PDA

View Full Version : Ashley Madison hack could mean trouble for some feds



Bos Mutus
08-19-2015, 05:21 PM
The successful cyberattack that allowed hackers to get personal information on tens of millions of users of a website dedicated to connecting married people seeking extramarital liaisons may bring trouble to some federal and military employees.
The hackers have posted the data on 32 million people who were members of AshleyMadison.com, and an analysis of the information found that about 15,000 of them had provided .gov or .mil email addresses, according to Wired (http://www.wired.com/2015/08/happened-hackers-posted-stolen-ashley-madison-data/).
The data was posted on the dark Web and is not accessible through most browsers, according to the report. It appears to include account details, login information and credit card transaction data that includes names and street addresses — blowing the cover of those who signed up using fictitious information and then used a credit card for payment.
The hackers had demanded that Avid Life Media take down AshleyMadison.com and its companion site, EstablishedMen.com. When the company did not comply, the hackers posted the stolen data.


Seriously? Who uses their .mil to sign up for dating websites...let alone this crap?

efmbman
08-19-2015, 07:51 PM
Seriously? Who uses their .mil to sign up for dating websites...let alone this crap?

People that earned their fate.

Rainmaker
08-19-2015, 07:53 PM
People that earned their fate.

Certainly gives new meaning to the Ashley Madison motto of "life's short have an affair"

Bos Mutus
08-19-2015, 10:39 PM
Will probably start seeing more of these...




Josh Duggar had a paid Ashley Madison Account
In 2013, conservative reality TV star Josh Duggar—of TLC’s 19 Kids and Counting fame—was named the executive director of the Family Research Council, a conservative lobbying group in D.C. which seeks (http://www.frc.org/mission-statement)
“to champion marriage and family as the foundation of civilization, the
seedbed of virtue, and the wellspring of society.” During that time, he
also maintained a paid account on Ashley Madison (https://www.ashleymadison.com/), a web site created for the express purpose of cheating on your spouse.

In May 2015, Duggar was forced to resign afterIn Touch Weekly reported (http://defamer.gawker.com/josh-duggar-accused-of-molesting-several-sisters-as-a-t-1706096839)
that he had molested five young girls (four of whom were his own
sisters) beginning in 2002. When the accusations became public, the
family went into crisis mode, insisting (http://gawker.com/19-excuses-and-counting-every-excuse-the-duggars-made-1708883481#_ga=1.68906705.1505889799.1420469137) that Josh had reformed (http://morningafter.gawker.com/19-kids-and-counting-family-defends-josh-duggars-impro-1708881413) and that the media covering the claims was intent on “exploiting women (http://gawker.com/duggar-daughter-breaks-down-in-tears-during-fox-news-in-1709446769).”
Josh himself took to his family’s Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/duggarfamilyofficial/posts/653931128073873) to absolve himself of his past indiscretions and assure the world he was back on a righteous path:

...

But data released online in the wake of the hack on Ashley Madison’s
servers certainly seems to show otherwise. Someone using a credit card
belonging to a Joshua J. Duggar, with a billing address that matches the home (http://www.freejinger.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=87&t=6832&start=320)in Fayetteville, Arkansas owned by his grandmother Mary—a home that was consistently shown (http://okmagazine.com/photos/jessa-duggar-home-photos-house-19-kids-counting/photo/1001214143/)on their now-cancelled TV show, and in which Anna Duggar gave birth to her first child (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuS7X0xMQXQ)—paid a total of $986.76 for two different monthly Ashley Madison subscriptions from February of 2013 until May of 2015.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-20-2015, 12:05 AM
Will probably start seeing more of these...

Wait! $986.00 for two months?

That is the real story if you ask me. How in the hell do they justify paying that much for a dating site?

Bos Mutus
08-20-2015, 12:42 AM
Wait! $986.00 for two months?

Not 2 months....two subscriptions that were billed monthly


That is the real story if you ask me. How in the hell do they justify paying that much for a dating site?

In the full article, it says he hade premium $250 'Affair Guarantee' membership....

Absinthe Anecdote
08-20-2015, 12:59 AM
Not 2 months....two subscriptions that were billed monthly


In the full article, it says he hade premium $250 'Affair Guarantee' membership....

Either way, that is still expensive.

Bos Mutus
08-20-2015, 01:04 AM
Either way, that is still expensive.

