn, in your opinion is wrong TO YOU because of your line of reason. I don’t agree with your line of reason, in the respect of it being a 'cause', no. But unlike you people, I’m not even trying to say that my line of reasoning is the ‘right one.’ Out of nowhere, you people keep assuming that I am. That’s why I didn’t bother answers Minion’s retarded question. His question assumed something that I never even declared in the first place. It’s like someone asking me “what’s the best shade of blue” when I JUST got done talking about how there is no best.

FINALLY, even your last statement isn't as black and white as you're making it to be. Yes, my own opinions of 'right' and 'wrong' are not going to be consistent with everybody. Get off the fucking notion that I think it will be, I never said it would. But is this conflict any different when society, religion, culture, or whatever says something is 'right' and 'wrong' and another group opposes this notion then have all out wars about it? Who's too say which one is better? What statically defines 'best' as you put it?

Because of this, fundementally what this thread is going to boil down to is right and wrong relative or absolute? Out of the 3 years I've been reading this forum, It's been done to death and I'm sick of even reading about it, let alone writing about it.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

No, it is not being nitpicky for you to give improper labels to these things, and then me to call you out on them. Especially as soon as it gets to the level of detail and specificity that we have gotten to.

Also, you had set a universal, yes fucking universal, means by which one is to arrive at their own morality:
"However, genuinely self-effacing people actually take the time to sit there and realize how their actions have negative effects on people. Same people don't need people/religion/society/whatever telling them something is 'wrong,' but reach their on conclusions on 'wrong' based on how it affects people."

The point still stands that your univeral guide by which someone should divine their morality (basically, judge by how it affects people) is flawed, because how YOU think something may affect other people, may not necessarily be correct, as is the OBVIOUS case with pornography. So, given your example of person A and person B: Person A has some background information that Person B does not have, and as such causes him to conclude A. Upon educating Person B with said background information, he concludes A as well. This would imply that it is not just about each individual person's opinion we are left with, but in fact matters of information, and an informed morality will inevitably proceed towards an objective one, as it would be the most complete one.

With your system, people can be deliberately and selectively ignorant, and then do whatever they want, because their self-designed morality permits it. Are they then justified in this act? No, because, whether the persons want to admit it, or are even aware of it or not, their actions could have a negative impact on other peoples.
Lets dig up another example: Suppose a pedophile (like the infamous "sarah" from the previous times) justifies that it is okay to have sex with children because they are in fact sexually aware people, and also have the ability to make conscious decisions in regards to sexuality. Not only that, but he feels that he is doing a service for these children by helping them mature faster.
Now, according to your system Person A (let us say, me) would judge that sex with children is wrong for a crapload of reasons.
However, Person B ("sarah") does not think so.

Is Person B then justified in enacting sexual relations with minors?

Also, we are not missing your "very basic points," we just see them as terribly, pratically flawed, and overly simplistic.

Most amazing jew boots

SMX, you're coming dangerously close to being a troll. Between that rock solid skull of yours, your refusual to argue when pressed and your condescending insulting tone, I'm starting to think that you might do well with a warning.

Most amazing jew boots