Posted on 03/21/2005 9:49:25 AM PST by MisterRepublican
those two aren't related at all. took me good 10 years to figure, but i did.
That's kind of a meaningless statement. Even if her behavior is nothing but negative for her, it's still her right to make bad decisions.
As for "good for society," society is an abstract concept. Societies cannot be harmed, only individuals.
Oh yes they are related... goes back to the dawn of time.. there were the women you partied and sowed your wild oats with and the women you brought home to meet the Parents.. and never the twain shall meet.
If you think "easy" girls and "good" girls are something new.. and how men will react to them most of their lives.. you have ignored all of recorded history.
The hyper sexualization of our daughters is a travesty of huge import, it is wrong and its affects on civil society are numberous and will continue to grow.
Women are the backbone of civilized society, if they are turned into men with boobs, you can kiss the long term future of this nation goodbye, and that's the truth, regardless of whether some feminist agenda demands it not be.
And ours to criticize those bad decisions.
society is an abstract concept. Societies cannot be harmed, only individuals.
That's an insane statement. Societies are harmed by bad decisions made by the individuals who compose them. Enough bad decisions and you see visible societal harm.
As for "defrauding a pension fund" a pension fund is an abstract concept. Pension funds cannot be defrauded, only individuals who have invested in pension funds.
Therefore, it is morally neutral to defraud a pension fund.
Wow, this reasoning makes me feel so much better!
Individuals own shares of the pension fund. When you steal from that fund, you are injuring the rights of those individuals. Labelling such a crime as "defrauding a pension fund" or what have you is nothing more than convenient shorthand for saying "defrauding the following 1000 people who own shares in this fund."
Bottom line, I still maintain, that there is no real rational reason not to sleep around. It's a commandment, that we(me anyway) fulfill without actually fully understanding true rationale behind it.
I think I will buy a nice Apartment building near SHSU and turn it into a modern "Under the Yum Yum Tree".:)
Please show me how an inanimate, abstract concept can be harmed.
Marrying a hotty with a trick pelvis doesn't hurt, either.
Society isn't an "abstract concept", unless you think families, the government, and the economy are "abstract concepts".
I see.
So the 1000 people who own shares in the fund have a mutual interest they share, namely the integrity and success of a pension fund into which they have invested.
Is it just possible that the millions of people living in America might have a shared interest in something like civility or a general level of self-discipline?
Might such things mutually benefit all concerned, just as the integrity of the pension fund would mutually benefit all concerned?
Further, isn't it possible that one of the pension fund investors might be the one doing the defrauding, sacrificing the mutual benefit of the fund's success for the much more selfish benefit of seizing all the fund's assets for himself?
Would it likewise be possible that a person would forgo the mutual benefit of civility or self-control for a wild night out, despite the negative externalities that his decision would create?
At the end of the day, all of those things are nothing more than groups of people. One cannot hurt a family, only the individual members of a family, for example.
No. The 1000 people each have an individual property interest in some percentage of the pension fund.
Is it just possible that the millions of people living in America might have a shared interest in something like civility or a general level of self-discipline?
Not really. At least, not beyond being protected from personal or property damage due to incivility or lack of self-discipline.
LOL! Well, give me a minute to find my "dagnabbit cane" and I'll try to accomodate you. :-)
******
Okay, here goes: Back in MY day, even the horniest sorority girls did not display their promiscuity so overtly. That's not to say that young women today are more promiscuous than those of just a few years past, but it does seem as though the veneer of propriety has been scraped away.
Whoops... I almost forgot to add: Dang kids! ;-)
There's no easy way out of this one for secularists and relativists, no matter how you slice it.
You are clearly missing part of the equation. Why did these 1000 people bother to join in the pension fund? Why did they not invest individually and sidestep the fund's fee structure, etc.?
They have an interest in the fund as a whole as well as in their individual investment.
Not really. At least, not beyond being protected from personal or property damage due to incivility or lack of self-discipline.
Incivility and indiscipline can often do unquantifiable damage.
And even when they do quantifiable damage, the cost of that quantifiable damage could have been avoided if someone had intervened in an earleier pattern of destructive behavior.
The fact is, when one person does something wrong, it may be legal, but it can still cause immediate injury to human relationships and create fuel for future damage to human relationships.
People aren't just collections of likes and dislikes and possessions, they also have relationships that transcend that of buyer/seller.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.