The $250 is apparently refunded if you don't hook up within 3 months.

garhkal
08-20-2015, 05:03 AM
Seriously? Who uses their .mil to sign up for dating websites...let alone this crap?

The same people who feel its ok to get hookers with their Govt travel card!


Wait! $986.00 for two months?

That is the real story if you ask me. How in the hell do they justify paying that much for a dating site?

IMO its not just a 'dating site'.

Bos Mutus
08-20-2015, 07:20 PM
Statement from Josh Duggar...



"I have been the biggest hypocrite ever. While espousing faith and family values, I have secretly over the last several years been viewing pornography on the internet and this became a secret addiction and I became unfaithful to my wife."

I am so ashamed of the double life that I have been living and am grieved for the hurt, pain and disgrace my sin has caused my wife and family, and most of all Jesus and all those who profess faith in Him.

I brought hurt and a reproach to my family, close friends and the fans of our show with my actions that happened when I was 14-15 years old, and now I have re-broken their trust.
The last few years, while publicly stating I was fighting against immorality in our country, I was hiding my own personal failings.

As I am learning the hard way, we have the freedom to choose to our actions, but we do not get to choose our consequences. I deeply regret all hurt I have caused so many by being such a bad example.

I humbly ask for your forgiveness. Please pray for my precious wife Anna and our family during this time."

SomeRandomGuy
08-20-2015, 07:41 PM
Statement from Josh Duggar...

That dude is appropriately named if you ask me. He's in a hole and he just keeps digging and digging...

Absinthe Anecdote
08-20-2015, 07:50 PM
That dude is appropriately named if you ask me. He's in a hole and he just keeps digging and digging...

He sounds like a real dumb ass.

Perhaps he would be better off if he hadn't been home schooled, sheltered from outside beliefs, and fed a constant stream of bullshit about ghosts imprenating virgins.

Frankly, I don't expect much from people who believe the Noah's Ark story is real, and that Jesus did miracles.

Rainmaker
08-20-2015, 07:52 PM
The same people who feel its ok to get hookers with their Govt travel card!



.

Back in the day, The Spearmint Rhino Took Diner's Club..... The trick was to have them bill the entertainment as food.

SomeRandomGuy
08-21-2015, 04:08 PM
Perhaps he would be better off if he hadn't been home schooled.

Was he actually home schooled? I know he learned Sex Education and Anatomy at home, but I'm not sure about Math and History.

Rainmaker
08-21-2015, 04:52 PM
He sounds like a real dumb ass.

Perhaps he would be better off if he hadn't been home schooled, sheltered from outside beliefs, and fed a constant stream of bullshit about ghosts imprenating virgins.

Frankly, I don't expect much from people who believe the Noah's Ark story is real, and that Jesus did miracles.

Jeffrey Dahmer was an atheist that went to public school. He blamed his killing spree on his belief in evolution. He was also gay.

Maybe if he had been home schooled by parents who taught him right from wrong, he wouldn't have grown up to be a Godless- Atheist Homo cannibal, Serial Killer?

LogDog
08-21-2015, 05:02 PM
Not 2 months....two subscriptions that were billed monthly


In the full article, it says he hade premium $250 'Affair Guarantee' membership....
The question is Why did he need two accounts?

Bos Mutus
08-21-2015, 05:10 PM
The question is Why did he need two accounts?

I can't answer that one.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-21-2015, 05:27 PM
The question is Why did he need two accounts?

I'm guessing he was using two different personas to appeal to different types of ladies.

He probably had a confident playboy persona and a sensitive guy persona.

You can cover more territory that way.

garhkal
08-21-2015, 06:04 PM
I'm guessing he was using two different personas to appeal to different types of ladies.

He probably had a confident playboy persona and a sensitive guy persona.

You can cover more territory that way.

I often think the same when i hear people having multiple accounts on dating sites..

Bos Mutus
08-24-2015, 04:02 PM
Looks like ol' Josh got around online more...


With Ashley Madison accounts that appear to belong (http://www.inquisitr.com/2350393/did-josh-duggar-cheat-on-his-wife-ashley-madison-account-reveals-duggars-sexual-fantasies/) to Josh Duggar revealed, it was only a matter of time before the same usernames were found on other sites too. In one case, an email linked to the Ashley Madison account reportedly belonging to Duggar has been located as a screen name on another dating site — OkCupid. Here, the account owner (possibly Duggar) answers numerous questions about how he feels about a wide variety of issues, sexual and otherwise.

