264 réponses à ce sujet

[What a Succulent Ass]

CHALET wrote...

>Runs from her father.
>Doesn't change her name.

u so siley miranda

I think we've already established that Miranda must have been terrible at hide and seek as a child.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Pitznik wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

That's however completely different case. While sexual promiscuity can be and often is related to STDs, unwanted pregnancy and cheating in relationships, it doesn't have to be. While all those things are a good reason to look down upon someone, the sexual promiscuity alone is not, outside of some views dictated by religious and social moral codexes, which are not universally shared by everyone. When we discuss ethics in simplest form ie do not treat other people in a way you wouldn't like be treated yourself, sexual promiscuity is not wrong, because it doesn't hurt anyone.

I already admitted to the analogy being flawed. But it's still morally and ethically wrong, hence the reason why everyone looks down upon it.

Depends on your moral code. But when we look at the most basic ethical principle, about not hurting other people, it is not wrong.

One of the most basic ethical principle are benefience and the concept of doing least harm.

"which states that we should attempt generate the largest ratio of good over evil possible in the world"

"In this case, a person should choose to do the least harm possible and to do harm to the fewest people"

Being loose can only bring harm, so do the thing that does less harm, not be loose at all.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Kyuhyun wrote...

What evidence? That it's morally wrong to be sexist and misogyinstic? Sorry i didn't know i had to back that up with evidence i thought every human being with a little bit empathy in them knew it wasn't right.

2. Forwarding you to Pitzniks post he explained it quite well


3. Actually i'm not surprised that people STILL, in 2012, look down upon women for having a lot of sex. I'm just telling you it's not right to look down upon them.

Last one again Pitzniks post.

1-Point to me where I was sexist and misogysnstic.

2-And I answered it quite well.

3- I know, it's so wrong to look down upon a loose person.

[Kyuhyun]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

That's however completely different case. While sexual promiscuity can be and often is related to STDs, unwanted pregnancy and cheating in relationships, it doesn't have to be. While all those things are a good reason to look down upon someone, the sexual promiscuity alone is not, outside of some views dictated by religious and social moral codexes, which are not universally shared by everyone. When we discuss ethics in simplest form ie do not treat other people in a way you wouldn't like be treated yourself, sexual promiscuity is not wrong, because it doesn't hurt anyone.

I already admitted to the analogy being flawed. But it's still morally and ethically wrong, hence the reason why everyone looks down upon it.

Depends on your moral code. But when we look at the most basic ethical principle, about not hurting other people, it is not wrong.

One of the most basic ethical principle are benefience and the concept of doing least harm.

"which states that we should attempt generate the largest ratio of good over evil possible in the world"

"In this case, a person should choose to do the least harm possible and to do harm to the fewest people"

Being loose can only bring harm, so do the thing that does less harm, not be loose at all.

Right because condoms don't exist and all "loose" (god i hate that word) women have never heard of it. Also all of them get pregnant and have STDs yes totally. 

[Kyuhyun]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Kyuhyun wrote...

What evidence? That it's morally wrong to be sexist and misogyinstic? Sorry i didn't know i had to back that up with evidence i thought every human being with a little bit empathy in them knew it wasn't right.

2. Forwarding you to Pitzniks post he explained it quite well


3. Actually i'm not surprised that people STILL, in 2012, look down upon women for having a lot of sex. I'm just telling you it's not right to look down upon them.

Last one again Pitzniks post.

1-Point to me where I was sexist and misogysnstic.

2-And I answered it quite well.

3- I know, it's so wrong to look down upon a loose person.

1. Everything you said basically

2. No you didn't

3. It is.

[capn233]

While the discussion of contemporary society is interesting (actually it isn't in the least), would it be possible to keep the thread at least somewhat Mass Effect related?

Basically Miranda was handled poorly in ME3. She was one of the hardest characters to kill in ME2... she could have had a bigger role in this game and should have been recruitable. Her story arc was somewhat anemic. And as above, it was absurd that her real last name was Lawson.

[What a Succulent Ass]

Khajiit, do you have a problem with promiscuous men?

[iamweaver]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Kyuhyun wrote...

What evidence? That it's morally wrong to be sexist and misogyinstic? Sorry i didn't know i had to back that up with evidence i thought every human being with a little bit empathy in them knew it wasn't right.

2. Forwarding you to Pitzniks post he explained it quite well


3. Actually i'm not surprised that people STILL, in 2012, look down upon women for having a lot of sex. I'm just telling you it's not right to look down upon them.

Last one again Pitzniks post.

1-Point to me where I was sexist and misogysnstic.

2-And I answered it quite well.

3- I know, it's so wrong to look down upon a loose person.

The problem is that Kyuhyun  seems to think that you are saying that women (and not men) shouldn't be sexually loose.  She's inferring something from your argunemt that's implied, I assume because the examples that folks are using are about females.  But I get the impression that you're not descriminating in your disapproval.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Kyuhyun wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

That's however completely different case. While sexual promiscuity can be and often is related to STDs, unwanted pregnancy and cheating in relationships, it doesn't have to be. While all those things are a good reason to look down upon someone, the sexual promiscuity alone is not, outside of some views dictated by religious and social moral codexes, which are not universally shared by everyone. When we discuss ethics in simplest form ie do not treat other people in a way you wouldn't like be treated yourself, sexual promiscuity is not wrong, because it doesn't hurt anyone.

