Also, I'd like to add that this isn't something you can blame people for as this is how culture imprints on our minds. We can't really help it. We can blame people when they are aware to choose not to take it into account. So maybe we should think again when considering that "princess" sweater or another book that has a white hero in it for your kids. — Benkei

Nope. The complex psychological processing that configures and influences cognition is enabled with perceptual plasticity and provides us with the capacity to transcend the limitations of cultural transmissions. We can help it.

People are or for a moment become aware that there is something deeply wrong with their environment, but they continue following anyway until eventually they go into some auto-pilot mindlessness and completely forget that they have a mind. That is a choice. That can be helped. And that is also why you can think again when considering that princess sweater.

Yeah, I was hoping that wouldn't be an issue. — John Days

I know plenty of religious and irreligious people who speak openly to me about their beliefs and I have no qualms with what anyone would want to say to me. Just accept that I believe we are people trying to figure out the meaning of a story. Ultimately, I agree when you say that's not a religious position; it's a solution which works in real life because that is what everything is.

When someone believes they will die if they do not charge a fee for their love, it's almost certain they have a problem with money-loving. — John Days

Que?

In a world with finite resources, it certainly DOES have a bearing on whether one is evil or not depending on how much of those resources he draws to himself. — John Days

No, it doesn't. And using capital letters won't make it so.

Real evil is believing we are more important than others just because we have more ability than they in taking what is available. — John Days

Just believing we are more important than others. And the desire to have more is to attain the power to reinforce this belief.

The point is that power is not something one can attain through money, it is just a means. The desire for power is subjective, a trait, a belief in ones own superiority. If a person believes he is morally superior, and so when guilty of a wrongdoing attempts to deceitfully fabricate lies to people around him and garner enough support to make himself believe that he is not guilty, that does not require money. That is just lies and manipulation to ensure he continues to feel morally superior.

Drawing 666 and pentagrams on the wall, wearing black robes, and walking around with candles isn't satanism; forcing people to pay us for our love is. — John Days

Notwithstanding your biblical references, I can see how evil and hatred as represented by the 'devil' in these masonic rituals is ultimately just an absence of love or moral consciousness. Sexual deviance and debauchery are examples of power and pleasure that an absence of love would enable, thus making it immoral. So, if we say that an absence of love is evil, money is not the root of all evil but rather the enabling factor that provides evil or in this instance the elite class the capacity to perform, since it is clear that whether you are wealthy or not has no bearing on being evil. Someone who lies and manipulates in order to win the trust of another is just as guilty as someone who has the monetary means to pay.

But something tells me that if a woman they did not recognize was walking through the neighborhood at night the police would not have been called. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

This is an assumption from both parties (yourself included) but you fail to consider the balance of probabilities. It is not rocket science to say that more crimes have been committed by men over women.

I don't care for feminism, but I care for human rights and justice and that is for both men and women. It is a reality, however, that the scale of gender-based violence is clearly and unequivocally tipped against women at a much more larger scale. Misogyny is an actuality, particularly in some cultures and demographics.

I am glad that you have pointed out verbal abuse because I believe that it is not yet well understood that violence needn't be physical. Indeed, I have seen mothers treating their children in what I would consider to be a contemptible example of motherhood. Bullying and harassment is a form of violence and can cause a considerable amount of emotional and psychological suffering as much as using physical violence.

As a woman who has witnessed gender-based violence during childhood, it took a long time for me to 'forgive' men and I came to approach the subject with reason rather than emotion since it is certainly not all men who are bad. However, using an extremely small portion of radical feminists as an example of women's rights is not really correct of you, now is it.

I think a discussion about men' rights or masculinity studies is certainly something that should be brought to attention.

I agree with you in what you said. I don't mind if there are classes of society. But the point of the movie is that the highest class can get people killed and get away with it. That there are laws for people and there is the elite class and the members of this class ignore these laws or human rights. If that is true the whole concept of the government or society is a lie because those are not built on human rights. — Meta

Hence the secrecy, the latter of which supplants the power that enables such activities while enjoying exemption from punishment; what better way to display power when you have impunity? You give a good man the Ring of Gyges and we'll see just how much of good a man he is.

Deception, lying, they are acts motivated by this incentive for power and fed by the vicious only to morons since everything that we are is rooted in beliefs. It is socially variable and visible at individual or state level (so, a man may lie to his girlfriend and friends because he is motivated by the need to control and manipulate as much as the elite would one another under the stratagem for power.) It is merely a trait.

They do not actually rule society, but they do influence decisions that impact social inequality and often at the expense of the most vulnerable in society. But, for some, such social inequality can - as Foucault would agree - enable productivity or motivate a more functional operation of society. How do you think Human Rights came to existence? Power is actually vested in the people, but if we are unable to pinpoint these activities, how are we able to fight it?