It’s not certain that the account is his — Gawker discovered the account, which shares a username with an email address associated with an Ashley Madison account that was paid for with a credit card in Josh Duggar’s name and with an address matching his. That’s quite a chain of connections, but a handful of details in the profile make it seem likely — and if it’s him, how he answered some of the questions on the site is quite telling.
The Gawker article linked above gives a few reasons the profile (http://www.okcupid.com/profile/joesmithsonnwa?cf=profile) matches Josh: the way he describes himself, as a Christian employed in politics, who avoids alcohol and drugs. On the other hand, the photo is definitely not Josh (though
it’s an easily googled image anyone could nab to stay anonymous — it appears to come from (https://daddycatchersrealm.wordpress.com/2010/12/10/daddycatchers-catch-of-the-day-random-guy-from-facebook-4/) Daddycatcher’s Catch of the Day) and he describes himself as a single college graduate — none of which matches the eldest Duggar son.Looking at the question and answer session used to match date seekers with potential mates, patterns are similar.

Bos Mutus
08-24-2015, 04:04 PM
then there's this...



Two suicides linked to Ashley Madison leak - including Texas police chief - as $500k bounty is offered for identity of hackers

Two people have taken their own lives after their details were leaked by the Ashley Madison hackers, it was disclosed today.
The internet site has today offered a $500,000 bounty to anyone who names the hackers and helps the police secure a conviction against them.
Captain Michael Gorhum, who served for 25 years with the San Antonio Police Department in Texas, took his own life last week.
Canadian police confirmed a second suicide of a person believed to have been using the extramarital affairs website at a press conference on Monday.
Police are investigating if the deaths are as a direct result of the leak.
The tragic death of Capt Gorhum in San Antonio, Texas, came just days after his official email address was linked to an Ashley Madison account.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3208907/The-Ashley-Madison-suicide-Texas-police-chief-takes-life-just-days-email-leaked-cheating-website-hack.html

Absinthe Anecdote
08-24-2015, 06:10 PM
then there's this...

There are a handful of scenarios where I would probably opt for suicide, but that isn't one of them.

Ashely Madison's motto of, "Life is short. Have an affair" makes me chuckle in the context of this.

I'd rewrite it to read, "Life is short. Don't waste it with the wrong person, get a divorce."

I view adultery as morally wrong because of the following:

It is cowardly not to be honest with yourself and your spouse. If you aren't happy, speak up, don't sneak around looking for an affair as a way to cope with a bad marriage.

It is a betrayal of a person you once loved enough to promise to be monogamous to; if you can no longer fulfill that promise, speak up. Don't be a coward.

Now, if we look at our friend Josh Duggar, who is operating under an inferior set of Christian morals, is it any surprise he went astray?

Not to me.

He knows the bible says adultery is wrong, but chances are he doesn't even take that book seriously to begin with.

He has also lives under the pressure of his fellow Christians, who would discourage him from getting out of the marriage in an honorable way.

He'd never get advice from anyone in his church to go to his wife and say, "I made a mistake getting married, I know I've let you down, but I can no longer honor my commitment to you. I want a divorce."

Nope, they'd never tell him to do that because what the bible preaches about about marriage being sacred.

So what does he do? He sneaks around like a cowardly jackass because of some crap written into an ancient book that his whole family and social circle buys into.

Deep down, though he'd never admit it, he knows there is no "magic sky man" man watching him.

Christian morals will fail humanity in the long run because their source is based on a mythical being. They are the largely incoherent ramblings of Bronze Age men.

Your average modern person can devise a moral code far superior than what is in the bible.

While Josh acted like an asshole, I do feel a little sorry for him. He had a bunch of religious nonsense foisted upon him since birth that led him to be a coward.

garhkal
08-25-2015, 04:04 AM
One thing i notice with all these sorts of scandals. All we ever here is how many and in what spots got affected. Not the names of those who misused their government accounts, credit cards etc..

TJMAC77SP
08-25-2015, 01:24 PM
There are a handful of scenarios where I would probably opt for suicide, but that isn't one of them.

Ashely Madison's motto of, "Life is short. Have an affair" makes me chuckle in the context of this.

I'd rewrite it to read, "Life is short. Don't waste it with the wrong person, get a divorce."

I view adultery as morally wrong because of the following:

It is cowardly not to be honest with yourself and your spouse. If you aren't happy, speak up, don't sneak around looking for an affair as a way to cope with a bad marriage.

