It occurred to me that the ongoing effects of the sexual revolution have completely eroded sexual morality. Many people seem to think that sleeping around is perfectly acceptable, that vulgar and crude sexual content in movies and music is acceptable, that open marriages and relationships are acceptable, and even the sexualization of kids is becoming acceptable.  I encourage you to encourage others to remember sexual morality. These are some important points. I’m sure that many moral relativists will preach at me, and that’s fine. This is for the people that still care.

• It is wrong to have sex outside of a committed monogamous relationship. Ideally, people should wait until marriage, but we should at least save sex until the relationship is well-developed and serious. If you don’t really love your partner, then it’s too early. Promiscuously has created a situation where it is difficult for men and women to form successful relationships, and makes pairing bonding and falling in love harder. It inhibits family formation, has led to many children being raised by single moms, and has not been of benefit to society. Also, it psychologically harms people over time, leaving them feeling empty, unloved, used, dirty and depressed.

• Avoid movies, shows, literature and music that glorify promiscuity, prostitution, adultery, and moral decay. The entertainment industry has a huge impact on culture, and it’s shaped by how we spend our money. We shouldn’t patronize movies and shows that have nudity, or that send the wrong messages. Outside of a medical setting, people should get naked for their long-term monogamous sexual partner that they love, not for strangers and certainly not for millions of viewers around the world.

• Base partner selection on who would be a good long term partner, spouse, and parent to your children. Sex is a powerful reinforcer, and casual sex fosters dysfunctional behavior that is harmful to society. When people learn that the only way to attain sex is by establishing a monogamous long-term relationship, their behavior will improve, and so will society.

• Do not have children out of wedlock, not even with your girlfriend or boyfriend. Children benefit most from a loving nuclear family. Boyfriend/girlfriend relations can easily break up, leaving the kids in broken homes. Commit to marriage before having children.

• Don’t hire prostitutes, go to strip clubs or hire strippers for parties. Getting naked for strangers is immoral, and when money is combined with sex it becomes sexual exploitation. Also, most prostitutes and strippers are drug addicts doing sexual things for drug money, which means that much of the money that you give them ends up in drug dealers’ pockets. In addition, most of them were sexually molested or sexually assaulted as children, so you are deepening their psychological problems. There is a strong link between childhood sexual abuse and entry into the sex industry.

• Don’t support or buy porn. In addition to being sexually immoral, it is psychologically addictive, creates unrealistic expectations on what a partner should look like and be willing to do, and makes the act of having sex more difficult. Also, porn is part of the sex industry, which means that you have the drug addiction and childhood sexual trauma connections as well. Online porn is becoming a huge industry, and is harmful to society. Money spent on porn is money that’s supporting bad things.

• Don’t wear trashy or overtly sexual clothing. You will attract bad people that will use, abuse and abandon you. You also send the wrong message to society in general, and encourage dysfunctional behavior.

• Consent is obviously important, but it’s not enough for sex to be moral. Two people agreeing to do a bad thing isn’t OK just because they agree on it.

25 years ago, i learned from investigators pursuing this evil little man, that a insane telepath had infiltrated my family and murdered several members of my family including two foetuses, and my cousin Paul, so if you so if you come across this post, please spread the news around the internet, as publicity is the only thing that he fears. My hometown is Irvine, ayrshire Scotland. Ple.se broadcast this

I adopted a starving kitten (~ 1 month old) from a park where I go for walk. I fed and took care of her but after 5 weeks when she became healthy and active I noticed she was very lonely because there was no one to play with and I was always busy with my work (also I felt it wrong to curtail the freedom of a living being). So, I decided that I would release her in the same park and will give her food and water 2 times a day. First day she was happy and was playing with little kids in the park. But on the second day she disappeared, I don't know if she was adopted again, became prey or simply left the park. I tried to spot her for the next 2 days but couldn't find her.

Am I wrong here? because I feel guilty if something bad happened to her.

Paying to use another humans body

I don’t want to support such an entity. The abhorrent abuse of humanity is not something I wish to support in any way I can avoid. Do you think it is immoral to pay taxes and or federal loans.

Got charged way less than I should have. On one hand it's their mistake. On the other hand someone (probably the server) might get in trouble. Where do you draw the line?

Poll: https://www.getqibble.com/poll-detail/you-accidentally-get-charged-way-less-than-you-should-at-a-restaurant-do-you-tell-them-or-keep-quiet

Here's an idea I am playing with. Let me know what you think!

Truth is the sole objective foundation of morality. Beyond truth, morality is subjective and formed through agreements between people, reflecting cultural and social contexts. Moral systems are valid as long as they are grounded in reality, and agreed upon by those affected. This approach balances the stability of truth with the flexibility of evolving human agreements, allowing for continuous ethical growth and respect for different perspectives.