Even the homeless have an economic system on the streets within a defined collective social stratification. All money enables is social exchange, but the characteristics of any complex social structure is dependent on a number of factors that all ultimately lead to very similar hierarchical and observed inequalities; power.

Whether one is extremely wealthy or the extremely poor is irrelevant save for how one is enabled with the capacity to display power in order to achieve a particular status within this system. Rituals and secrecy are one such mean; everyone wants to feel special, everyone wants to feel pleasure, everyone wants feel like they are a part of something greater than themselves, and what better way than developing a secret society. It is a business.

There is no such thing as a classless society. There is also no such thing as common sense amongst the masses.

It's interesting to think there is a masked program running in us, making us think one thing when another thing is true.

But back to self-preservation and replication. Why do we want to preserve ourselves anyway? Why the fancy programming? Why not just be eaten by the tiger so we can become part of the tiger? Why do we tend to our offspring so diligently, protect them so fiercely, ensure they have a much better chance of success in this world than we did? — MikeL

If time is subjective as this masked 'programme' of sorts that makes us believe in one thing when the truth is entirely different, you begin to understand how perceptions and our interpretation of reality may actually not be what it is in actuality.

For instance, and this may be an awkward example but it does touch on my point coherently. For one person, when they look at a prostitute they see a body, sexuality, perhaps a deeper disgust and aversion to this said prostitute but nonetheless compelled because of opportunity. They see an object.
When I see a prostitute, I feel pity, sympathy, I think about what would have compelled them to this path, what lifestyle they may have led, their family, their decisions. I feel heartbroken.

That disgust really mirrors their own disgust at themselves but our ego will project that out to others instead (just like when someone may disassociate as a egotistic refusal to live in a reality they either cannot or subjectively refuse to live in). The masses largely believe in realities that are given to them and yet they believe that they are thinking for themselves because how the brain works is dependent on a number of factors. The brain itself is a tool after all and it is how we use it that matters, but consciousness is something far more complex and whilst interconnected, again, it is dependent on a number of factors.

So why do we tend to protect others so fiercely? That is called love, that is consciousness. I feel heartbroken when I see a prostitute because I am morally conscious whereas a man that would feel sexually aroused is free of this consciousness and blindly following this 'programme' as you call it. We can transcend and the fact that you are even asking this question is an example of how.

Yes, there are some very interesting facts concerning the earth. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. Yes there is.

:-|

The equator is not stable, to begin with. The magnetic poles do not line up with the true poles, and are moving. And, the north/south axis flips from time to time, to mention a few, other than the wobble. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's because of the earths core. The magnetic field - which is there to shield us from outside stuff and something visually seen in auroras - is constantly changing or reversing and geomagnetic excursions could occur at any stage; actually, the field itself is decreasing in shield strength.

Earth has anaemia.

Yes, perspective changes everything. I once lived in a small world - everything looked so daunting and so big. I still feel that way but this ''speck of dust'' really shakes up my world. I feel smaller of course but there's so many bigger things to appreciate. Does that sound odd? — TheMadFool

No, it sounds wonderful. There are things greater than you and you are no longer trapped in your own egotism, that all your social environment taught you to believe is reality no longer influences your decisions and where you get to thoroughly experience reality as it is. Superstition reverses this prospect and it is attractive because you shut reason and submit to irrational and nonsensical fears that merely amplify the prospect of ignoring the responsibility you have to make choices for yourself. A raw and fearless life is stunning and the only way to happiness.

First note that by "anxiety" I mean it more in the general existential or Heideggerian sense than simply "social anxiety", although that may be an expression of it. I mean that in drinking we choose to drop this basic anxiety for a while and forget the paraphernalia of who we are, that we might have larger projects in life, that we will one day die and what are we going to do about it? — jamalrob

Indeed, I was also since I really have no time to think of those squeamish youths who are afraid of saying hello to a woman. In the Heideggerian sense, one feels existentially enslaved and the only relief they feel is exercising conditions that enable that momentary escape from their own reality because they are incapable of challenging the 'Master' or whatever it is in their life that has enfeebled their capacity to take control and responsibility. So, for instance, a man is being treated badly at work and so experiences a sense of alienation and while tolerantly silent as he sacrificially abandons his ego, releases his genuine feelings of frustration through drink and come home to beat his wife or children or someone out on the street because he cannot do it at work. The alcohol merely releases them from their moral obligations since they lose 'reason' due to being intoxicated, which is farcical since one is aware prior to drinking that that is exactly what will happen.

