Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Uphold the Social Contract and Keep your vices to yourself


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 102 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jul 25, 2011 8:11:02 PM PDT
blueskies says:
This is the credo that I am starting to recommend to others. What do you think?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 25, 2011 8:19:14 PM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
The problem is that the definition of what constitutes a social contract varies depending on the person's ideologies, which include religious ones.

That's how some fundy rightards manage to demand 'smaller gov't' at the same time as they also demand more gov't intervention in issues that they want made mandatory for all.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 26, 2011 1:57:41 AM PDT
Conley Thorn says:
BLUESKIES: Uphold the Social Contract and Keep your vices to yourself. This is the credo that I am starting to recommend to others.

THORN: I tentatively salute you. But you really need to spell out your "social contract." If it's the simplest possible "contract," then I agree with you. "Vices" are simply the objects of our basic emotional needs. Morality is what we legislate; vice is what we cannot. Variety may be the spice of life, but our vices are our raison detre. As long as there are religions and ideologies, this truth will not be grasped by the greater portion of mankind.

Posted on Jul 26, 2011 9:21:56 AM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
One approach would simply be to follow the mind your own business credo. If what others are doing doesn't cause you a provable harm, then it's none of your business. So, leave the moralising out of the law. The law is there to protect all from actual criminal harms, not to protect some the feelings of some.

Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in a Free Society

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 26, 2011 10:54:25 AM PDT
sfon says:
blueskies says: "...Keep your vices to yourself"

What if the vice demands the presence and co-operation of at least one other person?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 26, 2011 7:26:11 PM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
s:'What if the vice demands the presence and co-operation of at least one other person?'

Or three others, a goat and a yak ? :-)

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 26, 2011 9:06:51 PM PDT
blueskies says:
Well, if there are consenting adults and cream cheese, all right I guess. I just don't want to know about it, mmkay?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 26, 2011 9:10:41 PM PDT
blueskies says:
Social contract theory means upholding the legitimate, legal moral ethical tenents of society.
I support civilized discourse in the political process and abhor the rabble rousers such as I see running rampant in the political scene/media today in the US. Keeping vices to yourself to my mind is keeping private what should be private (not showing your lady parts in public like Brittney Spears, say) and maintaining peaceful relationships with others. Not so difficult, but rarely done these days.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 27, 2011 3:32:54 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 27, 2011 3:33:54 AM PDT
tokolosi says:
showing lady-parts in public is all right by me...;-)

...just keep the man-parts tucked in where they belong! ;-p

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 27, 2011 8:47:15 PM PDT
blueskies says:
tokolosi

That is what nudist colonies are for.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 27, 2011 9:32:54 PM PDT
What if I never agreed to any "social contract" in the first place?
Your reply to United Federation of Trolls's post:
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
 

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 27, 2011 9:44:25 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 28, 2011 4:33:11 AM PDT
["What if I never agreed to any "social contract" in the first place?"]

You're born into a social contract that you never agreed to. You're taught to like a social contract you never agreed to. You're indoctrinated into that view.

TK

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 27, 2011 11:20:57 PM PDT
Conley Thorn says:
A. LIEVEN: ...leave the moralising out of the law. The law is there to protect all from actual criminal harms, not to protect some the feelings of some.

THORN: Law is the child of morality. Morality is what we honor and protect by legislation. It is our vices that laws cannot, and should not attempt to, control. Sexual activity cannot be terminated by laws. Risk-taking (gambling), cannot be terminated by laws. Physical stimulation, whether by "extreme sports" or with drugs, cannot be extirpated by laws. "Prohibition" demonstrated this fact; the obscenely expensive and ongoing "War against drugs" is another proof that humans are still too damned stupid to accept the lessons of our history. We are smart as hell, but we remain an irrational species.

Posted on Jul 27, 2011 11:28:26 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Aug 26, 2011 2:50:37 PM PDT]

Posted on Jul 27, 2011 11:44:06 PM PDT
I'm not sure I agree with "keep your vices to yourself", nor am I even sure how one would necessarily define a "vice". One person's vice is another person's perfectly acceptable good time.

There is, of course, an appropriate time and place for everything, and I think one should generally keep that in mind. But if your "vice" involves others, then so long as those others are consenting adults, I really don't see the problem.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 28, 2011 12:13:25 AM PDT
Conley Thorn says:
BLUESKIES: Social contract theory means upholding the legitimate, legal moral ethical tenents of society.