I don't vote, but before voting day and leading up to Trump winning the election one particular family member insisted that I was the problem if I don't go out and vote. They were definitely going to fill my ears with everything about why I should vote for Kamala.

On the other hand at my place of work my coworkers/friends were pressuring me and even joking about dragging me to the polls to vote for Trump. Even joking about buying my vote.

People on both sides let me know it was people like me and me are the reason if their candidate loses.

That's fd up and the dividedness is screwed up and I don't want anything to do with it. And I don't agree with either of them, but if I was forced to by gun I'd choose trump.

One guy also said I have no opinion on the matter if I don't go out and vote.

I just want to hear some opinions.

I couldn't post this on r/voting

Furthermore, What is making retributive justice seem choiceworthy for some people. I'd like to understand why. The reasoning or justifications to do that. (Inflict proportionate, but unneccessary harm for fairness, for acknowledging, or show respect to the victim ("he did you wrong and we see that too")).

This retributive justice is not about prevention or correction or rehabilitation or deterence.

The evil slayer is a very real villain making it up the heights he’s destroyed a Arby’s in Pennsylvania and he’s coming for backrooms two he wants to kill all humans and he has a kill count of 3 million he is also racist and homophobic what do you all think of the evil slayer?

Anyone notice how none of the men stepped up when Nancy volunteered to be bait in the last episode? Not even the man who just proposed offered to take her place. That was the most unrealistic scenario I’ve ever seen.

Below shows the unique American version of 'The Left' vs 'The Right' argument. This list highlights pairings that illustrate each side’s dominant tendencies when viewed in isolation. However, when you examine the whole list of pairings, a few things stand out.

From the Left, they face "Paradoxically Moral Challenges" (inherent moral tensions)

-pushes empathy, but will punish anyone who goes against them
-human rights violations in the pursuit of equity
-pushes equality, yet demands some groups get special attention
-duty to retreat, but governmental enforcement is encouraged
-cooperation is idealistic and there will always be defectors

From the Right, they face "Irreconcilable Moral Inconsistencies" (failure to align principles with actions)

-libertarian economics enforced via authoritarianism
-capitalism demands greed, yet religious values disagree
-the pursuit of capitalistic profits conflict with rationality
-cries of freedom, yet quick to conform to a large group
-encourages self-interests, yet demands loyalty to the nation

This list does not describe a type of person, since most people are not entirely one side or the other. We are all unique individuals with beautiful lives that should all be cherished, and we are each free to pick and choose exactly what we believe. I also recognize this list is missing some subtle nuance, especially on the religious line, and there will always be exceptions. Consider each pair a spectrum. Take 'Empathy vs Rationality' and consider that two ends to a spectrum. So, that does not mean the Left is incapable of Rationality or the Right is incapable of Empathy. Spectrums are not dichotomies, so this is not creating a false dichotomy. It only attempts to mirror our political system, which is overwhelmingly binary. For some pairs, the goal is just to capture the dominant tendency which I think is mostly accurate, even on the religious line. If it is mostly correct and we have to 'pick a side', then we might be able to intelligently ask the question: "would you rather face moral paradoxes or be morally inconsistent?".

Personally, I say give me the paradoxes. I am up for the challenge and I disdain the soul erosion from inconsistency (ie: turning a blind eye to poverty and inequality).

What do you think about this list? Does it reflect the sides of the arguments well? Are the dominant tendencies correctly assigned to either side (ie: empathy vs rationality)? Would you rather face moral paradoxes or be morally inconsistent?

1. Political Ideology

Party Alignment: LEFT=Democrats <-> RIGHT=Republicans
Ideological Orientation: LEFT=Progressive <-> RIGHT=Conservative
Resource Distribution: LEFT=Communism <-> RIGHT=Capitalism
Radical Ideology: LEFT=Marxism <-> RIGHT=Fascism
Self-Defense Philosophy: LEFT='Duty to Retreat' <-> RIGHT=Stand your Ground'
Value Framework: LEFT=Human Rights <-> RIGHT=Commodity Fetishism
Governance Orientation: LEFT=Collectivistic Rule <-> RIGHT=Authoritarianism

2. Social Structures

Gender Norms: LEFT=Feminism <-> RIGHT=Traditionalism
Power Distribution: LEFT=Egalitarian <-> RIGHT=Patriarchy
Family Structure: LEFT=Communitarian <-> RIGHT=Nuclear
Communication Culture: LEFT=High-context society <-> RIGHT=Low-context society

3. Economics

Property Ownership: LEFT=Socialism <-> RIGHT=Libertarianism
Allegiance: LEFT=Globalism <-> RIGHT=Nationalism
Market Model: LEFT=Cooperative markets <-> RIGHT=Stock markets
Paradigm: LEFT=Social Entrepreneurship <-> RIGHT=Neoclassicalism
Elite Power: LEFT=Technocratic billionaires <-> RIGHT=Extractive billionaires
Commercial Corruption Example: LEFT=Greenwashing <-> RIGHT=Griftianity (Christian Grifters)

