To clarify: A person drinking some water from a river is immoral when done purely because it feels good because it involves someone taking from something (a river) whereas raising an arm for the same reason isn't immoral because it doesn't involve that? — Baden

Perhaps. How might this be incorrect? — Heister Eggcart

Well, generally moral systems require that for an action to be deemed immoral it must at a minimum result in some kind of harm to another moral agent (or at least another sentient being) either directly or indirectly. There's no more indication that drinking water from a river (whether it feels good or not) does that any more than raising one's arm all other things being equal.

It doesn't mean that either action is necessarily amoral either. There may be a moral element in the wider context. But it's not present in either example given. You just don't have enough information to make a moral judgement. The same applies to having sex simply because it feels good. The lack of a mental narrative doesn't ensure the immorality of your actions any more than the presence of one ensures their morality.

You're giving a good example of the reason I don't want to use Heister's terminology. Read our conversation again and I think you'll see my point. Or just let me finish my exchange with him before you jump in again.

Drinking water, eating food, having sex - these all entail someone taking from something or someone else that is giving. Raising your arm for pleasure seems amoral to me... — Heister Eggcart

To clarify: A person drinking some water from a river is immoral when done purely because it feels good because it involves someone taking from something (a river) whereas raising an arm for the same reason isn't immoral because it doesn't involve that?

Well he is saying that it is immoral in all cases. However in some cases it is necessarily immoral - when I need to kill it to survive. In other cases, it's unnecessarily immoral, when I kill it just for fun for example, as in hunting. — Agustino

Read what I just wrote. If it's necessary to kill the animal to survive and that reason is a sufficient moral justification for doing so then the action is moral. All you are saying is that Heister is confused, which hardly helps.

Amoral probably. He didn't disagree with me when I replied to him: — Agustino

I'll take that as your answer and wait on his.

In any case, I'm interested in his answer. X raises his arm purely because it feels good. How does Heister describe X's action in moral terms.

No, it's either moral or immoral. If you need to kill the animal to survive and that's a morally justifiable reason to kill it then it's moral. If the fact that you need it to survive is not a morally justifiable reason to kill it, it's immoral.

I'd probably argue that Joe's desire to drink water purely for its good feeling is in fact unnecessarily immoral. Considering myself for a moment, I don't drink water because it tastes good, or feels good, but because it satisfies a problem, the dilemma of thirst — Heister Eggcart

We can take the "unnecessarily" out because it adds nothing to the argument here. What you seem to be arguing is "Drinking water is immoral unless one is aware of a reason one does it". This is very problematic in itself. But I wonder how far you would take it anyway? What about raising my arm, for example? Is it immoral to raise my arm purely because it feels good? Does one have to have a conscious reason for every action to escape doing wrong?

Why is it wrong to do something because it feels good? — Michael

I'd presume he's not generalizing as that would entail the claim "For person A to act upon desire X purely because it feels good" is unnecessarily immoral, which would yield results like "For Joe to act upon his desire to drink water purely because it felt good" was unnecessarily immoral. That doesn't help to explain the necessary moral difference between sex and drinking water, but I imagine he has one in mind.

I would say it's almost all carrot. But the carrot is rotten, and its effect is to impair our ability to distinguish the rotten from the fresh still further.

Problem for the smart people who can resist advertising, by seeing through it, if they exist. Even if you can, others can't, and you can't always tell who can and who can't. — csalisbury

I would say it's not about whether you can resist it or not. That's a red herring. There is no resistance in the sense of being able to "see through". You can only try to avoid it. Seeing through advertising is relatively easy. If you did a poll to ask people whether they thought ads were honest, you would probably get a majority negative (but hook anyone up to an MRI machine and watch the effect of a given ad and I doubt you'd be able to tell the cynics from the pollyannas). In fact, thinking you can "see through" advertising is probably as good or a better result for the advertisers than knowing you can't if the former means you don't feel the need to reduce exposure.

If you don't take a pre/post Fall view, then it's advertising and manipulation all the way down - just replace advertising with social organization based around shame. — csalisbury

And what is it all the way up? Not all forms of socially organized shame-inducing are equal. If I must ingest a poison, I'll take sugar over cyanide. Emphasizing their chemical similarities isn't going to change my mind. It's not just advertising though, it's the whole media entertainment constellation which revolves around it. If it doesn't concern people that the only way this system can survive is through the creation of dissatisfaction and unhappiness, then it's done its job fantastically well, hasn't it?

So I have to wonder just how you use "upset." — Terrapin Station

I think it's a fair word to use if admittedly somewhat misleading. What's upset in my view is the kind of psychological balance we casually refer to as 'satisfaction', or more broadly, 'happiness'.

