Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kids aren't stupid, they know the difference between right and wrong. If they don't then look at other things to blame such as your addiction problems, lack of attention to them or your own poor attitudes and behaviour. Lousy parents lead to lousy kids, not porn.

Kids only know "right and wrong" if you teach them.

Kids only know socialially constructed definitions of right and wrong if you teach them.

Fixed that for you.

If you had a point, you lost it.

His point is still perfectly valid.

Palindrome wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kids aren't stupid, they know the difference between right and wrong. If they don't then look at other things to blame such as your addiction problems, lack of attention to them or your own poor attitudes and behaviour. Lousy parents lead to lousy kids, not porn.

Kids only know "right and wrong" if you teach them.

Kids only know socialially constructed definitions of right and wrong if you teach them.

Fixed that for you.

If you had a point, you lost it.

His point is still perfectly invalid.

Corrected your typo.

Palindrome wrote:His point is still perfectly valid.

No it's not. He pointed out that Frazzled did not specify that values are socially constructed. Frazzled point did not comment on whether or not social values are constructed, which is quite natural as that had nothing to do with Frazzled's point.

Manchu wrote:

Palindrome wrote:His point is still perfectly valid.

No it's not. He pointed out that Frazzled did not specify that values are socially constructed. Frazzled point did not comment on whether or not social values are constructed, which is quite natural as that had nothing to do with Frazzled's point.

Exactamundo!

Most people have already actually had sex by the time they're 16. This is has been true for pretty much the entirety of human history. If sticking body parts in orifices hasn't caused humanity to collapse any time in the past 10,000 years we've been "Civilized". Regularly seeing porn isn't going to hurt teenagers now. I'm really more worried about that 1/5 that doesn't go after the porn, since that's a fair bit larger than the asexual portion of the population.

I guess not everyone has access to a computer and/or internet?

Manchu wrote:I guess not everyone has access to a computer and/or internet?

That's probably a pretty fair explanation.

Chongara wrote:Most people have already actually had sex by the time they're 16. This is has been true for pretty much the entirety of human history. If sticking body parts in orifices hasn't caused humanity to collapse any time in the past 10,000 years we've been "Civilized".

Tell that to the people of Sodom and Gamorra! [insert crazed laughter of a street preacher here]

Chongara wrote:

Manchu wrote:I guess not everyone has access to a computer and/or internet?

That's probably a pretty fair explanation.

I used to get my porn the old fashioned way, I went dumpster diving through the paper recycling the day before the truck came. Wives were great for throwing out their husbands or sons stashes but that was before bbs and da net. for todays kids without a computer, the answer is photography magazines and photo art books its not porn, its classy naked ladies

I am one of the 80%'rs

Manchu wrote:

Palindrome wrote:His point is still perfectly valid.

No it's not. He pointed out that Frazzled did not specify that values are socially constructed. Frazzled point did not comment on whether or not social values are constructed, which is quite natural as that had nothing to do with Frazzled's point.

Frazzled made the assertion that right and wrong must be taught. The cat of azazel and myself disagree.

So are morals socially constructed or not? Or are some morals, which need not be taught, not socially constructed?

In any case, the "fixed that for you" meme was obviously not a good way to talk about your views.

Palindrome wrote:

Manchu wrote:

Palindrome wrote:His point is still perfectly valid.

No it's not. He pointed out that Frazzled did not specify that values are socially constructed. Frazzled point did not comment on whether or not social values are constructed, which is quite natural as that had nothing to do with Frazzled's point.

Frazzled made the assertion that right and wrong must be taught. The cat of azazel and myself disagree.

So you're saying they are naturally imbued? Really? Despite all evidence to the contrary you still believe.... How...religious of you.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Chongara wrote:

Manchu wrote:I guess not everyone has access to a computer and/or internet?

That's probably a pretty fair explanation.

I used to get my porn the old fashioned way, I went dumpster diving through the paper recycling the day before the truck came. Wives were great for throwing out their husbands or sons stashes but that was before bbs and da net. for todays kids without a computer, the answer is photography magazines and photo art books its not porn, its classy naked ladies

I am one of the 80%'rs

OH wow, never thought of that. I just got my porn the old fashioned way stealing mags from the corner store. You sir win +10,000,000 internetz

Frazzled wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

Manchu wrote:

Palindrome wrote:His point is still perfectly valid.

No it's not. He pointed out that Frazzled did not specify that values are socially constructed. Frazzled point did not comment on whether or not social values are constructed, which is quite natural as that had nothing to do with Frazzled's point.

Frazzled made the assertion that right and wrong must be taught. The cat of azazel and myself disagree.

So you're saying they are naturally imbued? Really? Despite all evidence to the contrary you still believe.... How...religious of you.

Is this the new internet trump card?

It'll be fun to auto-win arguments by calling someone Religious. Much better than the old auto-win terms "Nazi" or "Troll".