It is a betrayal of a person you once loved enough to promise to be monogamous to; if you can no longer fulfill that promise, speak up. Don't be a coward.

Now, if we look at our friend Josh Duggar, who is operating under an inferior set of Christian morals, is it any surprise he went astray?

Not to me.

He knows the bible says adultery is wrong, but chances are he doesn't even take that book seriously to begin with.

He has also lives under the pressure of his fellow Christians, who would discourage him from getting out of the marriage in an honorable way.

He'd never get advice from anyone in his church to go to his wife and say, "I made a mistake getting married, I know I've let you down, but I can no longer honor my commitment to you. I want a divorce."

Nope, they'd never tell him to do that because what the bible preaches about about marriage being sacred.

So what does he do? He sneaks around like a cowardly jackass because of some crap written into an ancient book that his whole family and social circle buys into.

Deep down, though he'd never admit it, he knows there is no "magic sky man" man watching him.

Christian morals will fail humanity in the long run because their source is based on a mythical being. They are the largely incoherent ramblings of Bronze Age men.

Your average modern person can devise a moral code far superior than what is in the bible.

While Josh acted like an asshole, I do feel a little sorry for him. He had a bunch of religious nonsense foisted upon him since birth that led him to be a coward.

When I heard among the dozens of stories about the Ashley Madison hack that Josh Duggar had been caught up in it I had a Carnac the Magnificent moment with regard to the MTF.......and........the envelope was just opened.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-25-2015, 01:32 PM
When I heard among the dozens of stories about the Ashley Madison hack that Josh Duggar had been caught up in it I had a Carnac the Magnificent moment with regard to the MTF.......and........the envelope was just opened.

Well, it is a perfect illustration of how Christian based morals are inferior.

I'm not going to pass that up.

UncaRastus
08-25-2015, 03:19 PM
TJ,

I do think that the MTF posters are what they appear to be, in here.

Myself, I have kept my looks, I am not going kind of bald. I get hit on every day by college coeds, I drive a Lamborghini. I live in a mansion, and I am a moving force in state politics.

The TV commercials that does the Most Interesting Man in the World were created to showcase me, but I refused to appear, so they got someone else to stand in for me.

That's because I am not into self aggrandizing.

My wife was standing behind me, and is laughing so hard that she has collapsed on the floor. I wonder what that is all about? She must have just remembered a joke or something.

Harrumph. At least the first statement is true. I think. I do have some doubts about RMs compound. However, I could be wrong about that. Maybe some pictures with RM holding up a sign proclaiming that he is RM could solve that. No photoshopping allowed.

TJMAC77SP
08-25-2015, 04:30 PM
Well, it is a perfect illustration of how Christian based morals are inferior.

I'm not going to pass that up.

That would be true if only Christians behaved in immoral ways but.............maybe it's human themselves who are flawed (or inferior) and not the morals they attempt or claim they follow.

TJMAC77SP
08-25-2015, 04:33 PM
TJ,

I do think that the MTF posters are what they appear to be, in here.

Myself, I have kept my looks, I am not going kind of bald. I get hit on every day by college coeds, I drive a Lamborghini. I live in a mansion, and I am a moving force in state politics.

The TV commercials that does the Most Interesting Man in the World were created to showcase me, but I refused to appear, so they got someone else to stand in for me.

That's because I am not into self aggrandizing.

My wife was standing behind me, and is laughing so hard that she has collapsed on the floor. I wonder what that is all about? She must have just remembered a joke or something.

Harrumph. At least the first statement is true. I think. I do have some doubts about RMs compound. However, I could be wrong about that. Maybe some pictures with RM holding up a sign proclaiming that he is RM could solve that. No photoshopping allowed.

I think some MTF posters are exactly who they appear to be (for the most part, unfortunately). I believe and in a couple of cases know that some are very deliberate in what and how they post and that there are various motivations in doing so. In any case I always admire intelligence and originality, whatever is actually written. I despise falsehoods and derivative thoughts.

MikeKerriii
08-25-2015, 05:50 PM
One thing i notice with all these sorts of scandals. All we ever here is how many and in what spots got affected. Not the names of those who misused their government accounts, credit cards etc..

If you make a mistake citing a public figure,you won't lose a ton of money, unless the they can prove malice. If you do so about someone who is not a public figure you will be making them rich and they don't have to prove anything but the error itself. So the media takes the safer course.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-25-2015, 05:56 PM
That would be true if only Christians behaved in immoral ways but.............maybe it's human themselves who are flawed (or inferior) and not the morals they attempt or claim they follow.

Not so fast, you are straying from the context that I made the initial point.

It is my contention that young Josh was prevented by his Christian morals to bow out of an unhappy marriage in an honorable way.

Had he not been brainwashed to believe that there is a supernatural deity who holds marriage vows sacred, he would have been in a much better position, to be honest with his wife, and get a divorce.

Christian morals are inferior, in part, because they are based on ancient mythology. A mythology that is often unreasonable an at odds with human behavior in a modern context.

I made no claim about it only being Christians who have moral failures. My claim is that his Christian morals led him to commit even greater immoral actions because they forced him into taking divorce off the table.

Go back and actually read post #22.

TJMAC77SP
08-25-2015, 07:48 PM
Not so fast, you are straying from the context that I made the initial point.

It is my contention that young Josh was prevented by his Christian morals to bow out of an unhappy marriage in an honorable way.

Had he not been brainwashed to believe that there is a supernatural deity who holds marriage vows sacred, he would have been in a much better position, to be honest with his wife, and get a divorce.

Christian morals are inferior, in part, because they are based on ancient mythology. A mythology that is often unreasonable an at odds with human behavior in a modern context.

I made no claim about it only being Christians who have moral failures. My claim is that his Christian morals led him to commit even greater immoral actions because they forced him into taking divorce off the table.

Go back and actually read post #22.

I did read that post and this latest. You seem to painting (again) with a very large brush.

You did not state that only Christians morally fail but you did state that Christians fail because their morals are inferior. A logic fail.

The 'inferior' morals you speak of in the broadest sense are the same as humanists follow (and I believe you have made similar statements to that effect on the MTF). In fact I believe that claims have been made that most of the Christian belief system has been 'borrowed' (I think 'stolen' was actually the word used) from other faiths. Wasn't it you who made that claim?

Your posts seem a condemnation of 'Christian morals' in general but are you linking his failure to the specific ban on divorce? I didn't get your posts as being that narrowly focused. Surely you aren't suggesting that if Duggar could have gotten a divorce he wouldn't have been on these websites? That would seem a completely unsupported premise. Particularly given the very wide variety of people who have been caught up in the scandal. Surely they all aren't victim to the 'inferior Christian morals'. I am not even sure they are all Christians.

You repeatedly made broad statements about "an inferior set of Christian morals" but now state that it is only one moral imperative (no divorce) that is the root failure here. Am I misreading your intent?

I will stick with my own assessment................."it's human themselves who are flawed (or inferior) and not the morals they attempt or claim they follow."

Bos Mutus
08-25-2015, 08:21 PM
There are a handful of scenarios where I would probably opt for suicide, but that isn't one of them.

Ashely Madison's motto of, "Life is short. Have an affair" makes me chuckle in the context of this.

I'd rewrite it to read, "Life is short. Don't waste it with the wrong person, get a divorce."

I view adultery as morally wrong because of the following:

It is cowardly not to be honest with yourself and your spouse. If you aren't happy, speak up, don't sneak around looking for an affair as a way to cope with a bad marriage.

It is a betrayal of a person you once loved enough to promise to be monogamous to; if you can no longer fulfill that promise, speak up. Don't be a coward.

Now, if we look at our friend Josh Duggar, who is operating under an inferior set of Christian morals, is it any surprise he went astray?

Not to me.

He knows the bible says adultery is wrong, but chances are he doesn't even take that book seriously to begin with.

He has also lives under the pressure of his fellow Christians, who would discourage him from getting out of the marriage in an honorable way.

He'd never get advice from anyone in his church to go to his wife and say, "I made a mistake getting married, I know I've let you down, but I can no longer honor my commitment to you. I want a divorce."

Nope, they'd never tell him to do that because what the bible preaches about about marriage being sacred.

So what does he do? He sneaks around like a cowardly jackass because of some crap written into an ancient book that his whole family and social circle buys into.

Deep down, though he'd never admit it, he knows there is no "magic sky man" man watching him.

Christian morals will fail humanity in the long run because their source is based on a mythical being. They are the largely incoherent ramblings of Bronze Age men.

Your average modern person can devise a moral code far superior than what is in the bible.