There are a great many people who are miserable in their reality and alcohol or drug consumption is the only relief that enables them to remove themselves from that, albeit temporarily, which in itself is cowardly since they are conscious of their choices to first escape but also cyclically continuing to return back to the numbness as it becomes a vicious habit, rather than actually making a direct change in their lives. There is also a fundamental conventionalism to the practice that I find irritating and that is not to say that I am a bore, but more like what Nietzsche said: The formation of a herd is a significant victory and advance in the struggle against depression. Doing what others do on specific days of the week merely illustrate that obedient habitus that only exposes your own powerlessness.

I just don't like the idea of abandoning my will and reason. If something is compelling me to escape, I will turn and face it, change it, fight it if I have to, but not hide from it. I don't want to be a das man as Heidegger said, or an inauthentic person. I would rather use the cognitive instruments to facilitate and nuture my Being.

It's a way of taking up an essentially humorous or playful stance on the world. — jamalrob

Go travelling. Do photography or paint something. Write. I don't have a problem with drinking, but getting drunk is hedonistic in that it is just too temporary a pleasure.

To be perfectly honest with you, I haven't actually tried any other wine besides chianti, except for champagne and I felt the effects of it for many days afterwards. When I was in Italy, I went to San Gimignano and had some chianti during dinner and I felt nothing. I pretend sipped a number of drinks in social settings but I never actually drank, so honestly I am not sure how it is made. Though viticulture is interesting since I love to garden.

A couple of points in favour of drinking. Drinking can reveal what I'm capable of, at least in social interaction. — jamalrob

To put things into context first, I personally don't drink alcohol. I drank once to that point and all it did was make me feel violently ill because I (only recently) found out that I have pancreatitis, so the only drink that goes down without actually hurting me is red wine from Tuscany (chianti), I think because of the way that it is made.

Nevertheless, I can say that there are a number of people who drink to hide their social fears when it comes to approaching others and it provides them with a scapegoat or excuse to justify their own bad behaviour. There is an inherent weakness in this where people delude themselves into thinking that their choices are no longer theirs and thus they are morally safe; hey, it wasn't really 'them' just like how people blame others for their own misdeeds or even play social games to sneakily avoid responsibility for what is essentially their wrong decisions. From an epistemic angle, it is the same reasoning behind semiotics or hermeneutics in that people indirectly invent stories or parables to try and make an unclear point because saying what something is, as it is at face value, can sometimes be just too controversial or difficult.

I don't like that. It lacks existential adventure because to me, I find it thrilling facing my fears and being brutally honest. The alcohol in the above-mentioned is not revealing anything but your cowardly escapism from the sensation of social anxiety that you may feel, but for me coming face-to-face with that feeling and defeating it is so exiting. You expose your vulnerability, your need to feel belonging by doing the same thing for the same reason that others are, a need for love and a fear for rejection. You are escaping from your reality rather than changing it and making it what you really want, which is just a shame really. Overall, the number of deaths on roads, violence in the street and against women in homes far outweigh the 'good' it does for society.

:D I did say I was stretching the theory to its limits. — TheMadFool

Yuh. That is a full-on stretch. :(

Why such a dim view of superstition? Is it because you think it's not rational or is it because, like me, you fear the consequences if it were true? — TheMadFool

The only thing I fear is stupidity. It is just profound to see how people delude themselves, even when facts are staring right at them, for instance the concept of 'individuality' when people follow en-masse as they fall victim to marketing stratagems that enable them to think that they represent someone unique, and so people go on injecting shit into their faces or buying hundreds or even thousands of followers on social networking sites to pretend to popularity and the worst part is that everyone is the same, doing the same shit, thinking the same shit but working really hard to present themselves as "special" or different from the other same shit. Take a selfie and write some bollocks and everyone will congratulate you for being... the same shit as them.

The world feeds on this 'fear' you have, it drives multibillion dollar businesses as it ensures people continue to remain stupid enough to think that they are 'special'.

We are a fucking spec of dust. Accept it.

Are passages like these (below), or upbringing in such environments, impacting peoples' thinking? If yes, then ought there not be better education (and informing), due to potentially larger things at stake (e.g. well-being of future generations)? — jorndoe

A great deal of scientific analysis has clearly attributed climate change to human activity, but there are a plethora of competing literature funded to analyse the subject from a negative or positive view due to the economic and political challenges of admitting to this global phenomenon. It is hard to filter through all of that, and to ascertain any religious influence that would enable people to become susceptible in believing either for or against such as whether it is apocalyptic in nature or whether it is simply impossible unless deterministically willed otherwise is really hard to tell. I would assume that the large masses of religiously devout who also tend to have conservative leanings fall into a trap of climate change denial because of the political rather than the religious.

