Posts made by agis

:mbounce: :hot2:

:hug2: Σε ευχαριστώ Δαξ. O κάλλιστος εἶ τών παντώv ἄρκτώv.  :cheesy2:

hxxp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mgNKAYaztCU

There's quite a messy discussion amongst Italian gals and guys of every sexual orientation about what she is actually saying  ;D

Everyone loves her though.

Russian interpreters requested. Some actual hypothesis from the IT Russian junkies: I happened to get a BF who's not much to look at. He couldn't lift anything heavier than an Ipad… he is paler than a macbook... put the like to whomever you want but love ME and other stuff :funny2:

:cheers: :mbounce:  :cheers:  oooooπς 

wrong post sorry should go slower in writing mpf pth 

No, really I don't understand how you can be so elusive surface mammals   ;D. Anyway after this failed attempt of "against nature" ( :hehe: ) intercourse between the yummy young dax bear and the ol' mangy agis mole, to the original Jamie's question I would answer summarizing:

Religion and moral are 2 different things cause we originally make them differently with our mind activity  using then, coherently, 2 different words to denote them.

We make religion/dogmatism choosing a not commonly/generally shared point of reference which, once chosen, has to be left untouched as is adapting all the "becoming" to it.

We make moral with the initial emisson of imperative(s) whose foundative statute gets lost engendering as a consequence the impossible attempt of going to search it/them amongst its/their consequences.

Once made this way these 2 different attitudes, nothing forbids and, as a matter of fact,it has been very often done, to mix and to make them overlap.

Very often, for instance, the religious/dogmatic attitude has used and still uses the moral attitude for the build up of dubious but compulsory precepts I'm sure, for our personal stories, we all know more or less. In this case we willingly denote this constructs as "moralism".
So said though the myr's and pastol's considerations are not devoid  of validity cause the consequences of  series of imperavites can be checked more or less consciously against other kinds of attitudes (for instance an  historical attitude), recognised useful by a majority  and, as a consequence, deemed as a Moral with a capital M.

@coach1360:

molto grazzie….

prego non c'è di che coachie  :hug2:

Hi paul same here. Never been systematic with porno. I'm sure your bandwidth contribution will be appreciated. A contribution to discussion is mandatory instead  ;D. Otherwise what would a forum be made for?    ^-^

ihihihiihihih  after so many years I still share my grandad (he was born in 1899) opinion.

Are you longlegged? boxers
Are you shortlegged? speedoes*

• yes I know those are bathsuits but in my grandad's times many things didn't exist  :laugh:

@Dax:

No need for automoderation, agis! But in case anyone needs a good bear spanking, just call!  :fight:

:crazy2:  :crazy2: noooooo noooooo don't spank poor ol' ign… ahem innocent agis mole !!!

let's fuck instead!!  :cheesy2:

butt just a moment  ???

@myrea:

Agis Piaget studies based on his kids are a tad to biased since the upbringing has nothing to do with the average upbringing, however theoretically it's interesting. And my guess is that he was thinking pleasure (libido) = good and destrudo = bad… rather crude I know,  I wonder what Jung would think?  :blink:

He let alone Lacan et al. myr  :hot2: Better to automoderate me otherwise Dax will spank us all and that one is a big bear  :crazy2:
Good objection again though myr bias and poverty of the sample. Piaget can be considered as a pioneer though and he doesn't compare with the other ones for a number of reasons imo.
Moreover I  could find a couple of arguments more for a disagreement between his thought and mine but we would really end off topic there. If you know him well you could open another topic and I will follow you as far as I can  :hug2:

Goto think what she would do to me if she knew I would even abolish the straight marriage  :crazy2:

OK Christine a little indication for the force de frappe drones:  >:D
don't kill my poor innocent and unaware neighbours  :cry2: I'm the one smiling to you from the left window  ^-^

Hi coach! Welcome!  ;D

Hi halpin missed u too poor mole is getting… no, just a moment, I'm already blind    :hug2:

@agis:

Secondly:
when I assume a moral/ethical attitude…

in my opinion language could be instead of great help in denoting the underlying mind activity. This because all the human languages of this planet know an unambiguous verbal form named Imperative…

James! Kiss my lips (right now)!!  :cool2:

this would be the purest and the harshest of the forms but, since we are tortuous and complex animals, we could also choose a sweeter and enveloping approach:

Jaaamiieeee, hoooneeyyyy would you kiss my lips right nooow? :hug2:  :cheesy2:  ( :fight: )

Do it like you want, this imperative  puts the subject getting it in the classical aut-aut: an unbreakable binary alternative.

It is true  she/he might play for time: Nooo, I'm sick, I've forgotten my appointment with the dentist…

But in the end the answer cannot be anything else than a yes or a no. You might now have noticed the imperative makes on its own a thing many of us here deem as very important even from a sexual point of view: the discipline!  :police:
At this point James of course will be disciplined answering yes and undisciplined answering no.
When we forget that, in this kind of situations, the imperative was a causating prius (the thing which came before and created all the situation) and we start instead to think to it as a posterius (a thing coming after) to be derived from the situation, in my opinion there we get the good/bad and the moral/ethics with all their differences and difficulties due to the fact that in vain you will search in an "after" what was there instead before.  ^-^

So said pastol what you say is not  wrong because it  is obvious in different periods or spaces of our personal story or of the whole mankind history the ethical/moral rules/precepts may change but this shouldn't be a problem cause the moral/values/ethics depend on the prius and can never be derived from the facts (the posterius). A little practical example  and de hoc satis for now.