THORN: Unfortunately, the presumed "legitimate" and the established "legal" tenets of our (and probably every other) society are flawed and arcane. Rousseau, in the mid-18th Century, unveiled what the American colonials attempted to legitimize shortly after. Unfortunately, our progenitors were very shortly overwhelmed by the fake morality of religion.

BLUESKIES: Keeping vices to yourself to my mind is keeping private what should be private (not showing your lady parts in public like Brittney Spears, say....

THORN: B.S. didn't pioneer anything; actress Terry Moore displayed an "open beaver" for photographers (not yet--nor for another quarter century--known as "paparazi." And Lady Godiva bested Terry and Brittney both by a thousand years.

Exhibitionism is one of our vices. It's one of many I did not think to enumerate. "Indecent exposure" often draws a stiff sentence. (Ha-ha!) And I suppose we're justified in trying to protect sexy young virgins from horny old men. But we should also have pity on the horny old men. It's a hell of a problem.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 28, 2011 12:35:51 AM PDT
Conley Thorn says:
N. DAVIS: What if I never agreed to any "social contract" in the first place?

THORN: Excellent question! And the answer is that you are "created" equal to every other unlucky bastard ever born, and you are free to fend for yourself, and with no obligation whatever to fend for any other. You are not obliged to pledge allegiance to the United States or to any other state whatever. Unfortunately, you cannot be a free spirit. Well, I should not say "unfortunately," because life, for anyone condemned to it, is far more endurable, and to some extent even enjoyable, when shared with others of your kind--and, to almost equal degree, with other fellow beasts. Misery craves company.

Posted on Jul 28, 2011 4:03:32 AM PDT
D. M. Ohara says:
There was a case in Germany [I think] a few years ago in which a cannibal advertised for a consenting victim whom he duly killed and ate. His defence, that this was a fully consensual arrangement, and thus not a crime, was dismissed by the court.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 28, 2011 4:33:42 AM PDT
["There was a case in Germany [I think] a few years ago in which a cannibal advertised for a consenting victim whom he duly killed and ate. His defence, that this was a fully consensual arrangement, and thus not a crime, was dismissed by the court."]

Did he age the meat?

TK

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 28, 2011 6:59:55 AM PDT
D. M. Ohara says:
Would it affect the morality or the legality of the act - or the decision of the court - if he had?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 28, 2011 10:43:59 AM PDT
blueskies says:
That is rather fascinating. Why would anyone consent to be a victim to a cannibal??? Wow.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 28, 2011 10:48:44 AM PDT
blueskies says:
I replied and got an objectional content from Momazon. Sigh.

Posted on Jul 28, 2011 11:50:19 AM PDT
I remember you're former Catholic, love rottweilers, and a health care professional working among the Din'e, Blueskies. I've chatted with you before about baptisms in the liturgical church. I'm really concerned for a cousin of mine who's had a half dozen strokes & hypertension, and is probably a meth addict; but now she's landed @ the home of her baby brother. I don't know whether he'll be able to save her life. I really wish I knew more about Native American approaches to substance abuse. She's run far, far away from Catholic faith-based approaches to dry you out.

Do the Navajo have any functional programs you're aware of?

I've been thinking lately that Marlyn Manson understands America better than the religions or the media. I could be wrong, but this guy sounds really sane to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYApo2d8o_A&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtJImJWz35U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_HrTgzXK_U&NR=1

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 28, 2011 4:35:41 PM PDT
["Would it affect the morality or the legality of the act - or the decision of the court - if he had?']

The morality question depends on the moral sentiments of the one being asked. The legality of the act depends on the court system judging the actions.

TK

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 28, 2011 9:17:22 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 28, 2011 9:20:55 PM PDT
blueskies says:
There is far less recidivism (return to substance abuse) among Native Americans who embrace their cultural spirituality. It depends upon where this lady is. There are substance abuse programs on the Navajo res, but it is a large reservation, and depends upon state funding as well. There is an excellent book called "Wellbriety, The Red Road" which is a Native American approach to the 12 steps. There are a treatment facilities which are strictly Native American, but it depends upon the geographical location.

I have been working with the Pacific Northwest tribes for a few years now. I know there is help out there, even for urban Indians who are not with their affiliated tribes. Is she Native American? I assumed she might be but you didn't exactly say. Meth will kill her as you probably are aware.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Religion forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  24
Total posts:  102
Initial post:  Jul 25, 2011
Latest post:  Nov 24, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions