This thread needs to run its course first ... say around a month ...
after which the mods will have their own discussion and an announcement will be made.

Wow! This is a very useful discussion and raises many valid points. The spirit of our reports should be to help fellow punters while protecting the wg's privacy i.e. unless the wg has given up her privacy on this same forum. I agree with bro mxq's summary. In some of my earlier posts, I may have overstepped a little. Something to keep in mind for future posts.

Personally I click on the reviews with attached photos and believe the other people do the same. I have been dissapointed with some of the DB databases and it is always knew to choose before. Also although we all like new things, I prefer to not be the first trying a girl although I try to read if available at least 2 reviews of the same girls because opinions do differ. It is not a question of seeing hardcore pics, I would not actually like that but on the same time I would not take if somebody sneaked a pic. I mean do not expose a WG's face (who knows what can happen to her) but who cares if ou show her back and ass taking a shower. I mean she is proffiting from the whole transaction and why tipping for taking pics should become a norm?
Moderators are there to do the policing and from what I see there is so good at that. My final comment is that pics about the hotel etc. are also nice. My preference are sex tour guide experiences where you give to the audience out there a taste and tips of where to go and what to see, not necessarily how deep you fucked.

I think all the Karma points being awarded, including by mods, makes it very clear that we want to see 'real' photos. I don't recall anyone ever asking "did you get the WG's permission".

I think the best comment came quite early in the thread:


Of course, Saint Marsupial came back with a very typical, stupid response and referred to 'raping someone's wife' which, last time I checked, is a legal issue, not a moral one.

A civilised society has laws, judgements and appropriate penalties - but god-forbid that ever extends to issues of morality. Otherwise, many of us here might end up in jail - or worse.

What should be posted? - anything that's legal. And I'm pretty sure that the owners of 141 are not gong to risk anything that's blatantly illegal.

Edit - if there are some things bros don't want to see - such as a guy's dick, well. no one is forcing them to look.

[ Last edited by  Lenny at 13-9-2009 13:18 ]

Dude, do you even understand what morality is? Morality is a system of ideas of what is right and wrong that societies use to regulate human behavior. Everything that you do that involves another person has a moral dimension. Murder and theft are both immoral actions. Therefore, your statement doesn't make sense given that society bases it "laws, judgements and appropriate penalties" on established ethical values.

I assume what you meant by morality was 'sexual behavior'. Lots of dumb people think that morality only refers to sexuality. (Which explains why you didn't understand my little jibe concerning raping the guy's wife, btw.) But even understanding morality as you do, is it your idea that pictures of any sexual nature that aren't strictly illegal should be allowed on the forum? That's a possibility, but I wonder how many here would agree with that?

There have been several members who have given examples of WGs who would be seriously harmed if recognizable pics of them were published and seen by the wrong people in a public forum. Are you really such an asshole as to think that's OK?

[ Last edited by  Marsupial at 14-9-2009 21:54 ]

You make a completely wrong assumption and then judge me on it. I believe it's called 'building a straw man to knock it down'. Yeah, I remember we used to use that tactic in our 8th grade debating club. Pathetic.

Many people claim that morality is defined in terms of the beliefs that are widely accepted in a society.  But this claim is quite easy to refute and has been many times. Morality cannot correctly be defined in terms of what is approved by a society. Society doesn't approve of prostitution - do you think it's immoral? According to you, the answer must be yes and everyone on this forum is immoral..

[ Last edited by  Lenny at 14-9-2009 01:00 ]

Which is why I never defined morality as a system of "accepted beliefs". Morals are norms, not beliefs. It was an accepted belief that the sun revolved around the earth, but I doubt that was a moral position.

What you've written is so vague as to be right on the verge of making absolutely no fucking sense at all. Is that all you could come up with from your desperate Google search of the word 'morality'? And did you think I wouldn't notice that you haven't actually said what morality is?

In any case, what you have written says nothing to disprove the stupidity of that statement of yours:


You're saying that society doesn't apply "laws, judgements and appropriate penalties' to behavior it considers immoral! Adultery is considered immoral, and society punishes adulterers by granting divorces to their spouses. Societies penalize murder because it is considered bad, i.e. it is considered immoral. Things are not immoral because they are illegal, they are illegal because they are immoral. Morality is concerned with the setting of accepted norms, departure from which is penalized in some way depending on the seriousness of the offense.

