"Do no harm" as a failed moral framework

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1595
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

"Do no harm" as a failed moral framework

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie » 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.


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I bring an argument that the "Do no harm" framework is obsolete.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.
Image

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.

davidm
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: "Do no harm" as a failed moral framework

Post by davidm » Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:56 am

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...
:lol:

Seriously, why do you insist on smearing your idiotic id all over this forum?

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 6298
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: "Do no harm" as a failed moral framework

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » 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.

User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1595
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: "Do no harm" as a failed moral framework

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie » Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:17 pm

davidm wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:56 am
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...
:lol:

Seriously, why do you insist on smearing your idiotic id all over this forum?
you claim its idiotic but you never post any fucking argument ever other than stupid insults all the time. you are garbage

User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1595
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: "Do no harm" as a failed moral framework

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie » Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:18 pm

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.
what the hell was misogynistic about this post? absolutely fucking nothing. i gave equality to men and women.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 6298
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: "Do no harm" as a failed moral framework

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:00 pm

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:18 pm
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.
what the hell was misogynistic about this post? absolutely fucking nothing. i gave equality to men and women.
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 out :x

User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1595
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: "Do no harm" as a failed moral framework

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie » Sun Jan 21, 2018 7:49 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:00 pm
GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:18 pm
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.
what the hell was misogynistic about this post? absolutely fucking nothing. i gave equality to men and women.
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 out :x
well we live in a fascist 1984 world of censorship and bullshit.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10786
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: "Do no harm" as a failed moral framework

Post by Arising_uk » Wed Jan 31, 2018 2:22 am

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. ...
Good job they're not grammar robots too.
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. ...
Actually no, it's called sexual abuse which may or may not harm a woman's emotional or mental state.
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. ...
That's because it's not sexual abuse.
It is kind of a group delusion where the sheep of society can't really see the world clearly. ...
Or more likely that they see clearly that there is a difference in the cases.
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.
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.
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. ...
Why should they deserve to live and the other not?
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.
:lol: You think you can kill someone just because you were bullied in school?

surreptitious57
Posts: 1605
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: "Do no harm" as a failed moral framework

Post by surreptitious57 » 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

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10786
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: "Do no harm" as a failed moral framework

Post by Arising_uk » Wed Jan 31, 2018 11:30 am

Eh!?

surreptitious57
Posts: 1605
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: "Do no harm" as a failed moral framework

Post by surreptitious57 » Thu Feb 01, 2018 12:04 am

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

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 6298
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: "Do no harm" as a failed moral framework

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Thu Feb 01, 2018 1:05 am

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
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.

User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1595
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: "Do no harm" as a failed moral framework

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie » Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:46 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
Wed Jan 31, 2018 2:22 am
Actually no, it's called sexual abuse which may or may not harm a woman's emotional or mental state.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
] :lol: You think you can kill someone just because you were bullied in school?
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.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10786
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: "Do no harm" as a failed moral framework

Post by Arising_uk » Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:30 am

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:Thats called circular reasoning. You are implying sexual abuse is evil because it's sexual abuse. ...
Who's talking about evil? Sexual abuse is abuse because of the lack of consent in my opinion.
But you don't seem to want to understand the underlying reasons behind it. ...
I don't really care.
I am giving an underlying reason of why sexual abuse is evil...it is evil because it causes mental illness and emotional damage. ...
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.
The underlying evil is the mental illness, emotional damage. If something causes no damage, it is not evil. Understand? ...
You are just a bit too dramatic for me. The issue is lack of informed consent whether there is harm done or not.
If someone does something to you, and it causes you no damage, then it is injust to give them damage in return. ...
So if some nonce fiddles with a kiddy but the kiddy doesn't know then that's all jim dandy is it?
And that forms the whole basis of the human moral system. Anything else is cultural brainwashing.
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.
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 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.
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. ...
Not for all women and it's not banned by society if there is informed consent.
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 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.
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.
I don't really watch Hollywood movies anymore and really don't think them a source of reliable information.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 6298
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: "Do no harm" as a failed moral framework

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:51 am

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:
Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:46 pm
Arising_uk wrote:
Wed Jan 31, 2018 2:22 am
Actually no, it's called sexual abuse which may or may not harm a woman's emotional or mental state.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
] :lol: You think you can kill someone just because you were bullied in school?
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 can't go around slapping men either. It's called assault.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest