The Alphaville Herald

435 Responses to “Interview with Anonymous, on Alphaville’s Bondage, Discipline & Sadomasochism Community”

1. 

   Paul "Phinehas" Schwanz
   

   Jan 6th, 2004
   

   Catseye> “Phin you ignored my question above..”

   They are red herrings.

   Catseye> “How many did Hitler himself kill personally?”

   Do you need to know this in order to say whether or not murder is wrong?

   Catseye> “where does the morality lie in stating the order or pulling the switch?”

   Do you need to know this in order to say whether or not murder is wrong?

   Catseye> “How many times have we heard I am going to kill you? yet never see it followed through?”

   Do we need to know this in order to say whether or not murder is wrong? I don’t. Murder is wrong. I’m going to remain very inflexible on that point with no regard whatsoever to how many people Hitler actually killed, whether or not someone pulls a switch, or how many times someone says they are going to kill me, yet didn’t follow through.

   Catseye> “Murder is a case by case judgement why do you think we have trials etc for such an event in most of the world?”

   Baloney! I’ve never heard of a trial to see whether or not murder is wrong. All the trials I’ve heard about are to see whether or not someone has committed murder. If it is determined that they have committed murder, then they are found guilty of murder. But the immoral nature of murder is never in question in a trial.

   Catseye> “and yes it is a large topic first off we must look and determine if it fits murder second we must look to see if the person committing the action was of sound mind to realise it was murder then we must take a look at the situation of the murder….”

   Once again, you are confusing an individual’s guilt with the question of whether or not murder is wrong. A person’s guilt may be questioned, but no lawyer has ever argued that their client should be set free because murder isn’t wrong. At least, not that I’m aware.

   Catseye> “I judge that one must judge each case in it’s own not lump them into a neat little package i.e. for every rule there is an exception…”

   Yes, we should decide in each case whether or not someone is guilty of murder. But what does this have to do with whether or not murder is wrong? Again, no one has brought up the issue of whether or not murder is wrong in any trial I’ve ever heard about.

   Phin> “One cannot have immoral actions while having moral beliefs, nor can they have moral actions while having immoral beliefs.”

   Catseye> “this in itself locks the doors to growth, groups in there is no chance for reform.. the man who committs murder in your argument can not EVER preform a Moral act”

   Reform? What kind of reform are you talking about? Do you know of some sort of reform where you change your beliefs, but not your actions? So the murderer has been reformed because now he says that he believes murder is wrong even while killing his victims? My philosophy doesn’t struggle the least bit with the concept of reform. If someone is reformed so that their beliefs have been changed, their actions will be changed as well.

   Catseye> “Also I would like to learn your stance on the death penalty is this moral? is it murder? if yes to murder who is the one showing immorality? the ones on the Jury? the Judge? the Governor? the executioner? all of the above? does it change with each case?”

   Why don’t we at least figure out whether or not murder is wrong before we tackle what might qualify as murder and what might not?

   Catseye> “these are arguments I will wait to hear..”

   Catseye> “Hitler ordered the deaths of the Jews but he did not carry them out personality so his actions were immoral? what immoral act did he preform? or was it just immoral thoughts? oh my what a can of worms that would be for I bet 90% of us have had immoral thoughts or actions and even ideas in our lives…”

   I’m sure all of that will be much more difficult than figuring out whether murder is wrong or not. If we cannot make any progress on deciding whether or not murder is immoral, how can we ever hope to begin to tackle more complicated issues? I say that murder is decidedly and inflexibly wrong. You waffle. So why should I try to show that Hitler committed murder when you haven’t even admitted that doing so would be immoral?

   –Phin
2. 

   Catseye
   

   Jan 6th, 2004
   

   I gave examples of when Murder would not be wrong..

   the husband killing his suffering wife in a coma..

   Murder:The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

   1)To kill (another human) unlawfully.
   2)To kill brutally or inhumanly.

   Malice: Law. The intent, without just cause or reason, to commit a wrongful act that will result in harm to another…

   so even according to the dictionary if you lawfully kill another human it is not murder

   I do not waffle I state that Murder is a case by case issue what you deem as Murder I may not deem as such reasoning for the trials… so if I think I have just cause it would not be malice therefore would not be murder but my just cause in my mind may not be just in yours..

   Case by case not one lump sum is my point.. I have not waffled from that stance and will not.. the Sky is blue to some.. the sky is a different color to those who maybe color blind… the sky is black to those who can not see.. the sky is colorless to Science…

   All of these are defined by the individual and everyone is correct…

   Immoral:Immoral

   adj 1: violating principles of right and wrong [ant: moral, amoral] 2: not adhering to ethical or moral principles; “base and unpatriotic motives”; “a base, degrading way of life”; “cheating is dishonorable”; “they considered colonialism immoral”; “unethical practices in handling public funds” [syn: base, dishonorable, dishonourable, unethical] 3: morally unprincipled; “immoral behavior” 4: characterized by wickedness or immorality; “led a very bad life” [syn: bad] 5: marked by immorality; deviating from what is considered right or proper or good; “depraved criminals”; “a perverted sense of loyalty”; “the reprobate conduct of a gambling aristocrat” [syn: depraved, perverse, perverted, reprobate]

   even the definitation of being Immoral above depends on what is considered good and bad leaves it to the individual..

   Moral:adj.
   Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
   Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
   Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
   Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
   Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
   Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

   n.
   The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event.
   A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim.
   morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals.

   there Morals Rules or habits of conduct what is moral to me may not be moral to you it is a person to person judgement it is not able to be grouped into a neat little package.. we make our own desicison of right vs wrong thereby we set our own Moral code.. is Murder wrong? in most cases yes in all no in my eyes there are times when it is not immoral…

   These would be called mercy Killings… I would also go as far as saying there are other cases where I would see murder as Moral and not Immoral the Murder of one who murdered others…

   see Phin I can prove it to myself but I can not force you to accept the proof as such.. that is why this is moot….

   Was Hitler Immoral? not if he was acting on his beliefs and believed them right…

   Did Hitler preform the act of Murder? I have no proof of that Jews did die and he gave the order to have them put to death.. but others turned the valves…

   you said my quotes were grey and vauge that is because this is a very broad subject where you are trying to lump everything into a neat package and passing final judgement on all .. I tend not to make such all or none statements I allow a door open to allow change and growth in my moral belief it is not set in stone when I was a child my morals were different than they are when I am an adult… things evolve which change my beliefs or right and wrong this is taught via the school of life and experience..

   do I think abortion is wrong? yes as a form of birth control.. do I think a woman should have the choice on what happens to her body? yes I do so I am both pro life and pro choice…
3. 

   Paul "Phinehas" Schwanz
   

   Jan 6th, 2004
   

   Catseye> “Was Hitler Immoral? not if he was acting on his beliefs and believed them right…”

   Are you kidding me!?!

   So if I truly believe that all people with blue eyes are deserving of death and I set about to kill them all, as long as I’m acting on my own beliefs and as long as I believe that killing blue-eyed people is the right thing to do, I am not immoral?

   Are you some sort of madman?!?

   There is nothing coherent about such a philosophy. It is a despicable and heinous belief system to hold.

   Now will you judge me more severly for saying so than you would if I went about killing blue-eyed people? Will you judge me more severly for not accepting your extreme pluralism than you are willing to judge Hitler?

   –Phin
4. 

   Catseye
   

   Jan 6th, 2004
   

   ah but are you immoral for saying that all blue eyed people should be put to death?

   or are you immoral for actually killing every blue eyed person you see?
5. 

   Catseye
   

   Jan 6th, 2004
   

   Sorry I must have accidently hit post when I got up from my keyboard…

   in finishing Phin you claim all murder is immoral so if tomorrow it was proven that all the blue eyed people in the world must be killed to save the rest of the human race you would in my eyes be moral in carrying that out
6. 

   Paul "Phinehas" Schwanz
   

   Jan 7th, 2004
   

   Catseye> “ah but are you immoral for saying that all blue eyed people should be put to death?”

   Catseye> “or are you immoral for actually killing every blue eyed person you see?”

   Are you still trying to defend Hitler here? You think he was OK for inciting or even ordering others to kill Jews as long as he didn’t do it himself?

   Catseye> “in finishing Phin you claim all murder is immoral so if tomorrow it was proven that all the blue eyed people in the world must be killed to save the rest of the human race you would in my eyes be moral in carrying that out”

   So what’s that worth? How is my being moral in your eyes any different than being immoral in your eyes, since neither one seems to carry any weight of philosophy or principle behind them? So how would I be better off by not killing all blue-eyed people even if it didn’t move us a whit closer to saving humanity. (And I’d use that term in its weakest possible sense did it consist solely of those who have as little principle as you seem determined to exibit. I find little humane in defending Hitler’s morality.) The only way it could possibly affect me in the slightest would be if you had any sort of power or numbers behind your opinion of my moral character. And how would that not be a might makes right approach to morality?

   –Phin
7. 

   Catseye
   

   Jan 7th, 2004
   

   Phin you avoid my question which is immoral stating it or doing it?

   Morals are an individuals set code to determine right vs wrong these are not LAWS these are what we set as we mature in this world… they change as we gain experience…

   I am not defending Hitler or anyone I didnt state I thought he was moral in his actions but I am sure he thought he was moral in doing so. as thought the ones who followed his orders thought he was moral in doing so. else they would not have done so..

   France thought the UN was immoral for going to Iraq so they did not… the UN thought it was our Moral obligation to go there so who was right?

   I believe that every man woman and child have their own set of morals taught as we grow by Father Mother Friends etc we are taught by orginazations Churches.. Politics.. News even and we decide what is wrong and what is right…

   Murder you ask why it was wrong and in every case it is not wrong nor is it right it is a case by case judgement… why else do we define murder in different words? First Degree Second Degree Justifibal homicide if it was as you state Immoral Always then why the need for a trial? Why a need for one who knowingly commits murder and claims to be guilty of such to still be forced to a trial? it is because as Humans we must understand the reasoning and to see if it was actually Immoral in our eyes and if there was not a just cause..

   Hinkly (s/p) thought he was moral in trying to murder Mr Reagan and society found him not understanding what was right and wrong to societies eyes therefore he was deemed insane..

   No I am defending anyone and I have yet to set I thought the individuals we bring up as being Moral… but I simply state that I believe they thought themselves to be by their code of Morality..

   Is the Husband pulling the plug on his wife after a long bout of suffering and coma Moral? he thinks he is… others will deem him immoral..

   Was Dr Kovorkian Immoral for assisting those who were terminal and in lots of pain in ending their lives? he never started the machines that was left to the person wanting to end his/her own life….. so was he Immoral? was he Moral for helping them leave a world of pain and suffering? he thought he was Moral else he would not have done it society seemed to hold a different opinion on the matter since he was placed on trial and later I belived after many attempts finally jailed..

   Is the SWAT sniper Immoral for pulling the trigger on the rifle to take out a person who took a hostage? is his Leader Immoral for giving the order?