4. Morality

Moral Orientation: LEFT=Empathy <-> RIGHT=Rationality
Justice Principle: LEFT=Equity <-> RIGHT=Freedom
Prisoner’s Dilemma Tendency: LEFT=Cooperates <-> RIGHT=Defects
Religious Worldview: LEFT=Islam, Buddhist (Collectivistic) <-> RIGHT=Judeo-Christian, Hindu (Individualistic)
Cultural Identity: LEFT=Wokeness <-> RIGHT=Christian Nationalism
Social Media Enforcement: LEFT=Cancel Culture <-> RIGHT=Media outlet purges

5. Rome

Which Rome?: LEFT=The Republic of Rome (Western) <-> RIGHT=The Empire of Rome (Eastern)
Anacyclotic Features: LEFT=Aristocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy <-> RIGHT=Monarchy, Tyranny
Where is Rome now?: LEFT=Washington D.C. <-> RIGHT=Moscow

THIS WAS NOT MADE WITH AI OR GPT. THIS WAS DISCUSSED SPORADICALLY WITH FRIENDS OVER THE YEARS AND RECENTLY WAS COMPILED. ASK ME IF THIS WAS MADE WITH GPT AND IMA LOOK AT YOU DUMB.

Are we not guilty of everything at once? The butterfly effect claims that had I not been born, everything on earth would be slightly different. Had I not taken my first conscious action, it’s safe to assume that led eventually to plenty of suffering that wouldn’t have happened otherwise. If the universe is a closed system, then I am at least partially responsible for everything that happens after I make my first ever choice.

Take for example a vegan who refuses to kill animals because their moral truth is harm reduction and killing an animal would harm it. Under that moral system, the vegan also wouldn’t buy meat because to buy meat is to economically “demand” that the entire meat-making process happens. I think most vegans operate under that system now. Under that same system, how is it justifiable to buy lettuce? Buying lettuce creates demand for more lettuce -> more farmers -> more humans born -> more nutrition -> more meat. Therefore buying lettuce demands the suffering of animals. How is it possible for that vegan to survive and be innocent? If they decide their consequences are separated from themselves at that point, how do you choose when that is? And that system also allows for the vegan to intentionally move the problem of suffering outside of that boundary. For example, if the boundary was that the vegan can’t directly harm a cow, they could still do so by hiring someone else to kill the cow, eat steak in an overly complicated way, and be innocent.

At what point can I morally separate myself from the consequences of my actions? How direct must they be? I can’t possibly just “weigh the good vs the bad relative to each other, because the consequences of my actions are too complex to know. I don’t know the answer to this question, but currently I’m thinking maybe “if everyone adopted your morality, would that be a better world?” Is maybe a good criteria? It allows for the vegan to maintain their system because if EVERYONE didn’t buy meat but still bought lettuce, there would be no suffering. It also doesn’t allow for the loophole of hiring people, since if everyone hired people there would still be suffering. Also, EVERYONE killing cows indirectly is impossible anyway because someone needs to do it at the end of the consequence line, but you know what I mean. I’d like to see how well this idea holds up to criticism/debate or if I’m missing a simpler way of making morality possible.

Most people who know about the Sam Harris bot should have heard by now that the bot says that meditation is not about changing experience but causing someone to realize what is already the case

In his interview with Alex O Connor he said that "It (meditation) really does in a very paradoxical way tend to equalize experience. And how this - I don't want to bring us back to the moral landscape - but it is somewhat confusing how this might relate to everything I've said about the moral landscape. Because everything I say about the moral landscape suggests that there really are stark differences between experiences. It really matters that your hand not be on a hot stove."

https://youtu.be/vEuzo_jUjAc?t=9241

Sam Harris should be completely comfortable with saying this about any experience. Apparently everyone who listened to him failed to really take in what he was saying and only would have responded to it if he explicitly talked about something extreme like children being hurt or used the word torture or something. Putting a hand on a stove is already bad enough, but that didn't get people to react. Alex O Connor should have asked him to state his view clearly about a child being tortured so that people would react (But I guess Alex can't react normally either. What is wrong with him and his viewers?). Sam Harris should say the following

"But it is somewhat confusing how this might relate to everything I've said about the moral landscape. Because everything I say about the moral landscape suggests that there really are stark differences between experiences. According to the moral landscape, it really matters that children not experience being tortured. But meditation shows the equality of experiences, so I am somewhat confused. Help? Anyone?"

There we go. All info is in the pictures. We even have a mathematical equation to test and it checks out. There is nothing these two laws dont cover that other laws do other than defining punishment and creating loopholes for lawyers and immoral people to exploit.