You see Jenny, I was doing you a favor by assuming that by 'morality' you really meant 'sexual behavior', because otherwise, the above quote is nonsense.

btw, here is the website from which you copied word for word what you wrote in the above quote.

_________________________________________________


http://siliconinvestor.advfn.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=24966468

From: Tim Fowler       

Saturday, July 09, 2005
Society and Morality

Many people claim that morality is defined in terms of the beliefs that are widely accepted in a society. Thus Melbourne Philosopher, for example, suggests that "it cannot, by definition, be a moral act to do something immoral in the eyes of the wider populace." Now, I think this claim is quite easy to refute. Simply approach any competent speaker of the English language, and ask them whether the sentence: "My society approves of slavery, but slavery is wrong." is a self-contradiction. It clearly isn't. So morality must not be defined in terms of societal approval after all.

Why do so many people believe a theory that's so clearly mistaken? It could arise from the failure to distinguish between descriptive and normative "morals". The former concerns those norms that happen to be accepted within a society, as a matter of descriptive fact. Normative ethics, by contrast, concerns how people ought to act, or what norms ought to be accepted by society. Hopefully you can see that these are two very different concepts. And note that moral philosophers are interested only in the latter. (The former is a subject for anthropologists.)

_________________________________________________

If you had read, and understood!, the entire comment from which you copied a few sentences in an attempt to give the impression the you know wtf you're talking about, you would realize that what I described in post #65 is the normative ethics which Tim Fowler states, in his second paragraph, is the proper subject of morality.

I have so many disagreements here, I hardly know where to start or whether I should even bother. Maybe our backgrounds and beliefs are so totally different that we have no common ground.


I think the exact opposite. Morals are personal beliefs, not the norms of society. Of course, they mght coincide and often do, but not necessarily. In your country and in many others, not so long ago, slavery was the norm. Did that make it 'moral'? Of course not. Racial segregation was the norm in many countries, including yours not so long ago. Did that make it moral? No. Persecution of the Jews and Gypsies, etc. has been the norm in many countries - moral? No. America's failure to provide adequate health care to all its citizens is immoral but not, at present, not illegal. America, Australia and many other countries wiped out much of the indigenous populations as the 'norm' but moral? No. The list is endless and according to you, it seems that good moral behaviour changes according to the whims of society - that's nonsense. Btw, all the 'nos' above are based on my moral code - but since you say "morals are norms" I suppose you would answer yes, they were/are moral.


Of course I haven't. Morality is not absolute. Morality is a personal code of conduct. What I consider to be immoral, many would consider to moral and vice versa. Of course, it would be nice if everyone had the same moral code, but that's never gonna happen. Morality is not black and white. Dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been necessary and Americans cheered. But would anyone say it was a 'moral act'? I certainly hope not. So what is morality - maybe I don't know, but I certainly know it's not necessarily the norms of society.


Most things which are illegal are also immoral. But nothing I can think of is illegal because it's considered immoral in our society. Laws are enacted by society to protect it's members, not because the crimes are considered to be immoral. Adultery is immoral but it's not illegal. Many consider prostitution and promiscuity to be immoral but they're not illegal. Lying is immoral but not illegal. Most, if not all, wars are immoral but not illegal. Torture is immoral, but not illegal - in your country anyway.  The list is endless, depending on your personal moral code. And that's the whole point - morals are personal beliefs and have NOTHING to do with the norms of society. If a father kills a man who raped and murdered his wife and daughter, I wouldn't consider that to be immoral and most members of a society might feel the same way - but it would certainly be illegal.


Personally, I thought America's war against the people of Vietnam was immoral beyond belief, as did many others. But Henry Kissinger got a fuckin Nobel Prize and not a single American spent even one day in jail, including the proven mass-murderers at Mai Lai. So where's the morality in that?