   See Phin it is not Black and white as you are trying to make it… tomorrow you may wake up and find that not all murder is immoral and then since your statement that it is always Immoral you will make yourself a liar which is immoral in my eyes..

   that is why I do not make such final statements as Always and Never for every rule there is a possiblity of an exception so why lock yourself in a moral code where one of those can not change or be changed as you grow in the world?

   now you failed to answer my question Phin…

   the debate was not what I believe it was not what I thought was moral for we do not have enough time or space to hold a conversation on those topics you asked why Murder was wrong and I feel I have given enough examples that show that at times it is not wrong and others it is wrong I refer you back to my original reply it was simple yes and no…. do you deny that I have fulfilled my reasioning? if so please point out where I err then I will try to explain the line of reasoning on the matter.. if I have not fulfilled my line of thinking then I awiat your replay stating why I have failed in such and the reasoning you hold on that matter until then let’s stick to topic on why is mirder wrong instead of diving into a major morality issue where you will not accept that each individual have their own set of morals… I am not trying to jusge your set and you should not be trying to judge mine because you have no idea what mine are do you?
8. 

   Paul "Phinehas" Schwanz
   

   Jan 8th, 2004
   

   OK, we are wondering all over the place here. Let’s see if we cannot bring a wee bit of focus back to the discussion.

   Catseye> “the debate was not what I believe it was not what I thought was moral for we do not have enough time or space to hold a conversation on those topics you asked why Murder was wrong and I feel I have given enough examples that show that at times it is not wrong and others it is wrong I refer you back to my original reply it was simple yes and no….”

   As you say, the question is why is murder wrong. If it will help get past all of the nonsense, I’d be happy to settle for you explaining to me why murder is wrong for those times that you do think it is wrong. Or is it only wrong because you think it is wrong? You keep talking about, “in my eyes this,” and “in their eyes that.” So again, if it morality is reduced down to mere human opinion with no weight of philosophy or principle behind it, of what more use is it than saying something like, “I like chocolate?” So you like chocolate ice cream and you think that, in your opinion, murder may be wrong in some nebulous way, depending upon circumstances. So what? Maybe I like vanilla and think all blue-eyed people should die. If there is no more weight of philosophy or principle behind your idea that murder may be wrong in some cases than there is behind your idea that chocolate tastes good, so what? Indeed, if there is not even a possibility of there being philosophy or principle behind morality, why should anyone ever give any passincg concern to issues of morality?

   [sarcasm]
   Is it OK to drop nuclear bombs on random cities? Who cares? I like vanilla ice cream, so lets go bomb Sicily. Oh, you like chocolate and think I shouldn’t? Well, that’s all very interesting, but I’ve got an island to bomb, so I’ll catch you later. Toodles.
   [/sarcasm]

   As before, unless you have some sort of philosophical weight or principle behind your opinion regarding murder, I can’t see how your opinion can affect me in the slightest, unless you have some sort of numbers or power behind your opinion, in which case morality seems to be a function of might (or numbers) makes right.

   What’s wrong with my logic here?

   –Phin
9. 

   Catseye
   

   Jan 8th, 2004
   

   Ah yet again you avoid my question Phin so I will try to make this black and white

   “[sarcasm]
   Is it OK to drop nuclear bombs on random cities? Who cares? ”

   the US did this in the 40′s to two cities of Japan… who cared at that time?

   my god I think you got it.. however Morality is the individual’s aspect of right and wrong not just murder but in all walks of life there is no bearing on morality other than one chooses to do what one seems as right.or even more so as in not doing what one deems as wrong. these are not set in stone they change they grow as one matures what is moral for you today maybe immoral tomorrow in your eyes.. what I find to be wrong you may accept as not wrong does this make you immoral? you are also correct in assuming that chocolate is right and that some may deem it as wrong… it is that simple actually Phin

   My morals and your Morals mean nothing to the World it could care less what we think about right and wrong just as I am sure all on this thread could care less on our debate on the matter.. My morals are not more important to you than yours are to mine.. Morals are important only to those who have their own set these are evolved as one grows.. in the murder trial it is 12 people judging the morals of the person not the world not the socitey and even if 1 person finds him to be innocent of the charge then he is not passed judgement of murder at least in the US.. so in that reguard one persons morals do make a difference hehe another grey area I believe..

   Morals are Individual reasoning between what THEY seem is right and what THEY seem is wrong.. yes many of the so called Morals are general accepted… but no one has the EXACT same set of Morals and that is what makes us human..

   You statement is why is murder wrong? Murder is wrong only if the person committing the deed…

   a) knows he is committing murder
   b) knows it is wrong

   if a 5 year old gets daddy’s gun and kills his friend like they show on TV is he immoral? no for he truly thinks he has done no wrong at that time..

   so yes in your argument if you think killing anyone whether blue eye or any other reasoning is not wrong you would not be immoral..

   Society would judge you elsewise..yet you would get someone to defend your right to have done that deed…

   Individuals are self not groups… but murder is clear cut you think what is murder to you is not what all think…

   but this is Murder not morals we are talking about again if one thinks he has just cause and thinks that the end is for the greater good is he wrong?

   again the husband or wife ending their mates life from suffering…

   I fear Phin you are avoiding the senarios I have brought up due to your answers would make your point ring false?

   this thread was started talking about BDSM about the D/s roles in game and it delved into real as a moral vs immoral argument.. grouping all activities into a simple group of BDSM so it is easy for you to judge and I mean you as others reading this..

   Dyerbrook thinks BDSM is immoral but if we really look at it I think it would be more that he thinks some aspects which he believes take part in the BDSM lifestyle is immoral.. this is his right but his right does not extend into trying to judge all that claim part of BDSM as immoral..

   For example many tell our subs that they should not wait hand and foot on the doms they serve that they should get their own minds etc they find them to be weak minded for waiting hand and foot on us..

   do these same people inform this to the waiter and waitress at the restraunt they go to? sorry I will wait on myself you go get your mind back.. do we inform our employer that we will no longer do as they say because we are free people and dont believe in what they think we should do?

   This thread is about a Lifestyle CHOICE we all make of free mind we all set limits on how far we will go and what we will do…

   Murder is not black and white it is again I repeat a case by case judgement…

   what is wrong Phin I will not say what you wish me to say?

   Murder is wrong if you believe it is Murder and that it is wrong.. Rascism is wrong if you believe that is is Racism and that it is wrong.. Lying is Wrong if you believe it is lying and it is wrong..

   you learn this by maturing and learning as you grow our fathers and mothers at some time (and yes I mean that in general terms) believed it was right to have the color of skin seperate human life this belief now a days is wrong to many but it was not at that time of the 50′s 60′s etc…

   we all bleed red we all think we all have feelings and emotions these are all different from your neighbors and because one does not think as you does not make them immoral nor does it make them moral… it makes them human

   in my opinion any ending of life is malice in action… in my opinion therefore using your definitations and those of webster any taking of life preplanned is murder…

   So therefore simply put Murder in all cases is not wrong and then in some cases it is wrong again I give you this answer again I reflect you back to my reasoning.. and yet again I await for you to avoid answering them and my questions..

   on second thought I have decided that beyond a shadow of my doubts I have fulfilled my arguments on the subject of murder you have failed in showing me where my arguments have fallen short so this debate is over
10. 

    Paul "Phinehas" Schwanz
    

    Jan 8th, 2004
    

    Catseye> “Ah yet again you avoid my question Phin so I will try to make this black and white”

    Catseye, if you quit asking superfluous questions, I promise to quit not answering them. Can we please focus here?

    The question is: Why is murder wrong?

    Whether or not something is merely stated or actually done is superfluous to this question, since it may address when murder is wrong, but ignores the question of why murder is wrong.

    Catseye> “the US [dropped a nuclear bomb] in the 40′s to two cities of Japan… who cared at that time?”

    The question is, as it pertains to morality, why should anyone care?

    Catseye> “my god I think you got it..

    So saying that murder is wrong is pretty much exactly like saying that chocolate is better than vanilla? That’s your philosophy? I’m assuming that you believe your philosophy is Right, but what I’m curious about now is why you would spend so much time debating it here since you see no difference between it and mere opinion. I have to wonder whether you would have spent the same amount of time arguing that chocolate is better than vanilla if I’d come on and said that I believe vanilla was better than chocolate. Why would you spend time debating the one, but not the other?

    Catseye> “You statement is why is murder wrong? Murder is wrong only if the person committing the deed…

    a) knows he is committing murder
    b) knows it is wrong”

    This may address when murder is wrong, but it doesn’t address why murder is wrong.

    Catseye> “if a 5 year old gets daddy’s gun and kills his friend like they show on TV is he immoral? no for he truly thinks he has done no wrong at that time..”

    This may address when murder is wrong, but it doesn’t address why murder is wrong.

    Catseye> “so yes in your argument if you think killing anyone whether blue eye or any other reasoning is not wrong you would not be immoral..”

    This is not only pattently ludicrous, but is also non-responsive to the question of why murder is wrong.

    Catseye> “Society would judge you elsewise..yet you would get someone to defend your right to have done that deed…”

    Would society judge me elsewise exactly the same as they wood if I said vanilla is better than chocolate? If not, why not? This may help you move toward discussing why murder is wrong. (Although I’m not holding my breath.)

    Catseye> “Individuals are self not groups… but murder is clear cut you think what is murder to you is not what all think…

    but this is Murder not morals we are talking about again if one thinks he has just cause and thinks that the end is for the greater good is he wrong?”

    again the husband or wife ending their mates life from suffering…”

    More when, not why.

    Catseye> “I fear Phin you are avoiding the senarios I have brought up due to your answers would make your point ring false?”

    What point? I’m just trying to figure out why you think murder is wrong.

    Catseye> “this thread was started talking about BDSM about the D/s roles in game and it delved into real as a moral vs immoral argument.. grouping all activities into a simple group of BDSM so it is easy for you to judge and I mean you as others reading this..

    Dyerbrook thinks BDSM is immoral but if we really look at it I think it would be more that he thinks some aspects which he believes take part in the BDSM lifestyle is immoral.. this is his right but his right does not extend into trying to judge all that claim part of BDSM as immoral..”

    Is there any part of BDSM that you think is immoral? If so, why? If not, why not?

    Catseye> “For example many tell our subs that they should not wait hand and foot on the doms they serve that they should get their own minds etc they find them to be weak minded for waiting hand and foot on us..”

    And many tell us that chocolate is better than vanilla. Why is one worthy of a long blog debate but the other one isn’t?

    Catseye> “do these same people inform this to the waiter and waitress at the restraunt they go to? sorry I will wait on myself you go get your mind back.. do we inform our employer that we will no longer do as they say because we are free people and dont believe in what they think we should do?”

    You seem to be giving an opinion that BDSM is OK. Why should I give any more credence to your opinion regarding BDSM than I would to your opinion regarding chocolate?

    Catseye> “This thread is about a Lifestyle CHOICE we all make of free mind we all set limits on how far we will go and what we will do…”

    Murder is a Lifestyle CHOICE as well. But I will maintain that the question of whether or not murder is immoral is much more important than the question of whether or not chocolate is better than vanilla. I believe that morality I don’t think we should just leave the question of the immorality of murder up to what the person commiting murder believes is OK or not OK. I think it is perfectly legitimate to JUDGE that a person committing murder is doing something immoral. If we cannot JUDGE murder as wrong, how could we ever justify holding someone accountable for murder?

    Catseye> “Murder is not black and white it is again I repeat a case by case judgement…”

    OK, but when it is wrong, why is it wrong?