While Josh acted like an asshole, I do feel a little sorry for him. He had a bunch of religious nonsense foisted upon him since birth that led him to be a coward.


I did read that post and this latest. You seem to painting (again) with a very large brush.

You did not state that only Christians morally fail but you did state that Christians fail because their morals are inferior. A logic fail.

The 'inferior' morals you speak of in the broadest sense are the same as humanists follow (and I believe you have made similar statements to that effect on the MTF). In fact I believe that claims have been made that most of the Christian belief system has been 'borrowed' (I think 'stolen' was actually the word used) from other faiths. Wasn't it you who made that claim?

Your posts seem a condemnation of 'Christian morals' in general but are you linking his failure to the specific ban on divorce? I didn't get your posts as being that narrowly focused. Surely you aren't suggesting that if Duggar could have gotten a divorce he wouldn't have been on these websites? That would seem a completely unsupported premise. Particularly given the very wide variety of people who have been caught up in the scandal. Surely they all aren't victim to the 'inferior Christian morals'. I am not even sure they are all Christians.

You repeatedly made broad statements about "an inferior set of Christian morals" but now state that it is only one moral imperative (no divorce) that is the root failure here. Am I misreading your intent?

I will stick with my own assessment................."it's human themselves who are flawed (or inferior) and not the morals they attempt or claim they follow."

There is something to the whole evangelical Christian sub-culture going on.

I think AA sort of alluded to it...with the "pressure from other Christians" and "social circle"

There are norms to be following in the "evangelical Christian sub-culture" in the U.S....many of which have little or nothing to do with actual Christian Biblical commands.

It's possible, Josh was more guided by the cultural norms, than any real desire to please God, even true belief in God...and maybe we can understand why...his social circle, his family...even his professional livelihood were all thoroughly immersed in this sub-culture...so his professional success, social standing, family acceptance...all depended on him being "a Good Christian boy"...and again, what the means in the context of the sub-culture often has little to nothing to do with Bible.

It is a well-accepted social norm in evangelical circles that "good Christians" do not partake in alcohol. This is not Biblical...wine is drunk all throughout the Bible...Jesus' first miracle was making wine...and don't give me that "it was non-alcoholic grape juice" nonsense...that's evangelical Christian sub-culture BS. That's not to say there aren't Christians who drink, but within the hard-core evangelical circles, it's pretty well frowned upon....as is divorce.

Now, fairly pure conjecture on my part...but, let's assume Josh is kind of a perv...fondled his sisters at a young age, etc. So, through this culturual expectations, you know, he's not really allowed to date a couple of kinky sluts before marriage...isn't part of the Duggar thing that they're not even allowed to kiss before marriage? Okay, so Josh is gonna marry quick, because he's a horny dude...gets married to a nice Christian girl, who's not into some of the kinks that Josh has floating around his demented brain. He's sexually unhappy in the marriage. Social pressures, moreso than divine conviction, prevent him from saying "screw this, I'm outta here"...so he becomes a creeper...because, as AA said, his fear of being exposed to his social circle and family is a lot greater than his fear of God.

TJMAC77SP
08-25-2015, 10:21 PM
There is something to the whole evangelical Christian sub-culture going on.

I think AA sort of alluded to it...with the "pressure from other Christians" and "social circle"

There are norms to be following in the "evangelical Christian sub-culture" in the U.S....many of which have little or nothing to do with actual Christian Biblical commands.

It's possible, Josh was more guided by the cultural norms, than any real desire to please God, even true belief in God...and maybe we can understand why...his social circle, his family...even his professional livelihood were all thoroughly immersed in this sub-culture...so his professional success, social standing, family acceptance...all depended on him being "a Good Christian boy"...and again, what the means in the context of the sub-culture often has little to nothing to do with Bible.

It is a well-accepted social norm in evangelical circles that "good Christians" do not partake in alcohol. This is not Biblical...wine is drunk all throughout the Bible...Jesus' first miracle was making wine...and don't give me that "it was non-alcoholic grape juice" nonsense...that's evangelical Christian sub-culture BS. That's not to say there aren't Christians who drink, but within the hard-core evangelical circles, it's pretty well frowned upon....as is divorce.

