"Do no harm" as a failed moral framework
- GreatandWiseTrixie
- Posts: 1547
- Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm
"Do no harm" as a failed moral framework
Ok so first I want to thank the fucking bots for deleting my thread about Applied Ethics. I want to thank them because, I made that post to save the world and transform society, but now I see that the world is a bunch of rigged garbage that isn't even worth saving, and that the world is ran by robotic assholes who doesn't even care about anybody.
Which brings to my next topic "Do no harm" as a robotic framework for society.
If someone molests a woman it is called harming a woman's mental/emotional state, which it is.
However if a woman rejects a man, it harms his mental/emotional state, but society does not register it as immoral in the "do no harm" framework.
It is kind of a group delusion where the sheep of society can't really see the world clearly.
I bring an argument that the "Do no harm" framework is obsolete. For instance, say a fat ugly 90 year old homosexual male wants to date a 30 year old heterosexual male. According to "Do no harm" there is no actual solution. Either the heterosexual rejects him, which causes psychological trauma. Or the heterosexual has sex with him, which causes psychological trauma on the heterosexual. It all goes back to these cuck comics.
This is a moral dilemma because even if you escape the framework of egoism there is still clear damage.
The only solution in the above scenario (homosexual and heterosexual) would be some kind of way to turn the homosexual into an attractive woman.
However each scenario works on a case by case basis. For instance in the case of murder it should first be analysed, did the person deserve to die, and was the murderer oppressed by the victim. If the person did not deserve to die, and the murder lived a good and happy life, then actually the murder should be given some sort of brain surgery to wipe their old personality and thus not be a threat to society. However if the murder was oppressed by the victim or society (in the case of highschool bullying) then all charges should be dropped against the murderer and no punishment reached.
Which brings to my next topic "Do no harm" as a robotic framework for society.
If someone molests a woman it is called harming a woman's mental/emotional state, which it is.
However if a woman rejects a man, it harms his mental/emotional state, but society does not register it as immoral in the "do no harm" framework.
It is kind of a group delusion where the sheep of society can't really see the world clearly.
I bring an argument that the "Do no harm" framework is obsolete. For instance, say a fat ugly 90 year old homosexual male wants to date a 30 year old heterosexual male. According to "Do no harm" there is no actual solution. Either the heterosexual rejects him, which causes psychological trauma. Or the heterosexual has sex with him, which causes psychological trauma on the heterosexual. It all goes back to these cuck comics.
This is a moral dilemma because even if you escape the framework of egoism there is still clear damage.
The only solution in the above scenario (homosexual and heterosexual) would be some kind of way to turn the homosexual into an attractive woman.
However each scenario works on a case by case basis. For instance in the case of murder it should first be analysed, did the person deserve to die, and was the murderer oppressed by the victim. If the person did not deserve to die, and the murder lived a good and happy life, then actually the murder should be given some sort of brain surgery to wipe their old personality and thus not be a threat to society. However if the murder was oppressed by the victim or society (in the case of highschool bullying) then all charges should be dropped against the murderer and no punishment reached.
Re: "Do no harm" as a failed moral framework
GreatandWiseTrixie wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 12:36 am Ok so first I want to thank the fucking bots for deleting my thread about Applied Ethics. I want to thank them because, I made that post to save the world and transform society...
Seriously, why do you insist on smearing your idiotic id all over this forum?
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13983
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: "Do no harm" as a failed moral framework
You have to admit it's fun to read--unlike much of the 'worthy' drivel on here.
I also find it rather amusing that the terribly PC on here 'ahem' fly to Trixieboo's defence when I dare to challenge him on his claims to womanhood, yet say nothing about his pathologically misogynistic ravings. Amusing, but hardly surprising.
I also find it rather amusing that the terribly PC on here 'ahem' fly to Trixieboo's defence when I dare to challenge him on his claims to womanhood, yet say nothing about his pathologically misogynistic ravings. Amusing, but hardly surprising.