Uttering a few magic words can and does alter the local airflow, humidity, temperature, pressure. — TheMadFool

:-|

Does it? And double numbers on a clock have some celestial significance too, right? Wow, it is 22:22pm when you looked at your digital watch, it must make you special. It is probably because you are a capricorn. Let us meditate and release the bad energy back to the spirits all around us so that the airflow and humidity will return to normal.

Superstition is an epidemic. It is the outpouring of a weak mind inclined to illusions and so boring and repetitive and empty they are that their capacity to actually use their mind is limited to nothing more than making highly unlikely scenarios appear comprehensible to them. Just like celebrities with no skills, offering nothing to the world but their looks and yet they are adored and admired, so too is superstition attractive to morons.

While chaos theory uses conditional data to ascertain and predict climatic uncertainties, it is not actually about a butterfly. It is a figure of speech.

Orbital mechanics are unstable beyond two objects. Look up three-body problem. The sun is massive enough to dominate our solar system, and the planets sufficiently distant from each other that their mutual interaction is not likely to throw one away soon. — noAxioms

While the escape velocity is unlikely, the subject has been of some interest since the Newtonian 'wobble' effect along the axis caused by possible changes to the internal motions of the crust relative to earth' spin from events like earthquakes, environmental depletion and even nuclear testing that all impacts on polar shifts. If you think of something like orbital resonance, gravitational interactions and any possible deceleration of earth there could possibly bump us into a higher or lower orbit, or at the very least would have some lunar impact that would devastate the internal planetary dynamics.

Hmm, I'm unsure about this characterization of narcissism. I think one can still love the narcissist even when the narcissist stops their reciprocated love. For instance, I've loved a narcissist before, quite recently too, but I didn't stop loving them after our friendship ended. I'd like to think that I still love what was and is good in them, and that that love didn't evaporate merely because (she) stopped loving me. — Heister Eggcart

It is not about loving a narcissist, it is that the narcissist is incapable of loving others. They are trapped in their own ego and any expression of affection on their part is only due to the pleasure they feel because someone loves them. When they are told that there is something wrong with them, it is impossible and you are suddenly viewed as an enemy, monstrous even. Reality is a negotiation between good and bad and only one capable of seeing both can really understand 'reality' and enjoy lived experience.

But this must mean that you agree with the OP, and that a lie can be said with an honest heart, right? — Heister Eggcart

What is an 'honest heart'? Is that your way of saying that you seek to protect someone from being hurt, the latter of which you think is 'bad'? That type of hurt is not bad, on the contrary, when you face the consequences and take responsibility for your own actions, it is a necessary hurt that over time produces the greater good. It is not just about the present.

It is like breaking up with a partner you do not love; you care about them and you don't want to see them hurt, but by staying you indirectly form a type of implacable resentment hidden within a numb exterior and a mindless dependence. You lose yourself, your humanity in the process of surviving these confused feelings. But that hurts the person more and if you really cared not just for her but also for yourself, you would be honest because indeed in the long run it will give her a chance to move on and find someone who will care for her better than you as you find what it is you are looking for. You both become happier people.

This is why in the long run such people do all sorts of immoral things such as cheating, because they are capable of lying mostly to themselves, comfortable with the numbness of a dishonest reality. You end up in the long run doing more damage only because you believe that your decision is coming from an 'honest heart' or a loving and caring place. It is, yes, caring, but irrational and cowardly, which is rather selfish of you in what appears to be an outwardly appearing unselfish act.

This is wisdom; a combination of reason and a loving heart, otherwise a loving heart without knowledge is blind and knowledge without love is vicious. You need both to be courageous enough to take responsibility for such decisions and to be Epicurean viz., being honest enough to understand possible outcomes. It is like pouring vinegar over a jellyfish sting; the pain is immeasurable, albeit the pain subsides and the sting eventually dissipates, but in doing so you save a life. This is why I agree with you when you say:

I'm going out on a limb here and proclaiming it true that calculating the right decision is far and away more complicated than rocket science — Heister Eggcart

Hence, righteousness. To find the courage to make those difficult decisions despite your emotions. "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; for I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother," as I did and though I suffered the 'sting' of loneliness, isolation, poverty and fear because I refused to follow, my happiness is greater then it has ever been. I am honest to myself enough not to sacrifice my soul for anyone. This is a good 'hurt'.

I often listen to podcasts on my ipod rather than the ramblings of people when I am out shopping. It is kind of relaxing. Oxford Uni has some awesome stuff in the open education system.

The sun didn't "capture" earth, earth and the sun, plus all the other planets, moons, asteroids, comets, and various leftovers, all arose out of a disk of dust that happened to accumulate in this area of the Milky Whey and eventually went thermonuclear. — Bitter Crank

A shot I took when at the Dolomites, Italy. This was only when I just began about two years ago and experimented with filters, so now I am working towards more natural shots of nature and animals.