Now, fairly pure conjecture on my part...but, let's assume Josh is kind of a perv...fondled his sisters at a young age, etc. So, through this culturual expectations, you know, he's not really allowed to date a couple of kinky sluts before marriage...isn't part of the Duggar thing that they're not even allowed to kiss before marriage? Okay, so Josh is gonna marry quick, because he's a horny dude...gets married to a nice Christian girl, who's not into some of the kinks that Josh has floating around his demented brain. He's sexually unhappy in the marriage. Social pressures, moreso than divine conviction, prevent him from saying "screw this, I'm outta here"...so he becomes a creeper...because, as AA said, his fear of being exposed to his social circle and family is a lot greater than his fear of God.

Sounds reasonable. I suppose you could say that the "evangelical Christian sub-culture" beliefs are pretty hard to adhere to. Not sure that rates an 'inferior' moniker but it certainly is not germane to Christian beliefs in general. I was never raised to thinking drinking alcohol was prohibited nor was kissing, nor was dancing, etc...............

Another thought comes to mind. What explains why everyone who wasn't raised in the manner Josh Duggar was joined the site and kept it secret?

Again, I will stick with........."it's human themselves who are flawed (or inferior) and not the morals they attempt or claim they follow."

Bos Mutus
08-25-2015, 10:47 PM
Sounds reasonable. I suppose you could say that the "evangelical Christian sub-culture" beliefs are pretty hard to adhere to.

Yeah, I think so, for most of us.


Not sure that rates an 'inferior' moniker but it certainly is not germane to Christian beliefs in general. I was never raised to thinking drinking alcohol was prohibited nor was kissing, nor was dancing, etc...............

Another thought comes to mind. What explains why everyone who wasn't raised in the manner Josh Duggar was joined the site and kept it secret?

Again, I will stick with........."it's human themselves who are flawed (or inferior) and not the morals they attempt or claim they follow."

I wasn't disagreeing with you...just sort of side topic...the idea of the evangelical Christian sub-culture kind of interested me for a long time...and I think AA touched on that.

Anyway...I think infidelity is frowned on by pretty much all of us, at least in the light of day. I can understand AA's point that leveling with your spouse and getting a divorce is more "moral" than cheating on a spouse....but, I think it's easier said then done.

Christian stigma or not...divorce is a hella lotta pain...breaking up families...the drama of in-laws and outlaws, children, financial aspects, etc. It's never an easy thing...and for some it's a lot easier to just cheat and risk it than upset the whole balance of things.

I don't think it's unique to evangelical Christians to sneak around and fear the social repercussions of divorce...though, in the secular world they are, I think, decidedly less than in the Christian world...your normal friends aren't gonna make much a fuss over a divorce nowadays.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-25-2015, 11:39 PM
Sounds reasonable. I suppose you could say that the "evangelical Christian sub-culture" beliefs are pretty hard to adhere to. Not sure that rates an 'inferior' moniker but it certainly is not germane to Christian beliefs in general. I was never raised to thinking drinking alcohol was prohibited nor was kissing, nor was dancing, etc...............

Another thought comes to mind. What explains why everyone who wasn't raised in the manner Josh Duggar was joined the site and kept it secret?

Again, I will stick with........."it's human themselves who are flawed (or inferior) and not the morals they attempt or claim they follow."

Sure it means that Christian morals are inferior. Because they are ultimately linked to a deity that:

1) Doesn't communicate clearly in its doctrine

2) Is interpreted in too many different ways

This is further complicated by each sect of Christianity believing their version is correct and can't be disputed.

Your contention that the people are flawed and not the morals is absurd.

Of course the people are flawed, and always will be flawed, but Christian morals (or any faith based moral system) make it worse since adherents can claim, "God says says this ...."

Luckily, most places in the world marginalize the word of God and replace it with human law.

Yes, human law can be interpreted in different ways. However, human law has the advantage that it can be debated.

Faith based laws can't be, because they supposedly come from an all powerful, yet silent (read imaginary) god.

Conclusion?

Christian morals are vastly inferior.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-25-2015, 11:52 PM
Yeah, I think so, for most of us.



I wasn't disagreeing with you...just sort of side topic...the idea of the evangelical Christian sub-culture kind of interested me for a long time...and I think AA touched on that.

Anyway...I think infidelity is frowned on by pretty much all of us, at least in the light of day. I can understand AA's point that leveling with your spouse and getting a divorce is more "moral" than cheating on a spouse....but, I think it's easier said then done.

Yes, and thank you.

If you can't fulfill a promise that you made, the moral choice is to be honest and upfront about it.

You've still had a failure by breaking your promise, but at least you aren't heaping additional failures on top of it.


