Lipstick Lesbians/Bi Curious

[DoesntMatter]

Teenagers have so many hormones raging out of control, they'd engage in sexual activity with a doorknob.

How did you know?

[Dasein]

Let me just say that this thread was in no way an attack on Ladienisha. When I read her thread it did spark off a thought process but it was more questioning the difference in society today in comparison say to 20-30 years ago.

I am also not making any judgements of any kind just really trying to bounce ideas around.

With that said I must admit that I am getting a little tired of the pseudo lesbian thing with celebrities and the like. Just recently in Australia there was this thing where a female singer was apparently getting it on with an MTV VJ. It was a publicity stunt..for what..I don't know. Does this make the celeb MORE popular?

[starbuck]

Yes, it definitely seems like alot of pop stars use it for publicity, like Britney kissing Madonna. And that Katy Perry song. You know that woman wouldn't be famous if she hadn't "kissed a girl."

I'd rather see the media focus more on real gay couples, rather than treating them like a novelty.

[Dasein]

Yes, it definitely seems like alot of pop stars use it for publicity, like Britney kissing Madonna. And that Katy Perry song. You know that woman wouldn't be famous if she hadn't "kissed a girl."

I'd rather see the media focus more on real gay couples, rather than treating them like a novelty.

Yes! I totally agree.

A lesbian friend of mine suffers tremendously in her daily life because she is openly gay. I have plenty of examples..too much to go into on here.

I think this is the part that irritates me..the novelty...the pretence..the obvious attention seeking behaviour.

[doppelgaenger]

Anyway, who cares?

[Dasein]

Anyway, who cares?

And you tell other people in posts to behave like adults. Great addition to this post Dopple.

I find it interesting to observe people in a sociological manner.

[starbuck]

Anyway, who cares?

The Forum Rebel
These nilhistic creatures usually answer posts with a defiant "Who cares?" or "I rule", eventually making all the other posters wonder just why he/she even bothers coming to the forums to begin with.

Goodness, it's one of these rare creatures in its natural habit. Let's sneak up on it to get a closer look, shall we? Careful, now, we don't want to scare it away.

Yes, it's a beaut. What a terrific specimen.

[doppelgaenger]

Actually I am quite a nihilist, by this definition: "Nihilists generally assert that objective morality does not exist, and that no action is logically preferable to any other in regard to the moral value of one action over another."

In fact, the painting I am doing right now, is in fact, called The pointlessness of Existence

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism[/url]

[Mish]

Maybe the painting should be called "The pointlessness of Nihilistic Existence"?

Since all others who are not Nihilist have objective moral values, even if as vague as non cannibalism > cannibalism or non pedophile > pedophile

[doppelgaenger]

Maybe the painting should be called "The pointlessness of Nihilistic Existence"?

Since all others who are not Nihilist have objective moral values, even if as vague as non cannibalism > cannibalism or non pedophile > pedophile

Don't be an idiot. Just because someone is a Nihilist does not mean they support cannibalism or pedophilia; it means they are objective in believing that all morals are nonobjective (I know, bit of a strawman, but continue reading). A cannibal may feel what he/she is doing is right, despite cases like Jeffrey Dahmer's. What about lynching? What about feelings of jealousy, or emotions overridden by murderous feelings, even in a person doesn't act out on them? Feelings of hatred? Stealing? Cheating? Some people think it's okay to steal from the rich and give to the poor, however the rich do not. Others think it's okay to cheat on their partner because they don't know about it. How does their partner feel about it?

Who is to say what is right and what is wrong? What if a person deserves to be eaten/cheated on/lynched? Exactly; people who are affected by it, directly or indirectly. Your statement is contradictory.

[Mish]

What if a person deserves to be eaten/cheated on/lynched?

By using the same logic are you going to say "What if a child deserves to be raped"?

I think it's obvious (at least to me) that there are at least some moral values that people should pursue and there are actions which are wrong and values which have value over the other

[doppelgaenger]

By using the same logic are you going to say "What if a child deserves to be raped"?

I think it's obvious (at least to me) that there are at least some moral values that people should pursue and there are actions which are wrong and values which have value over the other

I am not personally questioning these things, I was using them as an example, on how moral can't be objective. If you want to get personal though, despite being somewhat nihilistic, I do have a good sense of right and wrong, and I do have values, but that's not the subject at hand.

I think there is a thin line between values and morals. We all have a certain set of values; it is wrong to kill a person, it is wrong to get in a fight, it is wrong to rape someone (again, just for an example, some people will/will not agree) What I am getting at is this thin line; if there was an objective set of morals, nobody would kill, eat, or rape anyone; everyone would simply agree. Even just saying that there is such a thing as objective morals is somewhat contradictory, because objectivity is seeing something for what it is, and moral is your personal relation to it. By morality, something is right or wrong, and by objectivity, it simply just is. It would be ignorant of any single person to say "this is right" and/or "this is wrong" and because majority rules, does that always mean majority is right? How about Nazi Germany?

Even things like homosexuality. In Iran, it's punishable by death, whereas in America (depending on whom you ask) a person might think homosexuality is okay.

I see what you're saying though; a society can function without a basic set of rules.

And boy, I really do appreciate this debate, because I am writing a story which kind of takes a stab at morality.

[Mish]

I think there is a thin line between values and morals. We all have a certain set of values; it is wrong to kill a person, it is wrong to get in a fight, it is wrong to rape someone (again, just for an example, some people will/will not agree) What I am getting at is this thin line; if there was an objective set of morals, nobody would kill, eat, or rape anyone; everyone would simply agree. Even just saying that there is such a thing as objective morals is somewhat contradictory, because objectivity is seeing something for what it is, and moral is your personal relation to it. By morality, something is right or wrong, and by objectivity, it simply just is. It would be ignorant of any single person to say "this is right" and/or "this is wrong" and because majority rules, does that always mean majority is right? How about Nazi Germany?

My main objection was to this statement


no action is logically preferable to any other in regard to the moral value of one action over another.

I think if this is what Nihilism tries to prove then Nihilism is deeply flawed. The above statement itself is simply wrong. There are actions which are logically preferable to any other in regards to the moral value of one action over the other.

[doppelgaenger]

I am in disagreement with that bit, too. In my post I was only referring to the bolded bit

[starbuck]

Doppel, from your posts I actually don't think you're a Nilihist. You seem to seek the meaning behind ideas and actions, especially as an artist. If you truly didn't care, I doubt you'd even be arguing with Mish here. You may have Nihilistic tendencies though.

I understand the philosophical position from a historical standpoint, but Nihilism nowadays to me seems like a pseudo-intellectual way of copping out on actually taking a stand on something.