[MD] A Place for the Principled Person

[Gene M]

On 7/7/06, pholden at davtv.com <pholden at davtv.com> wrote:
>
> Quoting "Arlo J. Bensinger" <ajb102 at psu.edu>:
>
> > [Gene had replied to the Plattman]
> > Wouldn't that harm be up to the people involved to worry about? It seems
> like
> > you're the one who wants to involve the collective, to mandate the
> behaviour of
> > individuals. If someone chooses to cheat on their partner, then it is
> between
> > the cheater, their partner and the 3rd party.
> >
> > You seem to want to have a collective to force people to follow your
> individual
> > principle's. Humourus indeed!
> >
> > [Platt attempts a famous Platteral Shift with Gene]
> > Like Arlo, you avoid the question. Would you ignore the harm done to the
> > betrayed person? Is harming others OK according to your principles?
> >
> > [The Jarloker intervenes]
> > Gene didn't avoid anything. He already answered your haughty
> self-righteousness
> > in saying "If someone chooses to cheat on their partner, then it is
> between the
> > cheater, their partner and the 3rd party."
>
> Gene is perfectly capable of speaking for himself. He doesn't need PR
> flak.


Sorry, I was at work. You know, in the real world. I stand by what Arlo said
though. He's definately on page with me here.

You seem to want your individual ideas about morality standardized and
forced down people's throats. Whereas my "collective" ideas as you say, is
more of a live and let live approach I would say. If 3 random people get
caught up in aldutery, and none of them are me, then it is no concern of
mine, or society at large. The collective does not come into play at all!
Adultery can't hurt society, it can only hurt the people involved in it.

I personally would never, ever cheat on a loved one. But that is a personal
choice, and I stand by it. I feel no need to force anyone else to follow my
code of ethics.

Odd that you are all for social mandates when they align with your personal
ideals...

No wait, no it isn't.

-Gene