That is, of course, the new trend in advertising. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not so new really. It's being going on since the 'hard sell' of the 1930s, at least, and right up through the brand revolution of the 70s-80s when methods became more refined as style pretty much triumphed over substance. It's just more effective now, particularly with the advent of neuromarketing, which involves direct knowledge of how the brain reacts to specific imagery etc. (research is carried out using MRI machines and the like). Anyway, anyone who thinks they are immune to this is fooling themselves. There is no absolute intellectual override. Watching advertising is a psychologically debilitating activity and designed to be so.

Number 2! :D — Sapientia

I concur. (As long as it's a wood pigeon.)

Well, despite the fact that I haven't had this much fun since my last hamster died, sleep beckons. Adieu... O:)

4am in the morning here. Just finished masturbating at the thought of Agustino masturbating at the thought of me masturbating at the thought of Agustino reading about me masturbating about him.

Indeed. Your posts should be virgins with the souls of whores. Don't fuck with them.

Bestiality and necrophilia all wrapped into one. — Hanover

That's the way I roll. (Y)

I was petting my sweet little feline
As she purred in my lap near my zip line
Her paws kneeded in
So I pushed down her chin
__________________________? — Hanover

And though she stopped breathing I felt fine (?)

Where do I get those smileys to shove up my ass? — discoii

You may have to fight Agustino for them.

Discreet eh? Well, as long as the trailer doesn't start to rock, surely with dear Hanover you would share your...

Lol. You can join Agustino in purgatory then.

You are making the mistake of using your brain. That's not what this discussion is for. Just think with your dick and write it out quick. :P

What counts as sexual deviancy? Anything but missionary under the covers and with the lights out for the purpose of reproduction? — Michael

All that + holding hands = sexual deviancy.

We'll be waiting greased up and ready for you when you change your mind, darling. (L)

This is the random sexual deviancy thread, Agustino, and you are seriously missing the point. The idea is to include in your post some form of random sexual deviancy otherwise you are in the wrong place and should bounce out of here on your presumably large and flexible dildo.

No more than if I took that smiley and shoved it up your arse. In other words, I'm sure you quite enjoy it, my lovely.

Rather a jocular Limerick with bestial overtones to be disgusted by than a man who riven by self-repression blindly ejaculates his prejudices over all who stray beyond the boundaries of his petty worldview.

Attorney / Chili con carne. Lol.

That's great, Hanover. Love it. If I could offer but a mild critique by way of Limerick:

A wannabe poet called Hano'
Wished to go mano a mano
But his verse fell flat
As a runover cat
Or an ant on which fell a piano!

Oh, Limericks. I cannot resist carrying on the baton.

Ne'er was a thought more easy to grasp
'less your head be stuck up your ass
I'm sure my dear sir
You would duly concur
If out you could pull it at last!

Unfulfilled wants and desires cause suffering.
I feel compelled to not indulge in the pleasurable aspects of life.
Therefore I suffer. — unenlightened

I agree, although I would say that suffering voluntarily taken on as a kind of purgation has a particular character that's worth recognizing. A moral vision is like a mini-society in the psyche; it can raise esteem by reflecting torment as a victory of sorts. In the case of celibacy, I consider the process untenable, but I wouldn't rule out there being exceptions

The proof of the pudding is that there is something wrong; one does not need to theorise, merely read the 19 pages of anguish, aggression, fear, ignorance, and naked suffering already presented. — unenlightened

Indeed.

Less of your in-jokes! Have you found Landru yet? We'll take him dead or alive.

I saw enough evidence to suggest that Landru could never get tired of saying "conservative meme". He must be saying it somewhere else. — jamalrob

I did a search for "conservative meme", Landru. We're first (insert celebratory emoticon here) and some place called "freerepublic.com" is second. Maybe he's over there.

@180 Proof, @Landru Guide Us, and @Paul are members but not active. BusyCuttingCrap is another notable absence. (I think he's the member @busy but no posts there.)

It's largely a matter of taste, I think. Personally, I also like it better in just about every way to the previous place.

Brief but enjoyable and I look forward to the next jab countered by a linquistical knockout. You can call me "sir" to compliment by masculinity. — Lower Case NUMBERS

You are indeed a master of linquistics, sir.

What shall I call you? — Lower Case NUMBERS

Anything but a bastard.

Good day to you!

A rich bastard then. Glad we're all agreed on everything my good man (or lady) and we can part company mutually enlightened by our brief encounter. :-*

Do I have to quote Wikipedia to you to make you understand that English is no more a "limited" language than any other? In fact lexically, its multiple origins make it comparatively rich (as Bitter Crank mentioned).

The "This" in the "This I know" bit referred to the information you copy-pasted above about the origins of English. The "suspect" in the second sentence referred to your reasons for using the pejorative "bastard" about English. In other words, I know about the origins of English, but I can't be sure of the reasons for your expressed dislike of it.

You'll get used to it, Maw, and it's far better on mobile if you roll that way.

This I know. I suspect though your frustration stems not from a deficiency in our (presumably) common tongue (a whit of knowledge of linguistics would inform you that none of what you have copy-pasted above suggests one) but your own limitations in using it.