    Catseye> “what is wrong Phin I will not say what you wish me to say?”

    Catseye> “Murder is wrong if you believe it is Murder and that it is wrong.. Rascism is wrong if you believe that is is Racism and that it is wrong.. Lying is Wrong if you believe it is lying and it is wrong..”

    But there is no reason for believing one way or another? There is no philosophy behind the belief one way or another? There is no rationale behind the belief that murder is wrong? If you think there is, then what is it?

    Catseye> “you learn this by maturing and learning as you grow our fathers and mothers at some time (and yes I mean that in general terms) believed it was right to have the color of skin seperate human life this belief now a days is wrong to many but it was not at that time of the 50′s 60′s etc…”

    That tells us what they believed, but doesn’t address whether what they believed was Right or Wrong.

    Catseye> “we all bleed red we all think we all have feelings and emotions these are all different from your neighbors and because one does not think as you does not make them immoral nor does it make them moral… it makes them human”

    So why have you spent all this time trying to get me to think as you do regarding morality? Why have you invested so much of your time here trying to convince me that your way of thinking is correct and mine isn’t? Why do you say things like this:

    “Dyerbrook thinks BDSM is immoral but if we really look at it I think it would be more that he thinks some aspects which he believes take part in the BDSM lifestyle is immoral.. this is his right but his right does not extend into trying to judge all that claim part of BDSM as immoral..”

    What? His right does not extend into trying to judge…? It sounds like you are making a declaration here. Don’t you really mean that, in you opinion, which is admittedly no better than anyone else’s, he may not have such a right, but you can’t really say he doesn’t or that he is immoral in so judging because he probably thinks he is doing the right thing, and if so, who are we to judge him, besides, simply making such a declaration would be judging him, which is a bad thing? And by the way, you like chocolate. Why are you so keen to convince everyone else that you are right if there really is no right or wrong?

    Catseye> “in my opinion any ending of life is malice in action… in my opinion therefore using your definitations and those of webster any taking of life preplanned is murder…

    So therefore simply put Murder in all cases is not wrong and then in some cases it is wrong again I give you this answer again I reflect you back to my reasoning.. and yet again I await for you to avoid answering them and my questions..”

    Again, when it is wrong (and at this point I’m perfectly happy to let you set up a scenario in which it is), then why is it wrong?

    Catseye> “on second thought I have decided that beyond a shadow of my doubts I have fulfilled my arguments on the subject of murder you have failed in showing me where my arguments have fallen short so this debate is over”

    Why is it any more important to fulfill you arguments on the subject of murder than it would be to fulfill your arguments on the subject of chocolate? And how could I ever possibly show you where your arguments have fallen short when you’ve stated that your belief regarding all of this is no different that one’s opinion that chocolate is better than vanilla? How is one person to convince another that vanilla is better than chocolate? Yet you call what you’ve written arguments and seem to have an expectation that there is some basis for arguing.

    Of course, you’ve yet to answer why murder is wrong.

    –Phin
11. 

    Catseye
    

    Jan 8th, 2004
    

    you can not answer why until you answer if it was murder..
12. 

    Catseye
    

    Jan 8th, 2004
    

    and you are correct I probably would have done the same with any topic since it is boring sitting in the house hour after hour with none but the screen in front of me for enterainment.. this is my social outlet as is TSO and SWG I am disabled and can not get around with ease so I converse in here do you wish to move to icecream? instead of flavors why not choose temperatures? I find that cold has a wide perception between humans as well..
13. 

    Paul "Phinehas" Schwanz
    

    Jan 8th, 2004
    

    Catseye> “you can not answer why until you answer if it was murder..”

    I’m not trying to answer why. I’m asking you to answer why. That’s why I keep asking you why murder would be wrong in those cases that you think it would be wrong, but you keep ignoring the question. Why don’t you want to answer that question?

    –Phin
14. 

    Paul "Phinehas" Schwanz
    

    Jan 8th, 2004
    

    Catseye> “do you wish to move to icecream?”

    No, I do not. I see no point in debating over ice cream since there is and really cannot be any philosophical underpinnings to one’s choices regarding ice cream. How can we debate it if their is no rationale behind it? What would we debate?

    –Phin
15. 

    Catseye
    

    Jan 8th, 2004
    

    simple Phin first one must answer when is murder murder before breaching the why either way.. much like your comment about the flavors of icecream one must first answer what is icecream before moving to the flavor topic..

    ah to make this easier post a murder senario for me and I will try to answer why
16. 

    Catseye
    

    Jan 9th, 2004
    

    let me make it easy..

    Murder can not be answered to as why well enough for one to answer and have that answer be flawless.. Murder causes chaos but that in itself is not correct as to why it is wrong it is like a 5 year old asking a question and having the answer met with why..

    popular belief has it being answered with because of God saying it is wrong.. of course this too is not a correct answer.. since which god is the true god or even goddess and what proof have we that they even exist and even if there was then it would not be wrong for atheist to commit murder

    so Phin why is murder wrong has the same rationale as what flavour of ice-cream is best. if one can not prove it is wrong then it also has as much philosophical underpinnings as icecream …

    so we both knew the path of this discussion would lead in the beginning I am assuming you are tired of our discussion as I am.. so the murder talk is laid to rest finally..

    how does this refer back to the original topic? I think I may try this… Murder while on the choice of the individual of right and wrong involves one choice on the person committing the deed.. where as BDSM involves the choices of both parties of right and wrong.. since murder with one choice can not be proven to be wrong our lifestyle with all involved chosing cannot be wrong either with the argument..

    hmm interesting… so why waste the posts and not just come out and state your beliefs in the beginning? or are you like I homebound and bored lately?
17. 

    Paul "Phinehas" Schwanz
    

    Jan 9th, 2004
    

    Since your assertion that one’s moral outlook on murder is no different that one’s preference for ice cream is ludicrous, it is no wonder that you end up believing that Hitler did nothing immoral. However, you’ve gouged philosophy and reason to the absurd point that you are not left with any means of arguing anything at all.

    You don’t have to believe the absurd and the ludicrous, but you choose to do so. One wonders why.

    –Phin
18. 

    Brad
    

    Jan 9th, 2004
    

    Just a brief comment, Catseye did not say what Hitler did wasn’t immoral, I do believe he said that Hitler didn’t think it was immoral. I believe that murder is the malicious taking of anothers life. This is wrong. Wrong in the fact that the person who’s life was taken had no say so in this matter, and never will again. In BDSM, from what I have heard, seen with my own eyes, no scening mind you as they do that privately, is totally an agreement between both parties. Both wish this arrangement. It hurts no one. You, and most who are concerned in regards to this, only see what appears to be the Dominant or Master/Mistress ordering the submissive around. What isn’t as apparent is what the Dominant does for the submissive. They have an arrangement, as I have said. A set of agreements, and if any of these agreements are broken, then they have to discuss it and if no agreement can be reached, then they end the relationship. Sounds to me a lot like any other relationship. You can not criticize and judge a group of people so vastly different in the practices and beliefs. Not everyone that practices BDSM or lives the D/s lifestyle shares the same beliefs. And just like other relationships there are cases of abuse. But just like other relationships, there are wonderful marriages, relationships, etc. Like it or not, no one is trying to push this lifestyle on you or anyone else. So, in my opinion, if you don’t like this lifestyle, just move on, don’t visit those houses and live your life the way that you see fit for you and let them live their life the way they see fit for them.
19. 

    Catseye
    

    Jan 9th, 2004
    

    Thank you Brad..

    Yes Phin you took my words and made them what you wish they meant.. Hitler Did not think himself Immoral if he did he would not have done what he did..

    Hitler did not committ murder.. Hitler was the avenue of the wrongful killings of the Jews.. Killings not Murder..

    and I point out again the mistake made by many in this world that Murder does not mean killing..

    in a nutshell society deems murder as wrong because it is unlawful if the laws change to allow some to be killed it is no longer murder if the definition of murder is changed then the argument must be rehashed..

    Much like the problem 3 men get a room and pay 10 dollars each the clerk realise that they had a 25 dollar room not a 30 so he sends the bell hop with 5 ones to return it to the men seeing he cant give 5 ones evenly to 3 men he returns 1 dollar to each so each man paid 9 doallrs for the room which is 27 plus the 2 the bell hop kept makes 29 where is the other dollar?

    to win a discussion the other party must be willing to conceive defeat and in a generalised topic meant to encompass a large field such as all murder it is pointless to discuss..

    case by case which I have said countless times and dont even look for a uniformed answer even in that regard…

    ~smiles~

    this is why politics and religion are not discussed that often because everyone has their own beiliefs that are hard to change.. but not impossible
20. 

    Paul "Phinehas" Schwanz
    

    Jan 9th, 2004
    

    Brad> “Just a brief comment, Catseye did not say what Hitler did wasn’t immoral, I do believe he said that Hitler didn’t think it was immoral.”

    No, he said that if Hitler didn’t think it was immoral then it wasn’t. And when you put that together with his other comments, such as this:

    Catseye> “Hitler Did not think himself Immoral if he did he would not have done what he did.”

    The inescapable conclusion is that Hitler must not have been immoral, according to his philosophy.

    Brad> “Wrong in the fact that the person who’s life was taken had no say so in this matter…”

    Ah! See, now here Brad is actually giving a reason why he thinks murder is wrong. There is philosophy and rationale behind it after all, not merely preference as in flavors of ice cream. Evidently he doesn’t buy into Catseye’s philosophy regarding morality being no different than preference. I can’t say I blame him.

    So, according to Brad, there seems to be something wrong in actions done without regard to the consent of others. I’m wondering now whether he would consider it wrong to use the A/all speech in venues where people did not consent to it? Or would he consider it immoral to put things in his profile that others did not consent to? Or whether he thinks it is wrong to practice BSDM on a server where others do not consent?

    If the immorality of murder inheres in the lack of consent, then why does not the immorality of BDSM inhere in the lack of consent described above?

    –Phin
21. 

    Catseye
    

    Jan 9th, 2004
    

    ah Phin but one must agree that just because one thinks it wrong does not make it wrong use your own argument ~smiles~.

    your question was not why I thought murder wrong? it was why is murder wrong?..

    big difference in wording my friend.. and when asking personal opinion your arguments fall short of the mark of the question..

    do unto others as you would have them do unto you.. is my philosphy of life.
22. 

    Carmen Ray
    

    Jan 10th, 2004
    

    ~sits and laughs at the point of the two of them to bicker back and forth over murder and molars~ Altho I havn’t finnish reading the rest of that crap for I starting seeing books so I said to hell with that, and skimming over just laughed Murder morals oy you to have gone off into your own little world

    ~laughs and picks up popcorn~
23. 

    Monique DeSade
    

    Jan 10th, 2004
    

    My my my…. This has been an interesting Read I must say Myself. Oh, and this would NOT be a full BDSM D/s M/s thread without My imput somewhere.. No?

    Yes this is the Illustrious and Notorious Divine Miss M… the proud bearer of the Marquis DeSade’s name… chose for My nature… (not recruitment as per previous discussions) But I shall not beat THAT dead horse NO?

    [So get a life, all of you. You won't shut me down because I've challenged you. AV should not be turned over to criminals and thugs.]