I already admitted to the analogy being flawed. But it's still morally and ethically wrong, hence the reason why everyone looks down upon it.

Depends on your moral code. But when we look at the most basic ethical principle, about not hurting other people, it is not wrong.

One of the most basic ethical principle are benefience and the concept of doing least harm.

"which states that we should attempt generate the largest ratio of good over evil possible in the world"

"In this case, a person should choose to do the least harm possible and to do harm to the fewest people"

Being loose can only bring harm, so do the thing that does less harm, not be loose at all.

Right because condoms don't exist and all "loose" (god i hate that word) women have never heard of it. Also all of them get pregnant and have STDs yes totally. 

I never said it's going to bring harm, I said it can only do harm, there's nothing to gain by having loose sex than personal pleasure, therefore, since it can only bring harm and no good, it shouldn't be done according to principles.

[Stalker]

Just jumped in here: How did this thread turned into a discussion for sex addiction?

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Random Jerkface wrote...

Khajiit, do you have a problem with promiscuous men?

Yes, I do. I have countless times gotten into arguments with my friends telling them it's innappropriate to do that, and many times I've gotten them out that lifestyle.

[What a Succulent Ass]

Mr Massakka wrote...

Just jumped in here: How did this thread turned into a discussion for sex addiction?

GURL, I WANT TO KNOW TOO.

[Kyuhyun]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Kyuhyun wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

That's however completely different case. While sexual promiscuity can be and often is related to STDs, unwanted pregnancy and cheating in relationships, it doesn't have to be. While all those things are a good reason to look down upon someone, the sexual promiscuity alone is not, outside of some views dictated by religious and social moral codexes, which are not universally shared by everyone. When we discuss ethics in simplest form ie do not treat other people in a way you wouldn't like be treated yourself, sexual promiscuity is not wrong, because it doesn't hurt anyone.

I already admitted to the analogy being flawed. But it's still morally and ethically wrong, hence the reason why everyone looks down upon it.

Depends on your moral code. But when we look at the most basic ethical principle, about not hurting other people, it is not wrong.

One of the most basic ethical principle are benefience and the concept of doing least harm.

"which states that we should attempt generate the largest ratio of good over evil possible in the world"

"In this case, a person should choose to do the least harm possible and to do harm to the fewest people"

Being loose can only bring harm, so do the thing that does less harm, not be loose at all.

Right because condoms don't exist and all "loose" (god i hate that word) women have never heard of it. Also all of them get pregnant and have STDs yes totally. 

I never said it's going to bring harm, I said it can only do harm, there's nothing to gain by having loose sex than personal pleasure, therefore, since it can only bring harm and no good, it shouldn't be done according to principles.

Actually sex brings a lot of good? Or do you honestly believe people just have sex to create babies like wow

[What a Succulent Ass]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

Khajiit, do you have a problem with promiscuous men?

Yes, I do. I have countless times gotten into arguments with my friends telling them it's innappropriate to do that, and many times I've gotten them out that lifestyle.

Well, then this discussion is over.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Kyuhyun wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Kyuhyun wrote...

What evidence? That it's morally wrong to be sexist and misogyinstic? Sorry i didn't know i had to back that up with evidence i thought every human being with a little bit empathy in them knew it wasn't right.

2. Forwarding you to Pitzniks post he explained it quite well


3. Actually i'm not surprised that people STILL, in 2012, look down upon women for having a lot of sex. I'm just telling you it's not right to look down upon them.

Last one again Pitzniks post.

1-Point to me where I was sexist and misogysnstic.

2-And I answered it quite well.

3- I know, it's so wrong to look down upon a loose person.

1. Everything you said basically

2. No you didn't

3. It is.

1- A specific statement or question

2-Prove it.

3-Back it up.

[Kyuhyun]

iamweaver wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Kyuhyun wrote...

What evidence? That it's morally wrong to be sexist and misogyinstic? Sorry i didn't know i had to back that up with evidence i thought every human being with a little bit empathy in them knew it wasn't right.

2. Forwarding you to Pitzniks post he explained it quite well


3. Actually i'm not surprised that people STILL, in 2012, look down upon women for having a lot of sex. I'm just telling you it's not right to look down upon them.

Last one again Pitzniks post.

1-Point to me where I was sexist and misogysnstic.

2-And I answered it quite well.

3- I know, it's so wrong to look down upon a loose person.

The problem is that Kyuhyun  seems to think that you are saying that women (and not men) shouldn't be sexually loose.  She's inferring something from your argunemt that's implied, I assume because the examples that folks are using are about females.  But I get the impression that you're not descriminating in your disapproval.

No because it started out as "Women here are sl*tty that's why it's ok for men to make inappropriate jokes because they have a lot of sex and thats gross and wrong so men should totally make sexist jokes you know hurr" and then suddenly hes like "I'm not sexist no i only care for the well being of humanity!!!" like yeah right...