I'll get to the rest of this confused mess later when I have more time. But first, let me point out that you confuse normal, in the statistical sense, for a norm. Just because something is habitually done doesn't make it a norm. If that were true, every commonly held bad habit would be considered a norm.


How about sex with an 8 yr old.


Laws are enacted to protect its members precisely because harming people is considered immoral.

Lenny you are way out of your depth here.

So genocide is just a 'bad habit'.


It's illegal to protect childen from abuse. Of course it's also immoral but that's not why it's illegal. As I commented, many things are immoral but not illegal.


The morality aspect is irrelevant. Our society, following the English model, doesn't regulate morality. Maybe in god-fearing America it's different.

You're gonna have to do better than this - or maybe you're out of your depth.

Nor is it a norm, WTF are you talking about?! But even if it were, as in some tribal societies, it would indeed be moral. You are comparing the moral codes of two different societies. Viewed from the outside, an action may appear immoral, but that is because different societies function according to a different sets of moral rules.

[ Last edited by  Marsupial at 16-9-2009 13:08 ]

I agree with Fowler.


You're one who doesn't understand. Since you equate morality with legislation, you are clearly referring to descriptive morals, i.e. the norms that ARE accepted by a society - hence the legislation, which every law-abiding citizen accepts. These morals, and laws, change as time goes by.

I'm the one referring to normative morals, i.e the ones that OUGHT to be accepted by society. These morals are absolute, won't change and are not the subject of legislation. Legislation isn't concerned with how people OUGHT to behave, only with how they HAVE to behave, based on the accepted values of a society at a particular moment in time. How people ought to behave is a subject for the moral philosophers to discuss, not the law-makers.

Ding Ding Ding

and in the red corner, the current feather weight champion of the 141 world wide web,   Mars 'the Saint' Upial ......
and in the blue corner, the No. 1 challanger,  'Jack the Lad' Lenny ....

A separate thread is now needed for you to to continue your pillow talk !  

Ding Ding Ding

So genocide could be moral if it's accepted by a particular time at a particular tribe. RUBBISH.

You were writing your post as I was writing mine but you've proved me correct better than I ever could.

You're talking about descriptive morals, which, as Fowler wrote, is a subject for anthropologists. Philosophers talk about normative morals - how people OUGHT to behave, regardless of legislation and the norms that happen to be accepted by a particular society at a particular time.

Marsupial, become a historian or an anthropologist, you clearly don't understand philosophy.

That's OK, I think I just delivered the knock-out blow.

You realize don't you Jenny, that you're contradicting yourself big time with this? On one hand you state that morality is not absolute; on the other hand, you're saying that there is a universal moral standard according to which genocide is always wrong. You can't have it both ways dude.

You have said that English law does not try to legislate morality. That might seem to be the case because law, as a practical matter, would rather not discuss moral issues which are a step removed from it's main concern which is the regulation of behavior; the law contents itself with stating what is or is not allowed, thereby avoiding all the messy bickering that always occurs whenever people set out to argue right and wrong. And then not all laws concern moral issues anyway. However, that is not to say that laws are made without consideration of moral principles; legislators explicitly debate moral issues - fairness, right and wrong - when creating laws. And, in the US at least, high courts often declare particular laws unconstitutional, and in their arguments frequently raise fairness concerns.

The existence of a shared moral code of conduct applicable to everyone is necessary for people to function in groups and to form societies. Without those moral codes, social interactions, especially those involving strangers, would be impossible. It is societies that make laws, and these societies are only able to exist because its members adhere to a shared moral code, and it is within the framework of that moral code that laws are made. Therefore, though laws may make no explicit reference to moral codes (tho they sometimes implicitly do, as was the case with laws against homosexuality), laws are always based on underlying moral principles. The moral code of a society is the soil from which its laws grow. Thus, laws protect the individual because it is considered immoral to harm others. If it were not thought immoral to harm others, the law would not protect people.

So if right and wrong were simply a "personal code of conduct", complex social interaction, which requires a commonly-shared moral code, would be impossible. Laws exist to provide a practical means to keep behavior within permissible moral boundaries, but if we needed to reference the law for every single action, we would be paralyzed with uncertainty. That does not happen, because in the vast majority of our actions, we instinctively know what is right or wrong for everyone without having to reference some law book which merely codifies those implicit moral judgments.