    The points of Morals.. and Murder and Cults and religion have been brought up in this “discussion”. Oh my… *drools* I can go on and on and on with so many ideas here…

    Now.. I will let you know THESE facts first.. so you can have an idea of where My opinion lies in the “mainstay”..

    I am a Republican…
    I was born and cristened a Roman Catholic, but choose to worship now in My own Privacy, not in a Public Church for “Validation that I am Holy”.
    I have read the Bible cover to cover (out of boredom actually)
    I am a Mother… to two sons (lovingly called Demon Spawns) That are both of age 13 and 15 and also play TSO. UNDER MY SUPERVISION
    I now work retail.. unfortunately WHY I am so late in getting to this thread… So Yes I live a NORMAL (or what is margined to be considered Normal) life.
    I have role played online for well over 15 years.. and I have practiced the lifestyle Real Life as well.

    Now with this stated… I must say *I* have been the most illuminated, semi-public (In My own Lot) Graphic and descriptive person of this so called Lifestyle, Cult.. whatever in TSO at least.

    *****Point here.. Murder.. so tell me of the Death Penalty? Is that not formed by a government that chooses to make decisions that are considered in The Publics Best Interest?
    What is considered Moral??? Abortion? last I heard.. It is not a choice, isn’t it a child???

    Morals.. violence…. ??? Oh My *snickers*

    Having taken Psychology as well.. (I will admit I can’t base facts) but history has proven that those that are the most sheltered.. seem to become the most curious and violent later on in life because They feel they have “missed out” or even have been abused when they were young and carry on the learned trait. (Over control and censorship is also a form of abuse in My Humble Biased Opinion) IE: Hitler.. Osama.. and others therefore mentioned above in previous posts

    I have to say COMMUNICATION is key, and even if you think things the BDSMers ( as I will coin U/us,) W/we communicate Needs and wants and curiousities… and then seek to have them fulfilled CONSENTUALLY…

    That you should have grasped from this whole thread….. People come because They wish to live Their life.. NOT OTHERS LIVES? (unless, well You wish Me to control Yours?)

    So yes Get a Grip… or are you really one of those closet porn readers?? You eyeball the nasties and secretly desire???

    Feel free to contact Me personally.. I am sure I can take care and satisfy ANY curiousity with the taste of My Whip. *grins evilly* Ask around.. Curiousity may have killed the cat.. but Satisfaction brought it back.

    *winks with her emerald eyes glowing in mischeif*
    Love YOU My Carmen.. and respects to all posted and have touched Me in some sort of way.

    Regards,
    Monique DeSade.. still in TSO as the origional Simmie Mistress Bianca… Still haunting AV.

    Post Script: When I made the request to have “the spoofing offensive person” banned from Our Community ironically enough I explained to Maxis/EA what My community was about… BDSM. They took NO offense and did not consider Me a TOS violation in any way. In fact Yes the offender was removed NOT I. Why??? HARRASSMENT.. which IS a TOS offense. *grins impishly* Ponder that notion for a while before You continue Your crusade.
24. 

    Brad
    

    Jan 10th, 2004
    

    In regards to Phin “I’m wondering now whether he would consider it wrong to use the A/all speech in venues where people did not consent to it? Or would he consider it immoral to put things in his profile that others did not consent to? Or whether he thinks it is wrong to practice BSDM on a server where others do not consent?”
    I shall give my answer to this once again. I have no issues with BDSMers using the A/all speech on a lot. It’s no different than say someone politely saying Sir or Ma’am to an elder, something that I was taught to do at a very young age. Also, I find no offence with the bios of BDSMers. Most just state whether they are Dominant or submissive. I’ve seen minors with bios that read they are with mafia, or that they are bounty hunters, remarks to killing others and such. I find that much more offensive then a comment about being owned or owning. As far as BDSM goes, I do know that what they do with each other is consensual. Totally consensual. As far as practicing on a server where others do not consent, will that also go for mafia players? Christian players that create a lot and go out to “save” others? I’ve had that happen to me, and I found that offensive. Why? Because I am already a Christian and do not need “saving” by a person. There is much more to this than meets the eye and you can’t just boot one group because a few don’t like it. There is such a thing as freedom of speech and it does apply here as well as long as the bio doesn’t contain curse words, racist comments, etc. That is what is considered a breech of TOS. Now, in closing, I will once again reiterate the fact that I see nothing wrong with BDSMers being in AV, roaming around skilling, making money, shopping, what have you, in AV. I feel that they have every right to play the game they way they wish, just like everyone else does. I fail to see where they are breaking any of TOS rules, and if they were, they’d be given a warning or have their account shut down. I also feel if you can’t stand being in the presence of a BDSM player, then either place on ignore where you don’t have to hear what they may say, or leave the property and go elsewhere or leave the city of AV altogether and play elsewhere. My opinion and the opinion of most of AV is let them play their way.
25. 

    amy dante
    

    Jan 11th, 2004
    

    BDSM in TSO is simply not wrong. Why is it not wrong? because EA/Maxis has specifically stated what is wrong in their TOS. No one can live his or her life without offending someone. The fact that someone is offended does not make me wrong … it makes the other person … well … offended. My mother was offended when i chose not to attend her choice of Universities, and went to LSU instead. That doesnt make me wrong. I am free to make those kinds of choices. If you choose to speak Spanish in public, many people would be offended. Many people would consider that rude, like whispering behind people’s backs. However, last time i checked, it was perfectly legal to speak Spanish in public. So, all those people offended by that just have to suck it up and take it. BDSM-speak is perfectly legal and in now way violates TOS. So, those people offended by it have no recourse other than to attempt to have TOS changed. Otherwise, suck it up and take it … or go elsewhere. Personally, i find many many people way oversensitive. I think its silly to be offended by another language being spoken in public, including BDSM-speak … or any other form of slang speech.

    As for the bios, i dont understand that either. Personally, i find Britney Spears offensive. Do you think i could have all those people who wrote “i like Britney Spears” in their bios banned to another server so i dont have to read that nonsense? WhAt AbOuT tHoSe AnNoYiNg PeOpLe WhO tAlK lIkE tHiS? Can i ship them all to EJ? I find that offensive too. No, because they are within their rights, and have not violated TOS. So, i have to ignore them or deal with them … like an adult .

    You are well within your rights to be offended that i am an owned collared slave. It is not a violation of TOS to be so offended Also, it is not a violation of TOS for me to be what i am and to state it on my bio and to greet people “hello A/all”. So, fortunately, neither of us is in jeopardy of having our accounts frozen, and we can continue to play our games our way.

    this girl wishes You well,
    amy
26. 

    Dyerbrook
    

    Jan 12th, 2004
    

    “You are well within your rights to be offended that i am an owned collared slave.”

    Well, thank you, Amy, at least you’re ceding me this much territory, unlike all your confreres and consoeures. They say that if I’m offended, I’m a bigot, narrow-minded, a yahoo, etc. and never concede that anyone has a RIGHT to be offended. If they have some vague notion of that right, they surely don’t want it to be vigorously and robustly practiced.

    But I disagree about the TOS. BDSM violates the TOS about a) obscenity b) discrimination and c) incitement of hatred. This case has already been made under the section on the adult server.

    Let me ask you this: would you advocate a world in which everyone practices BDSM? A world where violence and enslavement in sexual acts and in relationships between men and women is the norm? Would you possibly conceive that such a world might get “a little out of hand”? Penny on rickross.com was willing to envision, based on the norms of civilization, that such a world was not a good thing. Well, if it is not a good thing, then it has to be *opposed* when it appears in a virtual world. The arguments against it must be put forth. And if tolerated in some fashion, there has to be a means to ZONE it away from all the impressionable young newbies, or else it *gains recruits* as we see it doing. *It takes over* as it has taken 30 out of 100 romance lots and infiltrated many other types of lots. It is bent on creating a permissable climate for itself, and that means chasing others out of the game or to other cities unless they abide by these incredibly strict and difficult rules of politeness and tolerance with some nominal private preferences — sort of like a Hong Kong to BDSM’s China. Well, I for one do not want an Alphaville that is only about whips and chains.

    There’s nothing somehow inherently evil or prejudiced or in non-compliance with the TOS in a push-back. And there are indeed violations of the TOS going on here. There’s nothing innocent and inconsequential about the address “A/all”. It is a vile thing. It purports to dominate some people by delegating them to a lower-case letter. It discriminates against them with meaning and language. Words count. A class of people has been denigrated to the class of “all” with a lower-case. It’s wrong.

    Just because it doesn’t fit the politically-correct California vision of the game-makers (or you) about discrimination against minorities or those with different sexual preference doesn’t mean it isn’t discrimination. There is a class of people in the game who are deprived of their rights in the game. They may say they have given their consent, but when we see the methods of indoctrination, disorientation, and recruitment used, and we see the mind games involved in trying tosubdue even those who have not consented to this lifestyle, we have to worry. We have to care. If 85 percent of them are the victims of child abuse themselves, we have to take some mind for the tenor of our world — is it merely to be filled with broken people?
27. 

    Catseye
    

    Jan 12th, 2004
    

    Dyer :Just because it doesn’t fit the politically-correct California vision of the game-makers (or you) about discrimination against minorities or those with different sexual preference doesn’t mean it isn’t discrimination.:

    it fits though we have a different sexual preference.

    Dyer:there has to be a means to ZONE it away from all the impressionable young newbies,:

    define ZONE if you look at a map of the city 90% of the BDSM houses are at the very bottom of the map.. by the docks as you put it I believe..but what you are proposing is shipping them all to a different city. how would you in the future prevent new people from coming into AV that pratice BDSM? ask them if they do then only allow them one choice of city? that my friend is discrimination based on sexual preference.

    Dyer:There’s nothing innocent and inconsequential about the address “A/all”. It is a vile thing. It purports to dominate some people by delegating them to a lower-case letter. It discriminates against them with meaning and language. Words count. A class of people has been denigrated to the class of “all” with a lower-case. It’s wrong.

    the A/all is not used by everyone in fact as I land I use just all.. I see it as a notice of respect to those who have chosen thier posistions in the relationship is this any different than calling a Man Sir or a lady Ma’am? does these two words not single out ones gender? something one has no control over unlike BDSM where they make their own choice?

    Let’s discet this completely first off submissives and slaves have a choice to be such.. second off they have the choice on which Dom/me to serve or remain free.. third they have a choice to continue with Dom/me or move on to another…

    Every man/woman has a choice now a days to be so. there are operations which can change gender.. they have a choice as to which gender of partner they wish to be with and even a choice to marry this partner stating vows to Love Honor and Obey or even the choice to remain single… they also have a choice to remain with that partner or move on to another partner..

    You have a right to be offended and we have a right to be offended at the way you are showing your offence.. yes we are labeling you bigot.. shallow minded.. but you are labeling us as well so is it not our right to follow your lead? I mean simply why is it ok for you to do so and not for us to? double standards?
28. 

    Paul "Phinehas" Schwanz
    

    Jan 12th, 2004
    

    Brad> “I shall give my answer to this once again. I have no issues with BDSMers using the A/all speech on a lot. It’s no different than say someone politely saying Sir or Ma’am to an elder, something that I was taught to do at a very young age.”