- GreatandWiseTrixie
- Posts: 1547
- Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm
Re: "Do no harm" as a failed moral framework
you claim its idiotic but you never post any fucking argument ever other than stupid insults all the time. you are garbagedavidm wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:56 amGreatandWiseTrixie wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 12:36 am Ok so first I want to thank the fucking bots for deleting my thread about Applied Ethics. I want to thank them because, I made that post to save the world and transform society...
Seriously, why do you insist on smearing your idiotic id all over this forum?
- GreatandWiseTrixie
- Posts: 1547
- Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm
Re: "Do no harm" as a failed moral framework
what the hell was misogynistic about this post? absolutely fucking nothing. i gave equality to men and women.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 4:16 am You have to admit it's fun to read--unlike much of the 'worthy' drivel on here.
I also find it rather amusing that the terribly PC on here 'ahem' fly to Trixieboo's defence when I dare to challenge him on his claims to womanhood, yet say nothing about his pathologically misogynistic ravings. Amusing, but hardly surprising.
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13983
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: "Do no harm" as a failed moral framework
Nothing. It was another thread, which was irritatingly deleted. Irritating because of the fact that I had wiped the floor with you, and not one of your PC friends (the ones who include you in one of their pet groups (lucky you)) had called you outGreatandWiseTrixie wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:18 pmwhat the hell was misogynistic about this post? absolutely fucking nothing. i gave equality to men and women.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 4:16 am You have to admit it's fun to read--unlike much of the 'worthy' drivel on here.
I also find it rather amusing that the terribly PC on here 'ahem' fly to Trixieboo's defence when I dare to challenge him on his claims to womanhood, yet say nothing about his pathologically misogynistic ravings. Amusing, but hardly surprising.
- GreatandWiseTrixie
- Posts: 1547
- Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm
Re: "Do no harm" as a failed moral framework
well we live in a fascist 1984 world of censorship and bullshit.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:00 pmNothing. It was another thread, which was irritatingly deleted. Irritating because of the fact that I had wiped the floor with you, and not one of your PC friends (the ones who include you in one of their pet groups (lucky you)) had called you outGreatandWiseTrixie wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:18 pmwhat the hell was misogynistic about this post? absolutely fucking nothing. i gave equality to men and women.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 4:16 am You have to admit it's fun to read--unlike much of the 'worthy' drivel on here.
I also find it rather amusing that the terribly PC on here 'ahem' fly to Trixieboo's defence when I dare to challenge him on his claims to womanhood, yet say nothing about his pathologically misogynistic ravings. Amusing, but hardly surprising.
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: "Do no harm" as a failed moral framework
Good job they're not grammar robots too.GreatandWiseTrixie wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 12:36 am Ok so first I want to thank the fucking bots for deleting my thread about Applied Ethics. I want to thank them because, I made that post to save the world and transform society, but now I see that the world is a bunch of rigged garbage that isn't even worth saving, and that the world is ran by robotic assholes who doesn't even care about anybody. ...
Actually no, it's called sexual abuse which may or may not harm a woman's emotional or mental state.Which brings to my next topic "Do no harm" as a robotic framework for society.
If someone molests a woman it is called harming a woman's mental/emotional state, which it is. ...
That's because it's not sexual abuse.However if a woman rejects a man, it harms his mental/emotional state, but society does not register it as immoral in the "do no harm" framework. ...
Or more likely that they see clearly that there is a difference in the cases.It is kind of a group delusion where the sheep of society can't really see the world clearly. ...
It boils down to what one calls 'harm', how about just 'Do no physical harm'. Another solution is for the homosexual to realise that rejection can part and parcel of trying to form a relationship, that and that he really ought to consider what 'heterosexual' means.I bring an argument that the "Do no harm" framework is obsolete. For instance, say a fat ugly 90 year old homosexual male wants to date a 30 year old heterosexual male. According to "Do no harm" there is no actual solution. Either the heterosexual rejects him, which causes psychological trauma. Or the heterosexual has sex with him, which causes psychological trauma on the heterosexual. It all goes back to these cuck comics.