That is not to say that moral issues, or laws, are always cut and dried, or that societies are incapable of acting against their core moral beliefs; but that does not negate the existence or necessity of moral norms.

As a matter of fact, moral codes are always peculiar to the individual societies from which they arise. There is no reason why something considered right by one society could not be condemned by another, tho as a rule we share most moral concepts because they are common to human nature. The day when a true global society comes into being, even those differences will disappear.

[ Last edited by  Marsupial at 18-9-2009 13:02 ]

No. I haven't contradicted myself.

Fowler - whoever the fuck he is - says: Descriptive ethics "concerns those norms that happen to be accepted within a society, as a matter of descriptive fact. Normative ethics, by contrast, concerns how people ought to act, or what norms ought to be accepted by society.."

Nowhere does he say that those norms should be applied to all societies. You have misread the text.

But if by 'normative ethics' Fowler means, as you seem to think, that the same moral principles must apply to all human societies in all epochs, then that is a mistaken understanding of how the term is used. (The idea that the same moral codes should apply to all people regardless of when and where they live is, in itself, a moral judgment, btw.) I understand 'normative ethics' to mean the establishment of consistent moral rules, based on a rational examination of the underlying moral principles of a society, to determine what should be right and wrong in that particular society, not a mere description of what rules actually exist in that society. In other words, the task of anthropology is to describe which moral rules do exist in the society being examined, whereas the purpose of normative ethics is to determine which rules should exist in that society. The anthropologist would note the existence of slavery in early American society, whereas normative ethics would tell us that slavery and racial discrimination should not be permitted in a society that believes all men are created equal. That is the common definition of 'normative ethics'.

A couple of web definitions of normative ethics:

1) Normative ethics is to discover, formulate and defend fundamental principles of moral behavior

2) Normative ethical theories: theories that presuppose some kind of objective morality and the possibility of moral knowledge, and, given that, how can moral knowledge be organized to be maximally rational and fruitful

Normative ethical theories seek to provide:

a Identification of what is good, bad, right, wrong, etc. (criteria)

b Justification of moral beliefs and judgments (standards for evaluation)

Nothing in those definitions concerns universal applicability, which would be moral imperialism.

I agree with Alasdair MacIntyre, who argues "that any account of the virtues must indeed be generated out of the community in which those virtues are to be practiced: the very word 'ethics' implies 'ethos'. That is to say that the virtues are, and necessarily must be, grounded in a particular time and place. What counts as virtue in fourth-century Athens would be a ludicrous guide to proper behaviour in twenty-first-century Toronto, and vice-versa."

In any case, how do you square any of this with your idea that morals are a matter of individual discretion?

And still, that statement of yours:

"A civilised society has laws, judgements and appropriate penalties - but god-forbid that ever extends to issues of morality."

remains nonsense according to anyone's reasoning.

[ Last edited by  Marsupial at 31-10-2009 16:35 ]

Philosophers can think all they want about what is morally good and what is morally bad. They may even come up with a moral code of correct behaviour. But my whole point is - I don't give a shit about anybody elses 'moral code' I have my own morals, as everyone else does and we each live according to those morals. The only proviso is that our moral code of behaviour cannot include breaking the law, unless you want to risk punishment by the state. But, as I keep saying, many things are immoral but not illegal and prostitution and promiscuity are the best examples for this forum. I make no claim to have 'good morals' but I'm a law-abiding citizen so I have no problems with the police because the law doesn't legislate against bad morals, regardless of what you continue to say. It legislates against behavior which harms the society and it's citizens. The fact that illegal behavior is also immoral is, in fact, irrelevant, which is proven by the fact that so much immoral behavoiur is perfectly legal.

Yah, but by always staying within the limits of the law, you are in effect, acting in accordance with those common moral principles which inform the law. As far as behavior is concerned, the result is the same; but whereas the moral person does what he does because it's right, you do what you do because you fear the law - which, to be honest, is true, to some extent, of all of us. In any case, I don't doubt you're a decent person whose personal moral code isn't that much different from mine.