Grakmar wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

Manchu wrote:

Palindrome wrote:His point is still perfectly valid.

No it's not. He pointed out that Frazzled did not specify that values are socially constructed. Frazzled point did not comment on whether or not social values are constructed, which is quite natural as that had nothing to do with Frazzled's point.

Frazzled made the assertion that right and wrong must be taught. The cat of azazel and myself disagree.

So you're saying they are naturally imbued? Really? Despite all evidence to the contrary you still believe.... How...religious of you.

Is this the new internet trump card?

It'll be fun to auto-win arguments by calling someone Religious. Much better than the old auto-win terms "Nazi" or "Troll".

priest's collars, its the new black.

Manchu wrote:So are morals socially constructed or not? Or are some morals, which need not be taught, not socially constructed?

My point was that children will only know socially constructed views of right and wrong if they are taught. As opposed to biologically imperative right & wrong actions, which will occur naturally as they are based upon instinct. I'm not making any statements aobut which is what; I'm merely pointing out that Frazzled's statement that "children will only kow right from wrong if they are taught" is incorrect by virtue of how wide a generalization it is. Frazzled's statement assumes that there is no innate morality to people. While there may not necessarily be an innate socially constructed morality, there most certainly is an innate hedonistic morality, sometimes a utilitarian morality, and always a morality of the biological imperative that lays outside of any objective framework.

That was my point. I feel that my original point of correcting Frazzled's statement was quite concise.



EDIT: I don't really believe in an objective morality, myself. I'm more of a social contractarian.

Frazzled correctly assumes there is no innate morality in people, unless you consider unrestrained narcissm to be a form of morality. Everything else is taught.

azazel:

I can assure you it was not. I had no idea, from what you posted before, that you were talking about biological imperatives regarding categories of right and wrong.

Manchu wrote:azazel:

I can assure you it was not. I had no idea, from what you posted before, that you were talking about biological imperatives regarding categories of right and wrong.

Frazzled wrote:Frazzled correctly assumes there is no innate morality in people, unless you consider unrestrained narcissm to be a form of morality. Everything else is taught.

Two people are locked in a box with one piece of meat.

One person kills the other and eats the piece of meat. That person acted correctly according to innate biological morality.

Socially constructed morality, in general, would say that they should have shared the meat and worked together.

Frazzled assumed things based on a myopic worldview.

"Innate biological morality" huh?

So you're actually agreeing with me that the only morality is the narcissist. Excellent.

And thats why he has all the guns your honor.

Not sure who you're referring to. I think there are a few variations of morality. The big three are:

Kantian Ethics
Utilitarianism
Virtue Ethics

Utilitarianism is innate insofar as its hedonism goes; however its calculus changes based upon increased knowledge and worldview.
Virtue Ethics is 100% socially constructed, and Kantian Ethics are also 100% socially constructed, however they claim not to be.

Manchu wrote:"Innate biological morality" huh?

well morality is a horribly complex issue. This guy really address them well. But morals vary greatly between different people and different groups.

http://blog.ted.com/2010/03/22/science_can_ans/

I actually watched that. And my opinion of TED dropped.

Manchu wrote:I actually watched that. And my opinion of TED dropped.

But thats the problem when it comes to talking about morals. How do you define what is moral, or if a topic even falls under morality?

sirlynchmob wrote:

Manchu wrote:I actually watched that. And my opinion of TED dropped.

But thats the problem when it comes to talking about morals. How do you define what is moral, or if a topic even falls under morality?

You establish a framework. Typically, that means either Utilitarianism, Kantian, or Virtue Ethics. (almost all other kinds of morality will fit into one of those three categories)

Not to intrude too much into the ethics debate but I wonder if the kids growing up with unlimited free net porn will have a long term impact on sexual predators?

If most predators back in the day could just sit home and fap to hentai, would they be so eager to go out and commit crimes?

Or does the sick gene still need to manifest it self in a real world situation?

azazel the cat wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Manchu wrote:I actually watched that. And my opinion of TED dropped.

But thats the problem when it comes to talking about morals. How do you define what is moral, or if a topic even falls under morality?

You establish a framework. Typically, that means either Utilitarianism, Kantian, or Virtue Ethics. (almost all other kinds of morality will fit into one of those three categories)

I'd also contend that most issues would fall into the "none of the above" catagory. a lot of things just do not have a moral/ethical position, but when people artificially assign them one it creates lots of suffering, that action would be immoral.

I think this net nanny idea is hawt. you hire some attractive young au pair, dressed in some maids costume hopefully to make sure you don't look at the really nasty sites, with tittilating punishment if you do.
Watching porn does not in anyway alter your perceptions

and btw i can grow the start of several million human beings in my body so i can also do whatever i want. I always knew there was a reason for free will, now i realised it's related to how many new people you can grow.