Questions that only a sociopath / borderline could answer...

In Iran, women who wear their boots outside their pant legs get beaten with a stick. It's considered way too sex-ay thus could inspire men to rape and plunder at random. Anyway. What were you all talking about?

velouria wrote:In Iran, women who wear their boots outside their pant legs get beaten with a stick. It's considered way too sex-ay thus could inspire men to rape and plunder at random. Anyway. What were you all talking about?

Clearly, because this is "Right" in Iran... we in the western world should re-evaluate our own morals/ethics/right/wrongs to account for that. Oh god, what do we do about high-heels!!??? Or maybe i misunderstood Mikes "I hate America" speech, loaded with anti-psychopath mumble jumble. The endless contradictions could have confused me somewhere along the line, after all.. i am only human!

velouria wrote:In Iran, women who wear their boots outside their pant legs get beaten with a stick. It's considered way too sex-ay thus could inspire men to rape and plunder at random. Anyway. What were you all talking about?

Nothing except I brought up the concept of moral relevancy (that is, the secular notion of laws becoming engrained into the superego, if you like, of a person so that they become the foundation for morals). Someone had said that a normal person should feel guilt when they violate a societal moral (law) yet I maintain that societal law, since it is different between nations, or between states in the US for that matter, should not be seen as needing to evoke guilt when someone violates a "moral" or law of a society. I brought up the example of polygamy -- a practice that seems a-okay with the prophets of the Old Testament as well as the Koran, yet is only seen as desirable in some Middle Eastern nations, while a married man in the US might feel guilt for desiring more than one wife. I contend that any ego-distress based on a secular law is illogical. I do not fully understand why others have tried to fixate this discussion on otehr practices in the Middle East as I was illustrating a particular social institution to make a point, not to say that the Middle East is superior to the West.

Mike777 wrote: a married man in the US might feel guilt for desiring more than one wife.

You Americans are so funny. My husband would say one wife is one too many.

...yet is only seen as desirable in some Middle Eastern nations, while a married man in the US might feel guilt for desiring more than one wife.

How are you able to affirm these statements? Polygamy "desirable?" This is a quality that you place on the practice.

You know, with polygamy comes arranged marriages which means marrying people you will probably never love.

I think what you (or your married man in the US example) happen to pine for is hedonism.

I contend that any ego-distress based on a secular law is illogical.

You have zero basis for this. Sorry. I gather it's because you either don't possess the guilt emotion or you have so far failed in using the guilt emotion for its intended purpose. In either case, guilt (not the Catholic flavor) is a natural response to bad behavior. When we feel guilty, we know we've done wrong. Doesn't mean we have to wallow in it. It just means we need to modify our behaviors.

Ego-distress just seems a tad dramatic, no?

Either he's being serious, in which case.. humanity has fallen, or he be trollin'.

Either way, i'm done trying to convince someone who can say they made no contradictions.

velouria wrote:In Iran, women who wear their boots outside their pant legs get beaten with a stick. It's considered way too sex-ay thus could inspire men to rape and plunder at random. Anyway. What were you all talking about?

The fashion police there seem to be more sure of themselves. No one should ever wear boots outside of their pants.

Mike, Jesus freaking Christ on a crutch, we get that morals are subjective to culture. You continually contradict yourself and are painfully verbose. Every point you've made could have been easily summarized.

Polygamy is acceptable in some cultures. Those cultures it is NOT acceptable in often creates a sense of guilt in normally social-minded people because their desires violate the social norm.

Mike777 wrote:

A normal person feels bad about stealing because stealing is illegal and thus "wrong". A psychopath feels bad about getting caught for stealing because it's inconvenient and costly.

But what is "wrong" in one society is not wrong in another. Therefore one cannot argue, outside of a religious framework, that one particular moral or law should cause a person to be all bent out of shape if they break it. A law that is made by a group of people may or may not be valid

I don't understand where the giant debate about polygamy came from because it wasn't needed. I wasn't commenting on the differences in societies merely the difference between the pathology of psychopathic individuals in relation to the average person.

Obviously in some instances, an individual's religious beliefs may trump social law and norms in terms of morality HOWEVER that does not change my point.

A normal person feels bad about an act because the act is deemed unacceptable by law, personal morals, religious, or social norms. A psychopath feels bad about an act because the act directly affects the psychopath in a financial, physical, or in the manner of a personal offense and not as a result of the influence of outside social forces.

I'm done with this conversation.

When we feel guilty, we know we've done wrong. Doesn't mean we have to wallow in it. It just means we need to modify our behaviors.

Dependds on what you see as "wrong." Some people might follow a moral because it is perceived as helping them in their relation to God, but they see absolutely no need to follow man-made laws unless they conform to their religion. So what are they? If their religion says nothing about breaking a certain law, or even compells them to live outside the law, then are they psychopathic? If the law says you cannot fish without a license, and you find a pool of fish straded due to a drought, should you feel guilty for harvesting those fish for dinner -- they would have died anyway after all. Sure, it is illegal, but so what?

If you are an egg donor and have to take a psychological test prior to being accepted, and you know that some questions will paint you as psychpath or schizotypal, should you feel guilty for answering in such a way that you will be accepted since you can make a lot of money as well as pass your genes on?

As for polygamy, if a man and two women want to to have happiness, raise kids together, but the choice means they will break the law and have to live secretly in this arrangement, what the heck; more power to them -- and if they can live totally guilt-free then I would say they have reached a level of morla resoning that even Nietzsche would be proud of.

How are you able to affirm these statements? Polygamy "desirable?" This is a quality that you place on the practice.

You know, with polygamy comes arranged marriages which means marrying people you will probably never love.

I think what you (or your married man in the US example) happen to pine for is hedonism.

All systems of marriage come with a form of exploitation. Heck, some feminists believe there is no difference between being a wife and being a prostitute. Others believe that monogamy itself (whether heterosexual or same-sex) is an expression of a patriarchal system. So polygamy or polyandry is merely a system that can allow for exploitation, but does not have to. Of course, what is unfair to one is not to another. I suppose guys who are kinda at the bottom of the food chain might feel polygamy is unfair since it decreases their chance of having a wife -- yet are their "needs" for a wife and reproduction more important than a woman's ability to choose to share a husband if he has some trait that makes him superior? Good thing we do not apply the flawed reasoning of monogamy to nature or living organisms would eventually perish through genetic deterioration.

Either he's being serious, in which case.. humanity has fallen, or he be trollin'.

Not trolling in the least. And how has humanity fallen? Why not wake up and see how life really functions in our Machiavellian world? No need to believe in the fairy tales of Fabian socialism or humanism.