...
This is a moral dilemma because even if you escape the framework of egoism there is still clear damage.
The only solution in the above scenario (homosexual and heterosexual) would be some kind of way to turn the homosexual into an attractive woman.
Why should they deserve to live and the other not?However each scenario works on a case by case basis. For instance in the case of murder it should first be analysed, did the person deserve to die, and was the murderer oppressed by the victim. If the person did not deserve to die, and the murder lived a good and happy life, then actually the murder should be given some sort of brain surgery to wipe their old personality and thus not be a threat to society. ...
You think you can kill someone just because you were bullied in school?However if the murder was oppressed by the victim or society (in the case of highschool bullying) then all charges should be dropped against the murderer and no punishment reached.
-
- Posts: 4257
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am
Re: "Do no harm" as a failed moral framework
You can challenge her on her claim to womanhood as much as you like it makes absolutely no difference to me. The reason I use the female pronoun regarding her is because she prefers it but what you call her is up to you. Far as her being misogynistic is concerned I already knew
that but her opinions of women are none of my business. I just happen to like her for some strange reason. You can hate her as much as you
like for all I care. As your opinions of her are also none of my business nor yours of me if you have any but I have no problem with you at all
that but her opinions of women are none of my business. I just happen to like her for some strange reason. You can hate her as much as you
like for all I care. As your opinions of her are also none of my business nor yours of me if you have any but I have no problem with you at all
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
-
- Posts: 4257
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am
Re: "Do no harm" as a failed moral framework
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
I also find it rather amusing that the terribly PC on here ahem fly to Trixieboos defence when I dare to
challenge him on his claims to womanhood yet say nothing about his pathologically misogynistic ravings
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13983
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: "Do no harm" as a failed moral framework
As usual my point was completely missed. I didn't think it was particularly obscure. I don't hate Trixie at all. I like Trixie. Doesn't mean I'm not going to point it out when I think Trixie talks crap. I also point it out when Trixie talks sense.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2018 2:42 am You can challenge her on her claim to womanhood as much as you like it makes absolutely no difference to me. The reason I use the female pronoun regarding her is because she prefers it but what you call her is up to you. Far as her being misogynistic is concerned I already knew
that but her opinions of women are none of my business. I just happen to like her for some strange reason. You can hate her as much as you
like for all I care. As your opinions of her are also none of my business nor yours of me if you have any but I have no problem with you at all
- GreatandWiseTrixie
- Posts: 1547
- Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm
Re: "Do no harm" as a failed moral framework
Thats called circular reasoning. You are implying sexual abuse is evil because it's sexual abuse. But you don't seem to want to understand the underlying reasons behind it. I am giving an underlying reason of why sexual abuse is evil...it is evil because it causes mental illness and emotional damage. The underlying evil is the mental illness, emotional damage. If something causes no damage, it is not evil. Understand? If someone does something to you, and it causes you no damage, then it is injust to give them damage in return. And that forms the whole basis of the human moral system. Anything else is cultural brainwashing.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2018 2:22 amActually no, it's called sexual abuse which may or may not harm a woman's emotional or mental state.
2 things. 'Do no physical harm' is not a culturally accepted moral framework. If an old man touches a child's penis but does not physically harm the child's butthole, then he has done no physical harm to the child, but has caused mental illness, emotional harm, on the child.It boils down to what one calls 'harm', how about just 'Do no physical harm'. Another solution is for the homosexual to realise that rejection can part and parcel of trying to form a relationship, that and that he really ought to consider what 'heterosexual' means.
Other thing is, far as the "part and parcel" goes, slapping a woman's ass is part of her getting turned on sexually, yet society bans it.
All because society is geared and focused (brainwashed) to care about a woman's needs, but not care about male needs. (Ie. titanic philosophy, men need to die and women need to live.)