    Ah, but it is different if players don’t have a problem consenting to Sir and Ma’am being spoken, but do have a problem doing the same for A/all. Because if they don’t consnet, then you are violating your own consent principle, which is really the only differentiating point you’ve offered as to why something is wrong. Therefore, according to your own statements, it would be immoral to say A/all when others do not consent, while it is still perfectly OK to say Sir or Ma’am as long as others consent.

    Brad> “Also, I find no offence with the bios of BDSMers. Most just state whether they are Dominant or submissive. I’ve seen minors with bios that read they are with mafia, or that they are bounty hunters, remarks to killing others and such. I find that much more offensive then a comment about being owned or owning.”

    But your consent philosophy makes no sense at all if it is based on your own standard of what is offensive. If the consent of others is important to moral issues (as you’ve indicated), then what would be important is what they find offensive and not what you find offensive. If they find it offensive and do not consent, then the act would be immoral, would it not? Otherwise, you have the strange situation where, if a murderer did not find his murder offensive it would still be OK, which seems to be the sort of tripe Catseye is offering.

    Brad> “As far as BDSM goes, I do know that what they do with each other is consensual. Totally consensual.”

    Yes, but what is at issue isn’t how BDSM’ers interact with each other in private, but how they interact with a public that does not consent to their behavior.

    Brad> “As far as practicing on a server where others do not consent, will that also go for mafia players? Christian players that create a lot and go out to “save” others?”

    You tell me. You are the one who said consent was the differentiating factor between what is moral and what is immoral.

    Brad> “My opinion and the opinion of most of AV is let them play their way.”

    So you think that the opinion of most of AV is important then? So, if AV took a vote on whether BDSM’ers should be asked to move to their own server and it turned out that the opinion of most of AV was that they should, you wouldn’t have any problem with leaving to your own server?

    –Phin
29. 

    Catseye
    

    Jan 12th, 2004
    

    ah Phin glad to see you returned question why are you rehashing the same ole stuff? why repeat it when it has been proven that anything can be proven not to be important? why should your judgement bother me? it doesn’t it is your right to be offended as it is mine to be offended at your offense.. your arguments are boarding on the aspect of getting boring.. I find lots of things to be offensive in the game but I have come to the conclusion that they are my own opinion and matter only to me so I do not go out and try to change the world just because I do not like it..

    hey here is a novel idea why dont you tell us your own beliefs.. all I have seen is your arguments why ours are wrong.. or you talking about something you dont actually believe… get your own thoughts and state your own thoughts.. interesting concept isn’t it… we have proven that murder is wrong can not be proven.. and you are delving into another “moral” which can not be proven either so why repeat history when it was shown to be futile to do so?
30. 

    amy dante
    

    Jan 12th, 2004
    

    a) Obscenity is not tolerated on the majority of BDSM lots, with a few exceptions, just like the non-BDSM lots. b) no one is discriminated against in BDSM. The submissive/slave serves because she chooses to do so. Quite often, submissives/slaves create dominant characters too and those characters are treated as Dominants. Ingame, one cannot be forced to do anything against his/her will … rights cannot be taken away from sims. Submissive/slave sims simply choose not to excersise those rights because we have “given them up” voluntarily. But that is merely roleplay, for, in actuality, we still have those rights. Society, even simsociety, does not back the Dominants … so if a sub/slave leaves without the Dominant’s consent … there’s nothing that the Dominant can really do about it. Even collared, branded slaves can and do leave Masters they have become dissatisfied with. No one is held against his or her will. c) Masters and subs/slaves love each other. Hatred doesnt have a place in BDSM at all. W/we dont hate each other at all. W/we fulfill each other.

    I would not advocate BDSM for anyone who does not like BDSM or enjoy it personally. Some people are submissive by nature, as i am. I was submissive even in childhood, and extreme people pleaser, with a will to serve. Surely, you have met people like that, haven’t you? We arent bad people, we actually tend to be very good, caring, compassionate people. I find fulfillment in this lifestyle ingame and in real life. Pain is a very small part of it, the majority of the lifestyle being one of service and love. I do not submit to everyone who crosses my path, nor do Dominants dominate every one They encounter. If the world were divided into dominat people and submissive people, then i might advocate this lifestyle for the whole world, i dont know. I havent given it much though, since the world is clearly not divided between those two groups. These two groups are extreme ends of the spectrum, and i advocate it only for those who want it for themselves.

    “A/all” is inclusive … it includes everyone, whichever end of the spectrum they may fall on, or in between. “You” recognizes You (general you, not specific to you, personally) as one with dominant personality. “you” recognizes you (general you again) as someone with a submissive/slave personality. Just like Sir recognizes someone with male reproductive organs and Ma’am recognizes someone with female reproductive organs. The words themselves do not delegate anyone to any position, they simply recognize positions that already exist, like Sir and Ma’am. Some people dont like to be called Ma’am … and when they let me know this, as a good courteous southern gal, i refrain from addressing them as such. If i ran into you in public, knowing you dont like to be addressed as “You”, i would not do so. Some people dont like being called “boy” or “girl” even though those terms are used by the general public in a non-malicious way all the time. No harm or disrespect is intended. Its not difficult to say “please dont address me with capital letters.” I just hope that you understand that its not done to insult you, its actually done as a sign of respect.

    All sims ingame have the same rights. A Dominant only has the power that the submissive/slave gives Him. The submissive/slave is fully capable of saying “no” at any time, or every time, the Dominant asks for a plate, or to repair the pool table. The worst thing that could happen would be that the Dominant chooses not to keep a disobedient submissive/slave and ends the relationship. It’s not like the Dominant can go running to Maxis and say “she wont do what I told her to do.” I have the right to obey my Master. I choose to obey my Master. There have been times when i have chosen to disobey my Master too … as have all submissives/slaves that i personally know. I have never heard of anyone being coerced into this lifestyle ingame or in real life. I dont even know how that would be managed … and if it were, they could be prosecuted. As far as subduing the submissive/slave … there are many many more submissives/slaves out there than there are Dominants. Most dominants have to practically beat them off with a stick (couldnt resist the pun, but it was meant in humor). There are so many willing “free-subs” out there, that its hard for me to imagine Anyone having to coerce someone to submit to Them. Also, i am not sure where the 85% are abused comes from. I question the accuracy of that figure.

    The consent is between the Dominant and the submissive/slave. What we do, how we live, is as consenting adults. When we are in public, we must obey the laws of the land, be it real life or simlife, just as any other sim or person is expected to do. I do not need the consent of the population of the state i live in to call someone “Ma’am” or to speak in Spanish if i choose to do so. If you request that i not call you “Sir”, out of politeness, i would refrain from doing that. If i asked the women who do my nails to refrain from speaking Vietnamese in my presence, they may or may not decide to speak English, as is their right. Some BDSM-ers will probably respect your request and not call you “You” or “Sir”. Others may not. Much depends on the individual, just as it does with normal people in the real world. I tend to lean towards politeness.

    No one has the right to remove everything they dislike from their surroundings. Gay people may kiss in public, no matter how many people find that offensive. Hip Hoppers may call their friends “nigah” in public no matter how many people find it offensive. Parents may bring toddlers into nice restaurants to be loud and annoying, no matter how offended i am to have my meal ruined by them. Being in public is being exposed to things that you may dislike or find offensive. Dealing with those unpleasantries is part of life. Its part of being an adult. Its part of learning how to be an adult. Its part of life in a diverse society.

    If AV were a democracy, then we would have to abide by the majority’s wishes. As far as i know, AV is not a democracy. Perhaps you could request that it become one. I dont know that Maxis would consider it, but it is certainly an option that you have. In real life, in the US (where i live), my rights to exist as i am are protected. Freedom of speech allows me to call people Sir, or Ma’am, or Master or sister or jerk or whatever, as long as i break no laws. So far, it seems that ingame is much like real life in that respect.

    I understand that you find this distasteful, even wrong. I find it fulfilling and exciting, and a loving and nurturing way of life. I want to please my Master/Husband in real life, and my favorite place is at His feet. I want to please my online Master, and my favorite action is grovel (and flying hug and hotkiss of course). You and I are different, very different it seems. I believe that the world is big enough for both our kinds, and i hope that proves true.

    this girl wishes you well
    amy
31. 

    amy dante
    

    Jan 12th, 2004
    

    ugh … the above post was seperated as quotes and responses to those quotes. Somehow, in the posting, the seperators didnt come through. I apologize if it is difficult to follow. Quotes from Phin are posted, and my response to the quote follows, then another quote from Phin, and my response, and so on. Again, i apologize for the confusion.

    this girl wishes you well
    amy
32. 

    amy dante
    

    Jan 12th, 2004
    

    actually … the quotes from Phin didnt come through at all but i hope everyone can understand anyway. lol

    this girl gives up on trying to figure out what happend P
    amy
33. 

    Paul "Phinehas" Schwanz
    

    Jan 12th, 2004
    

    Catseye> “ah Phin glad to see you returned question why are you rehashing the same ole stuff? why repeat it when it has been proven that anything can be proven not to be important?”

    I think you may have the concept “proven” mixed up with the concept “asserted.”

    Catseye> “why should your judgement bother me? it doesn’t it is your right to be offended as it is mine to be offended at your offense.. your arguments are boarding on the aspect of getting boring.. I find lots of things to be offensive in the game but I have come to the conclusion that they are my own opinion and matter only to me so I do not go out and try to change the world just because I do not like it..”

    I, on the other hand, reject your notion that immorality is based on preference. Perhaps that’s why I think it was Wrong for some people to stand idle while Hitler had millions tortured and killed. In such cases, I think it is not only my right to try to change the world for the better, but it is also my responsibility. I believe it would be immoral not to stand up to Hitler and say that his actions were Wrong. Not just that I didn’t like them, but that they were Wrong. Millions of Jews would have avoided suffering and death and would no doubt be thankful if someone had decided it was OK to judge another’s actions and to try to change the world for the better.

    Catseye> “hey here is a novel idea why dont you tell us your own beliefs.. all I have seen is your arguments why ours are wrong.. or you talking about something you dont actually believe… get your own thoughts and state your own thoughts.. interesting concept isn’t it…”

    I’ve been stating no thoughts but my own.

    Catseye> “we have proven that murder is wrong can not be proven..”

    You’ve not even come close to proving any such thing. You assume and assert. You have only proven that you have no idea how to prove that murder is wrong. You then assume that this proves that it cannot be proven. Even if I could not prove murder was wrong that would hardly mean it cannot be proven. In addition, it is laughable to see you so certain about what you claim is uncertain.

    Catseye> “and you are delving into another “moral” which can not be proven either so why repeat history when it was shown to be futile to do so?”

    I’m getting the feeling that proving anything to you may very well be futile. Since, according to you, everything is just perception and opinion I suppose this is inevitable. However, not everyone here agrees with your radical philosophy which leads you to the conclusion that Hitler did nothing immoral. This should clue you in on exactly how far out there you are, but I doubt it will.

    –Phin
34. 

    Catseye
    

    Jan 12th, 2004
    

    ~smiles~ ah Phin but I think hitler did wrong.. I also think that he believed himself to be moral in so doing what he did.. as you see it fit to label us as you do.. you think Hitler thought he was Immoral why?

    did he not believe that the Jews were a threat to his way of life? did he think that they were immoral in their beliefs? ther must be a reason for his actions a reason to single out that one paticular faith.. in his eyes he was doing the world a service..

    too bad he didnt ask the world if they wanted it done… much like your opinion you are trying to save those who are saved with our freedom of choice.. it is our lives we choose to live them the way we see fit… is it right for all? no is it wrong for all? no it is just right for some..