Oh right, the one that contains paprika.

Do you mean paprika?

My recipes get published. I would not want to further ridicule you by posting them. :-*

For real, if you give me an address, I'll send a check. I don't know another way. — Hanover

It's cheque. And those peas in your awkward dinners you post for everyone to see are not considered a vegetable.

Well, you do present yourself as a no-it-all, :B — Heister Eggcart

There is real knowledge about life and sometimes people experience bad things. Indeed, I am righteous by nature and hate injustice and the chosen field of my profession is specifically because of my determination to defend and support disadvantaged children who need a voice they would otherwise not have. But my knowledge does not descend into the bottomless pit of the grotesque. I don't want to hear about the weird shit people willingly do to themselves and each other, neither do I want to hear the whinges of the privileged crying that their plastic surgery hasn't helped secure the affections of their nasty boyfriend. Fuck off.

Love is as I defined it in my OP. Beating your wife is not loving, so their claiming that it is is just wrong. — Heister Eggcart

Your definition is what attracted me to this thread in the first place and while I believe that love is about giving love or having the attributes that care and empathise with others, without moral consciousness and a capacity for honest self-reflection, one can easily deceive themselves. Ring of Gyges. For instance, a person who witnesses a crime but looks the other way, or the narcissist who is a loving person only to those who love him. It could be that one deceives himself into thinking that he is protecting the interests of a loved one, but really he is protecting his own interests and there are a number of people that put on a show - think paedophilia and those Catholic priests that pretend to holiness - so it is about ascertaining that subjective honesty that wills the good. There is a unity in giving love, where people become one in a universal sense and you do not selectively give to one person and not the other, otherwise the love itself remains egotistic. So, it is about calculating the right decision according to this universal moral in a Kantian sense. I have turned my back even on family members because they are not good people, despite the fact that we are related because of my determination to adhere to universal principles like justice and righteousness.

Whether introspection is epistemically possible is another problem entirely though perhaps more a metaphysical question, in the end I am confident that honesty to oneself will assuredly mean that you would be honest to others, even if it means that you will hurt them because that is what being virtuous is; taking responsibility. In the case of ethical dilemmas, though, that is somewhat different relative to the circumstances.

Remorse requires humility, which is hard to come by. — Heister Eggcart

(Y) I find it the greatest gift being one who herself has experienced remorse. It changed my life entirely, so I respect those who are just as honest and humble to themselves and in turn others.

I guess we all win then... Hurray! — CasKev

Sorry buddy, but Madonna will win. I mean Hanover. His desperate antics to excite interest in this thread to try and hide his shame that it fared rather poorly with the audience forces him to regularly post in it.

Your example can shoot off in a million different ways. To be honest, I think this cheating example is way too hard to think about in an abstract way, seeing as I think we're both, perhaps, thinking of our own real life circumstances where we've been the middleman (or middlewoman, O:)). — Heister Eggcart

Bloody hell, I have this thing about me that people have this urge to tell me their deepest and darkest secrets and I assure you some things are really :-O worthy, thinking that somehow I am experienced to help them.

No.

I'd say that lying does prolong the inevitability of not lying about "it". I just think that such inevitability may be okay if the issue is prolonged for the right reason(s). For what it's worth, I don't see this decision as being routine or commonplace. — Heister Eggcart

You would be surprised.

Ever heard of the term 'whipped' where a person is controlled - whether consciously or not - by their partner? I have seen it a number of times and the condescension is so horrible that rather than the relationship being an amicable, mutual love and respect, it is instead prolonging and surviving by committing soul suicide. It is like you change yourself to mould into your environment and lose your own identity along the way. The lying is really to themselves and while it may appear for the right reasons, no one should ever be in a position to sacrifice themselves for the sake of prolonging something wrong in the first place.

I mean, just because there is a genuine love between two people doesn't negate the possibility of transgression between them. — Heister Eggcart

I agree, but it is really relative both with the transgression and whether the relationship is genuine; there are many men, for instance, that use physical violence against women and say that they did so because they loved them. If love is subjective towards someone that you admire and respect rather than merely dependence and an external show, I would assume that conversely feelings of resentment or no respect for your partner - though not publicly visible - can confirm it is not really genuine.

In the instance where it is genuine love, we are all human. We can say and do stupid things, but it really is about whether the person really feels remorse that can make forgiveness possible.