I could slightly complify my imperative:

James! Kiss my lips right now otherwise I will  spank you!!  NOOOOOOOOOOOO!  
James! Kiss my lips right now otherwise I will not spank you!!  YEEEEEEEEEEEES!  :cheesy2: :cheers: :cheesy2: :cheers:

@myrea:

Yes but you do have to take in account the understated self preservation psichology behind the scenes enacted, the babies are picking as you said the alternative which allows more possibilities, but they are also not picking the one which ends them, it's self preservation also, which is the mainframe of what you will consider as good and bad in future too however vague those as concepts do are. Tho I really sympathise with Pastol's text however at a part he is speacking more of logic than morals, as logic can apply in many different times and cultures so you can figure things out, however that is not morals, that is mainly logic adjusting your moral conduct to see which values should be prioritary in the new reality, because you do not have the same code of conduct in a warzone that you have in a peacefull civilized beach but apart from that I really like his text.

For me Religion as a medium group for knowledge has flaws like ulterior agendas, and well it's a composed group so you'll have more individual personality disorders  jamming up on your notion of "truth", it's preferable to be a little more anarchic in your process to get your individual "truth".

Agreed myr! It's a possible alternative way to see the things.  I admit I've not understood the age/(range?) chosen by Kiley for the babies who seemed to me all very young though. Generally very young babies are still in the process of a self and not-self building and have not yet the capability of reintroject the not-self as another possible dfferent self. Important studies on these very problems have been made by Jean Piaget and carried on after him by many other ones  ^-^

@pastol:

You selected a great "teacher" in Ray Bradbury. I love that man and his writings.

Your post was moving and enjoyable. The English was nearly perfect. One note: stay away from slang. Your writing is better than that. (thingies, fellas, wanna) Use the proper words (things, fellows, want to) your writing deserves it.

Thank you pastol. Let alone the contents Ray writes in a very Italian way.
Concerning slang I was trying to remember but, as far as I can dig back, you must be the first to ask me for that.
After all it could be the generation gap indeed. I'm 52.

Concerning myr's and past's answers, myr correctly underlines that moral has vague definitions and, even more, it seems to refer to different things in different communities. This could lead us to think that a common denominator could be found elsewhere in something different from the experience of a reality passively received as is.
Past has been very kind with his dad  :D. It would have been even too easy to make him notice that human history remembers many episodes which have been named religion wars, not to mention the various witch-hunts and stuff. So religion even less seems up to avoid violence but it could, sometimes, even promote it.
But of course I still owe James an answer because I have left him with a dangling unfinished statement:

…while I assume a religious attitude, it doesn't seem to me I'm doing/making the same things I'm doing/making when I assume a moral/ethical attitude otherwise we wouldn't need two different words to denote them: religion/faith and moral/ethics.

This statement remains empty as long as I don't specify what it seems to me I'm personally doing/making when I'm acting those ways and goto see if you all do/make my own operations in the same way or not. Let's see.

In the first place:
when I assume a religious attitude it seems to me I'm moving into a subset of a more generical fideistic attitude which calls for a credence accepted as it's given without verifications or checks. From it we could derive both an axiomatic attitude we are not treating now and a religious/dogmatic attitude we are instead interested in. The language could not be particularly helpful here cause in English and in many other languages  I could say for instance:

I believe in the GTru portal there's a forum named  Religion & Philosophy

and this believing seems dubitative (it seems to me I've seen it/I was in it, I'm not sure but I oppose to the doubt this belief)

or

I believe in god, the spaghetti monster, ladidadi free John Gotti, a soccer team…  etc.

and  this apparent synonim has not the same meaning at all because it doesn't  stem from a doubt but from an unshakeable certainty.

In the religious/dogmatic attitude this unshakeable certainty which has to be accepted without understanding or even trying to understand it is made generally coincide with the revelation of a deity or,  more honestly, of an important man or human institution. In both cases though, it requests all the becoming, the differences emerging are adapted to it and sometimes even through complex and ingenious deductive constructions as the ancient middle age theology was.

Secondly:
when I assume a moral/ethical attitude…

ahem I will answer to that lata cause I gotta run now  

@Spintendo:

@jamesbr66:

Did morality begin with religion or has it been an evolving concept/characteristic within human nature?"

A study on infants at Yale University may shed some light on this matter.

See for yourself:

hxxp://nyti.ms/qFDXGt

Very nice vid Spinny. Of course there can be convictions of ours we individually feel as such from empirical individual experiences which may be interesting to investigate and put through experimental controlled repetitions into a scientifical frame. Well done so. But in my opinion Kiley's claim to deem the babies behaviour as right or wrong is a bit unjustified and so ideological. The babies there imo simply choose the impersonated alternatives which seem to open new possiilities, to enlarge their horizons. Often, in fact, infancy is considered as that very moment when all the horizons start and have to open. Personally I'd consider those reactions as lead by this opening pleasure  more than an awareness of a good and right which, in themselves, could even not exist at all. Right?

@pastol:

Bravo!

Grazie pastol! Really glad you appreciated it

It's always an interesting exercise for me when I try to write in a language which I never studied and I generally don't understand when spoken.
Years ago, in another forum, I remember a nice young guy - English teacher and fluent in Spanish - I had asked an opinion to about that.
Errors omitted, he answered he found my attempts uderstandable but bombastic. At times even snob. Luckily Ray Bradbury lent a hand and
I could defend myself appealing to the "generation gap". (In inverted commas.  You can never know  )