    So Phin can you prove murder is wrong?
35. 

    Catseye
    

    Jan 12th, 2004
    

    oops Phin :I, on the other hand, reject your notion that immorality is based on preference. Perhaps that’s why I think it was Wrong for some people to stand idle while Hitler had millions tortured and killed. In such cases, I think it is not only my right to try to change the world for the better, but it is also my responsibility. I believe it would be immoral not to stand up to Hitler and say that his actions were Wrong. Not just that I didn’t like them, but that they were Wrong. Millions of Jews would have avoided suffering and death and would no doubt be thankful if someone had decided it was OK to judge another’s actions and to try to change the world for the better:

    Phin:So imposing your will on someone else is wrong? I’m assuming you’d make an exception for imposing your will on a child who is playing in the street? So once again, sometimes it is wrong and sometimes it is right? That doesn’t leave us with much to work with in regards to philosophical underpinnings does it:

    so tell me which do you truly believe?
36. 

    Paul "Phinehas" Schwanz
    

    Jan 12th, 2004
    

    Catseye> “ah Phin but I think hitler did wrong.. I also think that he believed himself to be moral in so doing what he did..”

    You seem really confused. You do remember saying the following, do you not?

    Catseye> “Was Hitler Immoral? not if he was acting on his beliefs and believed them right…”

    And later you said:

    Catseye> “Hitler Did not think himself Immoral if he did he would not have done what he did..”

    So, according to you beliefs, you say that Hitler was not immoral as long as he was acting on his beliefs and believed them right, and that he would not have done what he did if he thought it was wrong. That sure sounds like you think Hitler wasn’t doing anything wrong.

    Catseye> “as you see it fit to label us as you do.. you think Hitler thought he was Immoral why?”

    I doubt Hitler did think he was immoral, but I believe his actions were immoral whether he thought they were immoral or not, so it doesn’t really present me with a philosophical dilema like it does you. You are committed to pluralism. I am not.

    Catseye> “did he not believe that the Jews were a threat to his way of life? did he think that they were immoral in their beliefs? ther must be a reason for his actions a reason to single out that one paticular faith.. in his eyes he was doing the world a service..”

    And yet he still committed atrocities revealing his immorality.

    Catseye> “too bad he didnt ask the world if they wanted it done…”

    Indeed. And too bad someone didn’t judge him sooner and tell him that he was wrong.

    Catseye> “much like your opinion you are trying to save those who are saved with our freedom of choice.. it is our lives we choose to live them the way we see fit… is it right for all? no is it wrong for all? no it is just right for some..”

    What is right is right. What is wrong is wrong. Killing and torturing millions isn’t right for some and wrong for others. It is just wrong. We should not (and as a society do not) extend people the freedom to choose to kill and torture others. There are limits on our freedom of choice. Might right to swing my arms about freely ends where your nose begins.

    Catseye> “So Phin can you prove murder is wrong?”

    I doubt very much that I could prove anything to you. I confess to not really knowing where to begin with someone who doesn’t even accept common tenets such as murder is wrong or Hitler was wrong. Nor have you demonstrated that your opinions on these matters have any basis in philosophy, rationale, or principle, so what would I argue? You’ve said that believing murder is wrong is pretty much exactly like believing that chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla. I believe that’s a ridiculous position to hold, but since it isn’t based on any sort of rationale, it will be impossible to prove to you that it is wrong, just as it would be impossible to prove that vanilla is better than chocolate. To someone willing to take a rational approach to the issue, however, I do believe that I could give strong evidence to show that murder was wrong, even if I couldn’t give proof.

    –Phin
37. 

    Paul "Phinehas" Schwanz
    

    Jan 12th, 2004
    

    Phin :I, on the other hand, reject your notion that immorality is based on preference. Perhaps that’s why I think it was Wrong for some people to stand idle while Hitler had millions tortured and killed. In such cases, I think it is not only my right to try to change the world for the better, but it is also my responsibility. I believe it would be immoral not to stand up to Hitler and say that his actions were Wrong. Not just that I didn’t like them, but that they were Wrong. Millions of Jews would have avoided suffering and death and would no doubt be thankful if someone had decided it was OK to judge another’s actions and to try to change the world for the better:

    Phin:So imposing your will on someone else is wrong? I’m assuming you’d make an exception for imposing your will on a child who is playing in the street? So once again, sometimes it is wrong and sometimes it is right? That doesn’t leave us with much to work with in regards to philosophical underpinnings does it:

    Catseye> “so tell me which do you truly believe?”

    Since there is nothing contradictory in what you quoted, I have no problem saying that I believe both.

    You do understand the difference between me asking you a question and me stating what is my own belief, don’t you?

    –Phin
38. 

    Paul "Phinehas" Schwanz
    

    Jan 12th, 2004
    

    Errr, that should have been:

    My right to swing my arms about freely ends where your nose begins.

    –Phin
39. 

    Catseye
    

    Jan 12th, 2004
    

    Phin: I doubt very much that I could prove anything to you. I confess to not really knowing where to begin with someone who doesn’t even accept common tenets such as murder is wrong or Hitler was wrong.

    I accept them I just can not prove them and you have not proven them either.. Why was Hitler Wrong?

    Phin:So, according to you beliefs, you say that Hitler was not immoral as long as he was acting on his beliefs and believed them right, and that he would not have done what he did if he thought it was wrong. That sure sounds like you think Hitler wasn’t doing anything wrong.:

    umm Phin definations of Morals:: 1.relating to principles of right and wrong; i.e. to morals or ethics; 2: concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles;3: adhering to ethical and moral principles; 4: arising from the sense of right and wrong; 5: psychological rather than physical or tangible in effect;6: based on strong likelihood or firm conviction rather than actual evidence;

    Phin:Indeed. And too bad someone didn’t judge him sooner and tell him that he was wrong.

    So you beileve that it is ok for one to impose his judgement on another and it is moral? Ah so since Osama declared a holy war and attacked the WTC in the name of his god he is Moral? His god says he is with the holy war declared..

    ah but here we go again Phin round and round I stand firm in my beliefs and my codes and I keep between my boundries.. I am still waiting for you to tell me why is murder wrong.. or why Hitler thought he was wrong…

    ah Phin but it does and I did mispick the one you believe it is ok for you to impose your will on another ie the child yet you find it immoral for one to impose their will on others in the first post.. Hilter imposed his will on the millions of Jews yet it is ok for you to impose your will on the childern who play on the streets? Oh I get it… it is the numbers involved so if Hitler Killed 100 Jews it is ok maybe even a 1000 jews right? so when is it ok for us to impose our will on others Phin?
40. 

    amy dante
    

    Jan 13th, 2004
    

    For the record, i definately believe Hitler was wrong wrong, absolutely brimming over with wrongability (sorry silly Red Dwarf quote). I think he was wrong because he killed people for no valid reason. He was not in immediate danger from the Jews, nor were they guilty of crimes, he just didnt like them. I think he was both wrong and immoral, although i admit that he probably didnt think he was immoral.
41. 

    Paul "Phinehas" Schwanz
    

    Jan 13th, 2004
    

    Catseye> “I accept them I just can not prove them and you have not proven them either..”

    Huh? Evidently you don’t even know whether you accept them or not.

    Catseye> “Why was Hitler Wrong?”

    Yes, that’s the question I’ve been trying to get you to answer. You seem either unwilling or unable to do so. Are you now admitting that you cannot give any rationale, philosophy, or principle to demonstrate why Hitler was wrong and asking for me to do so?

    Catseye> “Phin:So, according to you beliefs, you say that Hitler was not immoral as long as he was acting on his beliefs and believed them right, and that he would not have done what he did if he thought it was wrong. That sure sounds like you think Hitler wasn’t doing anything wrong.:”

    Catseye> “umm Phin definations of Morals:: 1.relating to principles of right and wrong; i.e. to morals or ethics; 2: concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles;3: adhering to ethical and moral principles; 4: arising from the sense of right and wrong; 5: psychological rather than physical or tangible in effect;6: based on strong likelihood or firm conviction rather than actual evidence;”

    Yes, that’s a lovely definition you have there. I’m not sure I understand how it clears up your confusion about whether or not Hitler was immoral. If you have a point here, please do feel free to go ahead an make it. I confess to not being able to guess what it is.

    Catseye> “Phin:Indeed. And too bad someone didn’t judge him sooner and tell him that he was wrong.”

    Catseye> “So you beileve that it is ok for one to impose his judgement on another and it is moral?”

    Don’t you? Amy sure believes it is OK. That’s why she says “Hitler was wrong wrong, absolutely brimming over with wrongability.” If it isn’t OK, then how can you say that Hitler was wrong? (Which you have said, though you’ve also said that he wasn’t.)

    Catseye> “Ah so since Osama declared a holy war and attacked the WTC in the name of his god he is Moral? His god says he is with the holy war declared..”

    To borrow Amy’s words, Osama is also wrong, wrong, absolutely brimming over with wrongability. Just because it is OK to judge, that doesn’t mean that every judgement is correct.

    Catseye> “ah but here we go again Phin round and round I stand firm in my beliefs and my codes and I keep between my boundries..”

    Ummm, hardly. You’ve said Hitler wasn’t wrong and you’ve said that he was. As far as I can tell, you haven’t put forth any sort of real boundaries, but unless your boundaries are drawn somewhere outside of contradiction, I cannot imagine how you’ve been keeping between them.

    Catseye> “I am still waiting for you to tell me why is murder wrong..”

    Again, this was the question I asked you. Are you admitting that you haven’t got a clue as to why murder is wrong? If you cannot explain cogently why murder is wrong, why should anyone trust your assertions regarding why BDSM isn’t wrong?

    Catseye> “or why Hitler thought he was wrong…”

    As I’ve already explained, I don’t doubt that Hitler thought he was right. But since I don’t buy your ridiculous assertion that thinking you are right makes you right, I don’t have any problem maintaining that Hitler was wrong even if he did think he was right.

    Catseye> “ah Phin but it does and I did mispick the one you believe it is ok for you to impose your will on another ie the child yet you find it immoral for one to impose their will on others in the first post..”

    I’ve never claimed that imposition of will determined morlity. That was your claim. You said that murder was wrong because it was imposing your will on another. Therefore, it is up to you to explain how imposing your will on a child playing in the street isn’t wrong. You chose to ignore this. I don’t blame you for doing so, but it certainly leave a hole in your philosophy.

    Catseye> “Hilter imposed his will on the millions of Jews yet it is ok for you to impose your will on the childern who play on the streets?”

    Yes. Hitler was wrong, yet if I imposed my will on a child playing in the street I wouldn’t be wrong. How can that be? Well, according to your philosophy that imposing your will on others is wrong, it would be impossible. Thankfully, I don’t share your philosophy that immorality is based on an imposition of your will on others, so I’m not trapped in the contradiction. You are.

    Catseye> “Oh I get it… it is the numbers involved so if Hitler Killed 100 Jews it is ok maybe even a 1000 jews right?”