What about the movie Moonlight. Hollywood seems to agree with me as it just released a movie that glorifies killing bullies. I think it won an Academy Award.] You think you can kill someone just because you were bullied in school?
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: "Do no harm" as a failed moral framework
Who's talking about evil? Sexual abuse is abuse because of the lack of consent in my opinion.GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:Thats called circular reasoning. You are implying sexual abuse is evil because it's sexual abuse. ...
I don't really care.But you don't seem to want to understand the underlying reasons behind it. ...
But in many cases where children are involved they don't seem to know this due to grooming? So it's consent in my opinion not about evil and whatever.I am giving an underlying reason of why sexual abuse is evil...it is evil because it causes mental illness and emotional damage. ...
You are just a bit too dramatic for me. The issue is lack of informed consent whether there is harm done or not.The underlying evil is the mental illness, emotional damage. If something causes no damage, it is not evil. Understand? ...
So if some nonce fiddles with a kiddy but the kiddy doesn't know then that's all jim dandy is it?If someone does something to you, and it causes you no damage, then it is injust to give them damage in return. ...
I think 'sticks and stones' is a good moral guide and one that many today ought to bear in mind but with respect to sexual matters I think informed consent is the major concern.And that forms the whole basis of the human moral system. Anything else is cultural brainwashing.
Not necessarily, the child may have no awareness that this is anything other than a normal sexual situation, this is why it's about informed consent.2 things. 'Do no physical harm' is not a culturally accepted moral framework. If an old man touches a child's penis but does not physically harm the child's butthole, then he has done no physical harm to the child, but has caused mental illness, emotional harm, on the child. ...
Not for all women and it's not banned by society if there is informed consent.Other thing is, far as the "part and parcel" goes, slapping a woman's ass is part of her getting turned on sexually, yet society bans it. ...
I think that's mainly because the women can go on to produce more members of society so in a sense are more valuable. I really think you live in a bit of an American fantasy if the think the lot of women in the world is better compared to that of men.All because society is geared and focused (brainwashed) to care about a woman's needs, but not care about male needs. (Ie. titanic philosophy, men need to die and women need to live.)
I don't really watch Hollywood movies anymore and really don't think them a source of reliable information.What about the movie Moonlight. Hollywood seems to agree with me as it just released a movie that glorifies killing bullies. I think it won an Academy Award.
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13983
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: "Do no harm" as a failed moral framework
You can't go around slapping men either. It's called assault.GreatandWiseTrixie wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:46 pmThats called circular reasoning. You are implying sexual abuse is evil because it's sexual abuse. But you don't seem to want to understand the underlying reasons behind it. I am giving an underlying reason of why sexual abuse is evil...it is evil because it causes mental illness and emotional damage. The underlying evil is the mental illness, emotional damage. If something causes no damage, it is not evil. Understand? If someone does something to you, and it causes you no damage, then it is injust to give them damage in return. And that forms the whole basis of the human moral system. Anything else is cultural brainwashing.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2018 2:22 amActually no, it's called sexual abuse which may or may not harm a woman's emotional or mental state.
2 things. 'Do no physical harm' is not a culturally accepted moral framework. If an old man touches a child's penis but does not physically harm the child's butthole, then he has done no physical harm to the child, but has caused mental illness, emotional harm, on the child.It boils down to what one calls 'harm', how about just 'Do no physical harm'. Another solution is for the homosexual to realise that rejection can part and parcel of trying to form a relationship, that and that he really ought to consider what 'heterosexual' means.
Other thing is, far as the "part and parcel" goes, slapping a woman's ass is part of her getting turned on sexually, yet society bans it.
All because society is geared and focused (brainwashed) to care about a woman's needs, but not care about male needs. (Ie. titanic philosophy, men need to die and women need to live.)
What about the movie Moonlight. Hollywood seems to agree with me as it just released a movie that glorifies killing bullies. I think it won an Academy Award.] You think you can kill someone just because you were bullied in school?