Had I not known about the cheating, and was asked whether I knew if (he) was cheating, I'd probably deflect and not answer, instead advising her to ask that question to him and not me. — Heister Eggcart

Are you not being dishonest by not saying anything? Inaction is action; witnessing a crime and doing nothing about it is just as terrible as committing the crime; one can answer a question by not answering, that dishonesty becomes necessary as you a caught between protecting the trust of a man who unfairly expressed his wrongdoing to you in confidence and her unfairly pressing to inform her of the truth. Moral dilemmas are never fair.

For my part, I would tell her but certainly not before I inform him that I will be if he does not because there are a number of principles that I adhere to that far outweigh his trust, and certainly I admire and wholeheartedly respect the courage one has to stand and face your wrongdoing. As I said, moral dilemmas are never fair and I will deflect that unfairness back to the source or the very root cause of the ethical issue even if it means losing a friend or making an enemy.

In future I can still protect both the cheater and the cheated-on by working around the various moral confines in place. In other words, lie in one case but not lie in another cases. Then again, I might not always have to lie and break confidence depending on the situation, as I kinda suggested just above. — Heister Eggcart

I understand this, but it is a blanket morality. It is trying to shield the guilt in some ways for failing to take the right action at a given moment and make yourself believe that an alternative solution can resolve the problem. All this does is prolong the inevitable.

I think it's probably better to say that the man loves his partner less after having cheated. If he loved her not at all, he'd have fucked off and not looked back. — Heister Eggcart

It is not his partner that he loves but what he attains from having such a partner, a social status, a community of people that congratulate his trophy but that emptiness is hidden. What people don't know does not miraculously make a person moral and a coward or a liar is incapable of loving. It is that subjective intent that matters and I am certain that a man who genuinely loves a woman would not be able to cheat on her, which leads to:

But, in the event that I deem it necessary, what I'm trying to get at here is that do so still keeps me an honest and loving person, that a lie for love doesn't rubbish my character. — Heister Eggcart

I disagree when it comes to 1-1 but when the middleman, indeed, there are circumstances that are just too unfortunate that you are forced to become a part of, and depending on these circumstances (like the cheating issues) does not necessarily change the nature of your character.

Or the "Boy George" wedding?

The reason is that people simply have enormous egos. Others have expensive tastes and they choose to indulge (whether they can afford it or not)...Yet another reason is that if your peers are spending a fortune, it is only natural for a couple to feel an expectation to do the same. You have to be strong willed to resist all of the pressures to organize a high cost wedding. — geospiza

Those expensive weddings are nothing more than a show and following what Baden has stated, the tradition is recycling the same superficial process that a photographer cannot transcend because it will be a problem for those who assume such photos are a must.

How ridiculous is the 'firing squad' photo? The average wedding cost in Australia is $50,000 and being 'cheap' is not the issue, it is about being intelligent and looking for quality in a cost-effective manner where the celebration reflects who you both are. That is why for me it would be a tiny wedding in a backyard where I bake my own cake and get a friend to take some snaps, the most expensive part of the wedding being the honeymoon.

What really needs to be asked is, if you were to take away all of the glamour and all of the spectacle, would there be anything left? — geospiza

That is exactly it.

It is a reflection of the couple and if they choose a superficial and expensive wedding, then I would imagine their relationship to be just the same. However, it is not to say that getting married is the issue and to celebrate that union, but as marriage is a tradition you become caught in a creative trap.

The photos that I used reflect my position on the subject (they are not mine but are examples very close to what I have done) that show expression and feeling and have a realistic and natural quality to them, but I particularly like the dancing. It is the couple being unaware that a camera is looking at them and you take shots of family and friends present to witness the union. It is portraiture and so it is not that there is something inherently impossible in taking creative photos at a wedding due to the limitation of the traditional landscape, but strictly speaking, the photos are about people. What photographers have forgotten is that it should reflect who those people are.

To clarify, I'm not refuting the moral quality of the lie in itself, but whether that lie may or may not facilitate honesty in the individual doing the lying. As I said in the OP, honesty follows from love. — Heister Eggcart

Your example of the Nazi camp is a situation or circumstance that is external to you.

I certainly stand corrected with your example, however my understanding works twofold; the ethical and the moral. For instance, if you were told in confidence by someone who was remorseful about them cheating on their partner as he sought your advice and you told him to be honest, if he fails to be honest and she inquired with you about whether he had cheated on her or not, would you lie and say that you do not know? You are caught between your obligation for the trust and confidence he had asked of you despite the wrongdoing of his actions and the deceit she was experiencing by him. Sometimes, by saying nothing at all, you are saying 'yes' and so a lie almost becomes inevitable.