    Actually, the numbers game was another of your failed philosophies. I have no problem saying that if Hitler killed anyone with malice aforethought he would be wrong. You seem to struggle with that concept.

    Catseye> “so when is it ok for us to impose our will on others Phin?”

    When we judge correctly that they are doing something wrong, then it is OK for us to impose our will on others. If this were not true, then it would have been wrong for us to impose our will on Hitler. It was not wrong for us to impose our will on Hitler, therefore, the opening sentence in this paragraph is true.

    –Phin
42. 

    amy dante
    

    Jan 13th, 2004
    

    From my perspective, Hitlers right to free will ended when it clashed with the Jews’ rights to theirs. Just like your right to swing your arm ends at my nose. Children do not have the right to free will if i am not mistaken, not in the way that adults do. Pulling a child out of the street against his will is not wrong, since the adults will is coming from a protection standpoint or a teaching standpoint rather than a malicious one.

    BDSM, however, is between consenting adults, and not done from malice or with intent to do serious or lasting harm (even the whips, which are a very minor part of the D/s M/s relationship, are not meant to seriously injure someone). It is the will of both participants to practice this lifestyle. And, as long as the two of them do not impinge on the legal rights of others, they have commited no crime, and are not immoral, in my opinion.
43. 

    Catseye
    

    Jan 13th, 2004
    

    Phin: When we judge correctly that they are doing something wrong, then it is OK for us to impose our will on others. If this were not true, then it would have been wrong for us to impose our will on Hitler. It was not wrong for us to impose our will on Hitler, therefore, the opening sentence in this paragraph is true.
    :

    Wrong phin.. because you think the Judgement is correct does not make it so.. to use another of your so called points if I judge all blue eyed people to be evil then I can impose my will on them? or heck that is fiticous lets return to history so because white’s judged blacks to be second class citizens it was fine for them to impose the Jim Crow laws.. Osama Judged America wrong and imposed his will with three airplanes.. America Judged Japan wrong and dropped two atomic bombs with your beliefs they all are ok in doing so..

    Again what I believe is not prudent to what you believe why should you care? I asked for you to tell me why you think murder is wrong countless times yet you ignore my search for enlightenment into your beliefs instead jumply blindly into what you think I believe… why should I answer why BDSM is not wrong when you have yet to answer my question why murder is wrong?

    Hitler did not commit Murder of the Jews he gave orders to put the Jews to death yes.. he was instrumental in the deed allowing it to happen but he did not do the deed..

    I know you know your bible Phin remember the do not judge lest thou be judged? your arguments are built upon the sand you have no desire to prove yourself right just to prove others wrong.. you have a double standards vaule and this is the reason I dropped from church though I still believe in God..

    ~~~~ warning this may offend some~~~~~

    The bible was written by man not god.. the bible has been translated so many times it is possible to have lost the true meaning of the words as written.. this is due to the fact of languages changing and the one translating the words into what HE believes them to mean… Science has shwon the first man to walk the face of the earth to be Cro-manga (s/p) to me this would not be the form of God.. the bible has all little morals spread through out but so does Grimm Brothers fairy tales.. and last there is nothing to Prove that God did exist… I can quote scriptures as well as the next person.. my favorite is near the end there will be false prophets.. which is what I view you and Dyer to be.. you talk the talk but you fail in walking the walk..

    Again I point out that the only logicial argument for murder being wrong.. is that God says it is wrong.. but that would only prove it if you believe in God.. so it would not prove it to an Atheist therefore it does not prove it…

    Imposing your will on anyone is wrong… no matter if you think it to be right at that time.. future will only tell if it was right or wrong but after you do the deed you can’t return.. Hitler thought he was doing right by imposing his beliefs on the Jews… Amy maybe correct he might not have liked them.. their teachings or their beliefs.. so tell me both Phin and Dyer though I am begging to believe they are the same… how does your unjust perscution of the BDSM make you any better than Hitler’s unjust perscution of the Jews?
44. 

    Paul "Phinehas" Schwanz
    

    Jan 13th, 2004
    

    Catseye> “Phin: When we judge correctly that they are doing something wrong, then it is OK for us to impose our will on others. If this were not true, then it would have been wrong for us to impose our will on Hitler. It was not wrong for us to impose our will on Hitler, therefore, the opening sentence in this paragraph is true.”
    :

    Catseye> “Wrong phin.. because you think the Judgement is correct does not make it so..”

    Exactly! That’s what I’ve been saying all along. Hitler was wrong, but he wasn’t wrong because I say he is wrong any more than he was right because he thought he was right. You are the one who keeps claiming that morality is based on perception. So which is it? Is morality based on one’s perception or not? Or do you just enjoy arguing against yourself?

    Catseye> “to use another of your so called points if I judge all blue eyed people to be evil then I can impose my will on them?”

    If you did so, wouldn’t it be wrong of you? I mean, any reasonable person is going to say that such a thing is wrong, won’t they? Why? Because the judgement that all blue-eyed people are evil is not correct, therefore using this as a reason to impose your will on them would be wrong. But since you refuse to recognize that judging all blue-eyed people to be evil is wrong without regard to perceptions, you struggle to define any sort of philosophy regarding morality. You are trapped in the morass of your own pluralism and haven’t a clue how to get out.

    Catseye> “or heck that is fiticous lets return to history so because white’s judged blacks to be second class citizens it was fine for them to impose the Jim Crow laws..”

    No. It was not fine. The reason it was not fine is because blacks are not second class citizens. Your pluralistic approach to morality would mean that blacks may or may not be second class citizens, depending upon the perceptions of the person judging. I reject that notion as foolishness. I claim that blacks are not second class citizens and that the reason they are not is not the least bit dependant upon perceptions. But your pluralistic philosophy will struggle to explain any rationale for why it would be wrong to say that blacks are second class citizens, and thus you will be reluctant to make any sort of definitive statement saying that it is wrong to do so.

    Catseye> “Osama Judged America wrong and imposed his will with three airplanes.. America Judged Japan wrong and dropped two atomic bombs with your beliefs they all are ok in doing so..”

    No. I’ve never claimed that it is always right to impose your will on others. I only say that it is not always wrong to do so. I’ve offered the historical example of Hitler as an instance of when I think it was not wrong to judge his actions and impose our will on him. You’ve yet to figure out whether you believe Hitler’s actions should have been judged immoral or not or whether it was OK to impose our will on him. If you think it was OK, then why was it OK?

    Catseye> “Again what I believe is not prudent to what you believe why should you care? I asked for you to tell me why you think murder is wrong countless times yet you ignore my search for enlightenment into your beliefs instead jumply blindly into what you think I believe… why should I answer why BDSM is not wrong when you have yet to answer my question why murder is wrong?”

    The question of why murder is wrong isn’t your question, it is mine. I asked you first. However, as I said previously, if you are conceding that you don’t have any clue as to why murder is wrong or why BDSM isn’t, I’ll be happy to go ahead and answer the question. Are you conceding this?

    Catseye> “Hitler did not commit Murder of the Jews he gave orders to put the Jews to death yes.. he was instrumental in the deed allowing it to happen but he did not do the deed..”

    You seem to think this is an important distinction. Why? Do you think that Hitler wasn’t immoral because he only gave orders to murder Jews instead of doing it himslef? If so, then I disagree.

    Catseye> “I know you know your bible Phin remember the do not judge lest thou be judged?”

    I do remember. I also remember that a text without a context is a pretext.

    Catseye> “your arguments are built upon the sand you have no desire to prove yourself right just to prove others wrong..”

    I understand that it is impossible to prove anything to someone who isn’t willing to have anything proved to them. Nonetheless, I think I can give evidence that will be pretty convincing to anyone with a rational and open mind. Again, if you are admitting you don’t have a clue about morality, I’ll go ahead and share my thoughts. On the other hand, as long as you refuse to listen to any sort of logic or reason, it would be a waste of my time.

    Catseye> “you have a double standards vaule and this is the reason I dropped from church though I still believe in God..”

    Hey, don’t pin your attempts to justify your own actions on me. That’s your own baggage.

    However, if you do still believe in God, do you believe in His omniscience? Omnipotence? Omnipresence? If so, then I do indeed think I may be able to prove to you why murder is wrong.

    Catseye> The bible was written by man not god..

    An omniscient, omnipotent God would surely have no problems insuring that His thoughts were acurately portrayed should He so desire, even though men acted as His scribes.

    Catseye> “the bible has been translated so many times it is possible to have lost the true meaning of the words as written.. this is due to the fact of languages changing and the one translating the words into what HE believes them to mean…”

    Baloney! The Bible was originally written in Hebrew and Greek. Neither is a lost language and both are clearly understood by scholars today. The translation to different languages is irrelevant, since we still have the texts in their original languages.

    Catseye> “Science has shwon the first man to walk the face of the earth to be Cro-manga (s/p) to me this would not be the form of God..”

    Ummm…why not? And what qualifies you to make this assertion?

    Catseye> “the bible has all little morals spread through out but so does Grimm Brothers fairy tales..”

    Ummm…so?

    Catseye> “and last there is nothing to Prove that God did exist…”

    Perhaps nothing to prove to someone keenly interested in not having it proved, but there is certainly plenty of evidence for God’s existence.

    Catseye> “I can quote scriptures as well as the next person.. my favorite is near the end there will be false prophets..”

    Well, I’m sure your knowledge of the scriptures will remind you that there is a test to find out whether a prophet is from God or not. Right?

    Catseye> “which is what I view you and Dyer to be.. you talk the talk but you fail in walking the walk..”

    Again, thought I understand your desire to justify your own actions, trying to pin that justification on me just doesn’t wash.

    Catseye> “Again I point out that the only logicial argument for murder being wrong.. is that God says it is wrong..”

    Amazingly astute! I didn’t think you had it in you.

    Catseye> “but that would only prove it if you believe in God.. so it would not prove it to an Atheist therefore it does not prove it…”

    Ooops. Maybe you don’t. Yes, to the one keenly intent on believing there is no God, it will be difficult to prove otherwise.

    Catseye> “Imposing your will on anyone is wrong…”

    So, we are back to trying to figure out then whether or not it is OK to impose your will on a child playing in the street. *sigh*

    Catseye> “no matter if you think it to be right at that time.. future will only tell if it was right or wrong but after you do the deed you can’t return.. Hitler thought he was doing right by imposing his beliefs on the Jews… Amy maybe correct he might not have liked them.. their teachings or their beliefs.. so tell me both Phin and Dyer though I am begging to believe they are the same… how does your unjust perscution of the BDSM make you any better than Hitler’s unjust perscution of the Jews?”

    Persecution? Ummm…I’ve only said that BDSM was wrong. I swear I haven’t tortured anyone. Your accusation of persecution is almost as humorous as it is ridiculous. Is your sense of reality really that warped?

    Nonetheless, I will say as before that it is not immoral to judge someone when the judgement is correct. Otherwise, it would be immoral of you to judge Hitler, which you appear to do at sometimes and not at others, mostly because your philosophy is so mixed up.