[Khajiit Jzargo]

[quote]Kyuhyun wrote...

Right because condoms don't exist and all "loose" (god i hate that word) women have never heard of it. Also all of them get pregnant and have STDs yes totally. 

[/quote]I never said it's going to bring harm, I said it can only do harm, there's nothing to gain by having loose sex than personal pleasure, therefore, since it can only bring harm and no good, it shouldn't be done according to principles.
[/quote]

Actually sex brings a lot of good? Or do you honestly believe people just have sex to create babies like wow

[/quote]Sex with a partner you are emotionally attached and know for a fact has no sorts of disease is not wrong, and actually yes, the main reason sex exist was so we can reproduce, you know like evolution intended to. But having loose sex brings nothing but harm, and the only "good" thing that can come out of is personal pleasure.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Kyuhyun wrote...

iamweaver wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Kyuhyun wrote...

What evidence? That it's morally wrong to be sexist and misogyinstic? Sorry i didn't know i had to back that up with evidence i thought every human being with a little bit empathy in them knew it wasn't right.

2. Forwarding you to Pitzniks post he explained it quite well


3. Actually i'm not surprised that people STILL, in 2012, look down upon women for having a lot of sex. I'm just telling you it's not right to look down upon them.

Last one again Pitzniks post.

1-Point to me where I was sexist and misogysnstic.

2-And I answered it quite well.

3- I know, it's so wrong to look down upon a loose person.

The problem is that Kyuhyun  seems to think that you are saying that women (and not men) shouldn't be sexually loose.  She's inferring something from your argunemt that's implied, I assume because the examples that folks are using are about females.  But I get the impression that you're not descriminating in your disapproval.

No because it started out as "Women here are sl*tty that's why it's ok for men to make inappropriate jokes because they have a lot of sex and thats gross and wrong so men should totally make sexist jokes you know hurr" and then suddenly hes like "I'm not sexist no i only care for the well being of humanity!!!" like yeah right...

Again, stop putting words in my mouth. I said that girls who tend to be sexually loose, tend to wear loose clothing. Therefore, that's where the steroetype that girls who wear loose clothing are loose come from, I even deliberately stated many times I disagree with that steroetype.

Modifié par Khajiit Jzargo, 15 juillet 2012 - 03:12 .

[Kyuhyun]

[quote]Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

[quote]Kyuhyun wrote...

Right because condoms don't exist and all "loose" (god i hate that word) women have never heard of it. Also all of them get pregnant and have STDs yes totally. 

[/quote]I never said it's going to bring harm, I said it can only do harm, there's nothing to gain by having loose sex than personal pleasure, therefore, since it can only bring harm and no good, it shouldn't be done according to principles.
[/quote]

Actually sex brings a lot of good? Or do you honestly believe people just have sex to create babies like wow

[/quote]Sex with a partner you are emotionally attached and know for a fact has no sorts of disease is not wrong, and actually yes, the main reason sex exist was so we can reproduce, you know like evolution intended to. But having loose sex brings nothing but harm, and the only "good" thing that can come out of is personal pleasure.
[/quote]

Is this...wow... I thought people had those beliefs back in like the 1940s... 

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Kyuhyun wrote...


Is this...wow... I thought people had those beliefs back in like the 1940s... 

No, people who still have a brain know it. Incase your still in the 5th grade, The real reason behind sex is to reproduce, not for pleasure. And I stand firm to what I said, Having loose sex can only bring harm, no good.

[What a Succulent Ass]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

Khajiit, do you have a problem with promiscuous men?

Yes, I do.

Just gonna leave this here.

[What a Succulent Ass]

Is this...wow... I thought people had those beliefs back in like the 1940s... 

People still went like rabbits in the 1940s. They just pretended they didn't.

[Kyuhyun]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Kyuhyun wrote...


Is this...wow... I thought people had those beliefs back in like the 1940s... 

No, people who still have a brain know it. Incase your still in the 5th grade, The real reason behind sex is to reproduce, not for pleasure. And I stand firm to what I said, Having loose sex can only bring harm, no good.

Right, then gay people should just STOP having sex at all because you know it doesn't bring them anything but personal pleasure!!!!! 

[What a Succulent Ass]

OH WORD, EVERYONE, BRING OUT THE UMBRELLAS BECAUSE **** JUST GOT REAL.

THIS IS NOT GOING ANYWHERE GOOD.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Kyuhyun wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Kyuhyun wrote...


Is this...wow... I thought people had those beliefs back in like the 1940s... 

No, people who still have a brain know it. Incase your still in the 5th grade, The real reason behind sex is to reproduce, not for pleasure. And I stand firm to what I said, Having loose sex can only bring harm, no good.

Right, then gay people should just STOP having sex at all because you know it doesn't bring them anything but personal pleasure!!!!! 

I don't know why you would bring gay's into this conversation,it doesn't change anything, let me put simple for you.

Having sex whether gay or heterosexual with a partner you are emotionally attached to=It's fine and normal
Having sex loosely whether gay or heterosexual=Wrong

Get it now?