But that really has nothing to do with me, in a sense, it is an ethical problem. Morally, however, it is about being deceptive or lying relating to my own actions and indeed they do cross-over, but not, because I was not the one who committed the wrongdoing itself that led to that ethical dilemma. In the case of the man who cheated, he may have appeared remorseful but he was more afraid and I believe that by remaining dishonest he has no love for his partner. He loves himself more, which is the reason for him cheating and his so-called guilt was actually the fear or risk of losing his reputation, as an example.

This is why I said that honesty toward someone you love and care for would always outweigh a lie, you would have absolutely no fear to tell the truth whatever that may be because your moral position outweighs your ego.

Perhaps this is the murkiest part of my position, but I hold that love is first among equal virtues, with other such virtues being honesty and truth. I think this because one can tell the truth without being loving, and honesty only comes about once one wills the good of another, once one loves, so honesty is merely a result of love's precedence. — Heister Eggcart

If love precedes acts of honesty and truth, it also becomes the compelling force that solidifies your will to honesty; therefore if one loves they cannot lie. As they say, there is no fear in love and I think since people are capable of being deceptive even to themselves, telling themselves that a lie is somehow 'white' or virtuous is just another form of self-deception. The utility may function for a while, but it always catches up to you and eventually you will be faced with the consequences for it. If you lie to someone you love, you quite simply don't love them.

Is there a particular example that you want to discuss?

Yeah ok, whatever you say. :-}

This isn't a competition as I have said time and time again. You are a waste of time and energy. I could have a better intellectual conversation with a brick wall.

Urg, done.

Or, is it the fault of people who do wedding photography? Are they just unimaginative? Or is it people who get married that have that problem? — geospiza

I think it is the fault of the married couple, the amount of money people spend on weddings these days makes one really think that people have normalised insanity. There is a delusional objective having this 'fairytale' wedding that rehearse an imagined portrayal of their love and I personally would DIY everything for more a small, intimate backyard wedding that would cost less entirely than the amount people spend just on photography. Wedding photographers themselves set the stage for these superficial poses because the photos look expensive, they appear worth spending the money on and the appearance of this 'quality' transcends the stuff one can take independently. And as the setting and environment helps with the opportunity to be creative, it provides little legroom for photographers to move beyond that.

I did the photography for a friend' wedding alongside a professional photographer and my photos naturally showcased the actual experience, the closeness and you could feel the love and emotion through them. You can still have great artistic photos that are not "statements".

Do you want me to wield a moral hatchet like yourself? — VagabondSpectre

Isn't that what you are attempting to do, only conversely? I am not playing a game here, this is not a competition of who will win and I am quite literally trying to have a discussion, but this attempt is being swallowed and it is frustrating that you are resorting to the abovementioned.

It is not just me who identifies the importance of morality, neither does one need to be religious as many would agree it to be an important aspect to human nature.

Certain thoughts and intentions are immoral, and wanting to have sex with a woman and approaching her on that basis is one such inherently immoral/un-virtuous thought — VagabondSpectre

Yes. Now, that we have established this, can we move forward? What I am interested in is not whether mutually consensual casual sex between two single adults is immoral (which is a case-by-case situation that depends on a number of factors), but this very assumption that enables one to assume the right to approach a woman with the sole intent of having sex with her. This objectifies the woman - turns her into an object or a thing - that who she is, what she thinks, what she has done etc., are all irrelevant as you yourself have confirmed. When your objective has been fulfilled, her as an object is no longer necessary and she becomes disposable.

Without this intention, is it not true that approaching a woman for casual sex no longer becomes possible?

I even sympathize with you — VagabondSpectre

Don't contradict yourself. Was it not you who said:

This is what I mean by not wanting to have to consider everyone's emotional well-being — VagabondSpectre

Sympathy and empathy are two very different concepts and I certainly do not need your sympathy, no matter how difficult my circumstances may have been. To acknowledge is very different to feeling and empathy is a personal connection, a felt experience and not simply being able to agree that a given situation is bad.

Friendship itself enables the opportunity to experience mutual care and trust and other duties that are constitutive of a relationship and this relationship draws two close enough to begin a teleological purpose and where one becomes motivated by concern and affection for their said-friendship. This shared interest in one another' well being enhances the experience of empathy, because they begin to share a genuine bond and a shared sense of what is important.

When two people who lack this friendship or said-bond are in a relationship based on mutual need rather than empathy and love, it always results in unhappiness. There may exist deception and lies, blanketed by an external show that is bound together by social or perhaps even familial expectations.

To pursue a sexual relationship preceding friendship would mean that you are not seeking to form this bond or that you desire to learn more about and experience the person. This is wrong and why any sexual relationship should be initiated only after forming a friendship.