    –Phin
45. 

    amy dante
    

    Jan 13th, 2004
    

    i do not find that imposing one’s will on another is always wrong. certainly, and arresting officer is imposing his will on the bank robber he is cuffing and taking to jail. parents impose their wills on their children on a daily basis in order to protect and teach their children. dominants impose Their wills on Their submissives, as Masters do Their slaves. i am sure there are many more examples, but ill stop with those 3.

    in my opinion, intent is the factor which makes such an action wrong or right or neutral. moral and immoral, in my opinion, are more complex, as we do not all share the same morals. but, to my mind at least, if something is done with malicious intent, it is wrong, no matter the outcome. Hitler certainly bore malice towards the Jews, as does Osama towards Americans. As a rule, dominants do not bear malice towards Their subs/slaves, nor do parents towards their children, although there are always sad exceptions. The arresting officer has the intent of capturing and confining a suspected criminal in order to protect the population, and if he acts excessively in malice, there are suppoesed repercussions. While intent is not always easy to decipher, for who can truly know the mind of another, it seems to me to be the deciding factor.
46. 

    Catseye
    

    Jan 13th, 2004
    

    Phin:Exactly! That’s what I’ve been saying all along. Hitler was wrong, but he wasn’t wrong because I say he is wrong any more than he was right because he thought he was right. You are the one who keeps claiming that morality is based on perception. So which is it? Is morality based on one’s perception or not? Or do you just enjoy arguing against yourself?:

    no I see you saying that he is wrong you have not proved he was wrong.. this is a preception of your morlity..

    Phin:If you did so, wouldn’t it be wrong of you? I mean, any reasonable person is going to say that such a thing is wrong, won’t they? Why? Because the judgement that all blue-eyed people are evil is not correct, therefore using this as a reason to impose your will on them would be wrong.:

    Yet yours and Dyers judgument of the BDSM community is not wrong? please give me the differences between the two.

    Phin:But since you refuse to recognize that judging all blue-eyed people to be evil is wrong without regard to perceptions, you struggle to define any sort of philosophy regarding morality. You are trapped in the morass of your own pluralism and haven’t a clue how to get out.:

    no I refuse to accept your views as Moral in my eyes this is my perception of my morals much like you and Dyer refuse to recogonize that judging the BDSM comunity to be Immoral is wrong the same can be said about your own lack of getting a clue

    Phin:I claim that blacks are not second class citizens and that the reason they are not is not the least bit dependant upon perceptions. :

    this again is your preception of the subject ask the KKK their opinion of blacks even today…
    what makes your perception better than theirs?

    Phin:No. I’ve never claimed that it is always right to impose your will on others. I only say that it is not always wrong to do so:

    Ah so finally you agree that it is alright sometimes and sometimes not depending on case by case funny you argued this was not the case with me maybe I am swaying your thinking..

    Phin:The question of why murder is wrong isn’t your question, it is mine.

    correct and I have answered it

    Phin:You seem to think this is an important distinction. Why? Do you think that Hitler wasn’t immoral because he only gave orders to murder Jews instead of doing it himself? :

    why do I think this? it is my preception of it you said Hitler murdered the jews he did not… it is no where the definition set so makes your statement false..

    ah Phin you missed it again.. yes I believe in God I also believe in Mohammad I belive in the Goddess or what ever name they claim to be the surpreme being.. which of these are the true being? maybe you are believing the wrong God to be almighty? oh yes I forgot this is your PRECEPTION of who the True God is

    So Phin using my statement that Morals are based on perception of what you believe to be right.. helps your faith more than Morals are not.. or are you forgetting the other religions of the world and claiming them not to be moral? and what gives you that right? and what makes that judgement right?
47. 

    Darksoul
    

    Jan 13th, 2004
    

    Phin, why are you going around and around with catseye about the exact definition of morality? It’s a very simple, morality is a fluid concept flowing from one person to another. What I do, I find moral, you might not find that same action to be moral. On whose ideas or words do you or I base our own perception of morality? More than likely you base yours on your experiences and general outlook on life, much as I do. Is it moral for Me to practice M/s? In your eyes no, in Mine yes. Is it moral for you to come here and try to influence or belittle My viewpoint on M/s? In your eyes, yes….in Mine…a resounding no. Whose morals are right, whose are wrong? Do you or I care about each other’s viewpoints….nope not in the least. So what’s the point of the debate….none that I see. BTW, phin and dyer…..you catch many more flies with honey than vinegar. Ponder that…

    Darksoul
48. 

    urizenus
    

    Jan 14th, 2004
    

    As we approach post #400 (should there be a prize for #400?)I thought this article in the Boston Globe seemed relevant.
49. 

    Paul "Phinehas" Schwanz
    

    Jan 14th, 2004
    

    Catseye> “Phin:Exactly! That’s what I’ve been saying all along. Hitler was wrong, but he wasn’t wrong because I say he is wrong any more than he was right because he thought he was right. You are the one who keeps claiming that morality is based on perception. So which is it? Is morality based on one’s perception or not? Or do you just enjoy arguing against yourself?:”

    Catseye> “no I see you saying that he is wrong you have not proved he was wrong.. this is a preception of your morlity..”

    You said the following:

    …because you think the Judgement is correct does not make it so..

    This is clearly a statement that the truth regarding a judgement’s correct-ness is not determined by perception. As such, it is in direct contradiction to assertions you’ve made to the contrary. Again, you are arguing with yourself. You must realize this, which would explain why you try to ignore it and deflect from it by claiming that I need to prove that murder is wrong. Sorry, your diversion will not work. So, I’ll ask again: Is the truth regarding a judgement’s correct-ness determined by perception or not?

    Catseye> “Phin:If you did so, wouldn’t it be wrong of you? I mean, any reasonable person is going to say that such a thing is wrong, won’t they? Why? Because the judgement that all blue-eyed people are evil is not correct, therefore using this as a reason to impose your will on them would be wrong.:”

    Catseye> “Yet yours and Dyers judgument of the BDSM community is not wrong? please give me the differences between the two.”

    You ignored my question, once again trying to deflect from it with a question of your own. Are you not comfortable answering it? If so, please say so. Again, the diversion will not work. I shall keep reminding you of the question lest you forget it: Wouldn’t it be wrong of you to impose your will on blue-eyed people based on an assertion that all blue-eyed people are evil?

    Catseye> “Phin:But since you refuse to recognize that judging all blue-eyed people to be evil is wrong without regard to perceptions, you struggle to define any sort of philosophy regarding morality. You are trapped in the morass of your own pluralism and haven’t a clue how to get out.:”

    Catseye> “no I refuse to accept your views as Moral in my eyes this is my perception of my morals much like you and Dyer refuse to recogonize that judging the BDSM comunity to be Immoral is wrong the same can be said about your own lack of getting a clue”

    Are you saying that it is wrong of me to refuse to recognize that judging the BDSM community to be Immoral is wrong? Are you judging me to be wrong in this? Please explain to me why it is OK for you to judge me wrong for judging the BDSM community. How is this not hypocritical of you?

    Catseye> “Phin:I claim that blacks are not second class citizens and that the reason they are not is not the least bit dependant upon perceptions. :”

    Catseye> “this again is your preception of the subject ask the KKK their opinion of blacks even today…
    what makes your perception better than theirs?”

    Do you think that my assessment is no better than theirs? If my assessment is no better than theirs, then is it OK to go back to the Jim Crow laws?

    The KKK is wrong, wrong, brimming over with wrongability. You and I both know it, but your pluralistic philosophy won’t let you figure out why they are wrong.

    Catseye> “Phin:No. I’ve never claimed that it is always right to impose your will on others. I only say that it is not always wrong to do so:”

    Catseye> “Ah so finally you agree that it is alright sometimes and sometimes not depending on case by case funny you argued this was not the case with me maybe I am swaying your thinking..”

    Not quite. First of all, I never argued that was not the case, I only questioned your assertions. Second, I questioned your assertions because their was no underlying principle behind your “sometimes and sometimes not,” or if there was, you were not interested in sharing it. There is principle behind the philosophy I stated: Whether or not imposing your will on others is immoral depends on whether you are judging correctly. This is very different than what you are asserting. You claim it is wrong to judge others. I claim it is wrong to judge others incorrectly.

    Catseye> “Phin:The question of why murder is wrong isn’t your question, it is mine.”

    Catseye> “correct and I have answered it”

    Indeed you did in your last post. You answered it surprisingly well. It bears posting again, I think:

    Again I point out that the only logicial argument for murder being wrong.. is that God says it is wrong.

    I agree with your assessment that this is the only logical argument for murder being wrong. All other arguments end up being very illogical. I will not argue with you that this is why murder is wrong.

    Catseye> “Phin:You seem to think this is an important distinction. Why? Do you think that Hitler wasn’t immoral because he only gave orders to murder Jews instead of doing it himself? :”

    Catseye> “why do I think this? it is my preception of it you said Hitler murdered the jews he did not… it is no where the definition set so makes your statement false..”

    Well, I think many people would disagree with your assessment, but…whatever. Again, I think you are only nitpicking to avoid addressing the question of whether Hitler was immoral or not. I don’t blame you for avoiding it. You seem very confused about whether he was or not.

    Catseye> “ah Phin you missed it again.. yes I believe in God I also believe in Mohammad I belive in the Goddess or what ever name they claim to be the surpreme being.. which of these are the true being?”

    What did I miss? I merely asked you questions about what you believe. Do you believe in One Being or many? Are they all the same person or different persons? Is the Being omniscient? Omnipotent? Omnipresent?

    Catseye> “maybe you are believing the wrong God to be almighty? oh yes I forgot this is your PRECEPTION of who the True God is”

    You seem to assume it is impossible for God to exist apart from anyone’s perception? Why must this be the case? Yes, my perception may be wrong. And your perception may be wrong. But you jump from this to a belief that perception determines reality. That is a non sequitor. It is a logical fallacy. I may believe the moon is made of cheese. I may be wrong. I may be right. Neither of these possibilities have any effect whatsoever on the moon’s composition.

    Once you admit that there may be a True God, it is indeed interesting to try to determine what this True God is like. You seem to assume that this is impossible to know. I think that is, logically, an untenable position to hold.

    Catseye> “So Phin using my statement that Morals are based on perception of what you believe to be right.. helps your faith more than Morals are not..

    Your statement that Morals are based on perception seems not to line up very well with your statement that the only logical way to prove murder is wrong is that God says it is wrong. You seem to be arguing with yourself again.

    Catseye> “or are you forgetting the other religions of the world and claiming them not to be moral? and what gives you that right? and what makes that judgement right?”

    Nothing makes the judgement right. The judgement is right or it is wrong. My perception and your perception do not define the rightness or wrongness of it any more than our perceptions would define the rightness or wrongness of my statement that the moon is made of cheese. Furthermore, I believe that your implication that it is impossible to know any Truth regarding morality is not logically supportable. Your argument seems to be that the Truth cannot be known because it is all based on perception, but you’ve presented nothing at all to show that the truth about reality isn’t just as immutable and unaffected by perception as the truth about the moon’s composition.

    –Phin
50. 

    toy
    

    Jan 14th, 2004
    

    ummm… toy would point out Catseye that phin is even better at twisting words to suit himself than Dyerbrook could ever hope to be You would do well just to ignore His attempts to not answer questions himself and just keep questioning You… its all become rather silly toy would say You know the respect this girl has for You Catseye

    ~settles down to another gigglefest while reading the posts~

    falara kajira toy

Leave a Reply