I only intend to approach women with sexual interests in mind in reasonable settings, such as a club setting, although circumstances can make this a bit of a grey area (i.e, body language)). — VagabondSpectre

A 'grey area' is not good enough. You should be concerned about the intent itself and the formulation of categories that hastily generalise.

Oh come now. Appeal to un-philosophicalness? — VagabondSpectre

Because I said you are having trouble being philosophical. Then you say:

Why should it always follow friendship? Because that's how you feel about it? Because otherwise your feelings get hurt? — VagabondSpectre

Or:

I don't understand what you mean here; I don't have sex with objects, I have sex with people. — VagabondSpectre

I am going to do my best to avoid most of the nonsense that you write and try to find the best parts of your argument, because it is clear that you are a broken record incapable of thinking beyond your little world and that somehow writing lengthy posts would enable you to present yourself as an authority on this subject when, by your own admission, you have stated that you enjoy such argumentative tact. I personally find that distasteful.

Your moral point about approaching women with sexual interest/intentions is that it's harmful to them. — VagabondSpectre

This is the last time I am going to say this to you. I am NOT talking about individual, case-by-case situations. I am talking sexual morality. Do you understand that? It is not harmful to them - we are not discussing a problem of ethics - I specifically wrote it is about the person' intent, what you think, how you perceive. You keep on going back to the same thing, hence the broken record.

Why is "friendship" required to be "morally conscious"? — VagabondSpectre

It is the other way around; through friendship one becomes morally conscious, they begin to experience empathy. The pursuit of a sexual relationship should follow and not precede this. As I said, to become morally conscious - which is established by friendship - enables one to feel empathy and thus ultimately love, the cognition and capacity to connect to the external world and identify other people.

I remain an 'object' that one passively experiences, a non-being that exists merely as a benefit rather than actually seeing and experiencing 'me' or my identity. One becomes trapped in their own cognitive limitation that adheres merely to instinctual drives and follows morality only as is dictated by their environment rather than autonomously.

And as I will reiterate (again :-d ) that seeking a genuine bond with a man does not suddenly mean that I am averse to sex, on the contrary, so I would appreciate your coercive subtleties to be kept to a minimum; was it not you that said that you should not be concerned about the emotional well-being of women?

You say this:

So if I call someone who is a tramp, a tramp (not to her face in this case) is that bad? Why? — Agustino

But then, earlier in your little tirade against me, you said:

That's not kind, that's not nice, and that's not virtuous. End of story. — Agustino

You contradict yourself constantly; so I am not kind or nice or virtuous when I speak, but you are? And then you ask why it is bad to call someone a tramp? That people who don't love you are the sons and daughters of bitches? Your strategies to try and worm your way out of and excusing yourself from your behaviour is only deceptive to you and asking a multitude of irrelevant questions is as much a tactic as appealing to the 'many people agree with me' rhetoric when you attempt re-direct the blame to your interlocutor.

Of course I will judge them by their actions. When you say I'm extremely aggressive, aren't you judging me? I could do the same - who the hell are you to judge? :s Maybe I'm a really nice guy - who are you to say I'm not? Just because I don't fit your preconceived standard of behaviour? Pff - stop objectifying me! — Agustino

This is not a game of who can write the most or who will give up first or who can manipulate words the best as a way to deflect any responsibility. Again, here you are contradicting yourself and you are indeed aggressive. Several of your posts have been deleted if you haven't noticed.

Can you please stop discussing and spewing falsity about me? — Agustino

That actually made me laugh. I said to Vagabond that he and yourself are doing the exact same thing, that is wanting rather than learning how to give and ultimately objectifying onto others your desires in different ways, and this followed what you yourself said:

I have a sexy body that I'm proud of, why would I want some tramp to enjoy it eh? — Agustino

Your continuous contradictions is making it fast becoming impossible to communicate with you. You are so aggressive, as you say here:

Keep quiet with your bullshit. — Agustino

Or:

you got rid of a son/daughter of a bitch who didn't love you to begin with — Agustino

Even in this same sentence below, you do exactly what you say you are not doing, where you say you don't 'personally attack' followed by a personal attack,

I did not personally attack you - go back and read it again. It seems to me that you have no clue what you're talking about and you get very easily offended - that's not my fault now. — Agustino

Now my argument with Vagabond is that attraction and love to another person is about giving love and learning to understand the other person through empathy, which is formed through friendship. You would not call people 'tramps' for a start, such Othering is unnecessarily aggressive. If you do not respect a woman that you encounter, brush your shoulders off and move on, but who knows, these so-called 'tramps' could quite simply be good women who don't fit into the category you expect of them. Who are you to judge?

How warped and cynical. — geospiza

For those that use subtle coercion to try and pressure others to conform? Yes, they are rather warped people, aren't they.

Because I got 23/23.