Christian stigma or not...divorce is a hella lotta pain...breaking up families...the drama of in-laws and outlaws, children, financial aspects, etc. It's never an easy thing...and for some it's a lot easier to just cheat and risk it than upset the whole balance of things.

I don't think it's unique to evangelical Christians to sneak around and fear the social repercussions of divorce...though, in the secular world they are, I think, decidedly less than in the Christian world...your normal friends aren't gonna make much a fuss over a divorce nowadays.

What are the chances that we would have made the union of marriage more amenable to divorce if this invisible (imaginary) God hadn't proclaimed it was a union until death?

TJMAC77SP
08-26-2015, 02:24 AM
Sure it means that Christian morals are inferior. Because they are ultimately linked to a deity that:

1) Doesn't communicate clearly in its doctrine

2) Is interpreted in too many different ways

This is further complicated by each sect of Christianity believing their version is correct and can't be disputed.

Your contention that the people are flawed and not the morals is absurd.

Of course the people are flawed, and always will be flawed, but Christian morals (or any faith based moral system) make it worse since adherents can claim, "God says says this ...."

Luckily, most places in the world marginalize the word of God and replace it with human law.

Yes, human law can be interpreted in different ways. However, human law has the advantage that it can be debated.

Faith based laws can't be, because they supposedly come from an all powerful, yet silent (read imaginary) god.

Conclusion?

Christian morals are vastly inferior.

You have hinged your whole argument on the divorce issue which is not held universally by "Christian morals" therefore you conclusion is flawed. Most 'Christian' morals are held by a vast majority of faiths and non-faith based groups and people. Therefore again your conclusion that 'Christian morals' in and of themselves are inferior is flawed.

I see you liked BM's post but in doing so you ignored his main point...................what you are targeting is a subset, and a minor subset at that so................... your conclusion that 'Christian morals' in and of themselves are inferior is flawed.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-26-2015, 02:58 AM
You have hinged your whole argument on the divorce issue which is not held universally by "Christian morals" therefore you conclusion is flawed. Most 'Christian' morals are held by a vast majority of faiths and non-faith based groups and people. Therefore again your conclusion that 'Christian morals' in and of themselves are inferior is flawed.

I see you liked BM's post but in doing so you ignored his main point...................what you are targeting is a subset, and a minor subset at that so................... your conclusion that 'Christian morals' in and of themselves are inferior is flawed.

No, I merely used marriage, more specifically the Josh Duggar case, as one illustration of how Christian morals are inferior.

I framed my point very narrowly. You are the one who took it broader. go back and read post#22.

If you want a broader point it is this.

The linkage to a silent deity is what makes Christian morals inferior. That deity is a form of moral absolutism in the mind of each individual.

Since that deity will never speak for its self, it can say what ever the individual wants it to.

That my friend, is a damned big problem. Especially when those morals are used to govern the interaction of groups of people.

Human based morals are far superior because they can effectively be challenged and defended.

In reality, all morals come from humans anyway.

Again, it is attributing the morals to a silent and sacred source that makes them flawed and too easily twisted.

If God spoke up and clarified things, well, I suppose it would be fine, but that doesn't happen.

Moral absolutism is inherently dangerous and rife with flaws.

TJMAC77SP
08-26-2015, 02:32 PM
No, I merely used marriage, more specifically the Josh Duggar case, as one illustration of how Christian morals are inferior.

I framed my point very narrowly. You are the one who took it broader. go back and read post#22.

If you want a broader point it is this.

The linkage to a silent deity is what makes Christian morals inferior. That deity is a form of moral absolutism in the mind of each individual.

Since that deity will never speak for its self, it can say what ever the individual wants it to.

That my friend, is a damned big problem. Especially when those morals are used to govern the interaction of groups of people.

Human based morals are far superior because they can effectively be challenged and defended.

In reality, all morals come from humans anyway.

Again, it is attributing the morals to a silent and sacred source that makes them flawed and too easily twisted.

If God spoke up and clarified things, well, I suppose it would be fine, but that doesn't happen.

Moral absolutism is inherently dangerous and rife with flaws.

I am a little confused. How are human morals challenged and defended as opposed to Christian morals? By moral absolution, do you mean forgiveness (either of yourself or by others)? If so, are you saying that you consider forgiveness 'dangerous and rife with flaws'?

Bos Mutus
08-26-2015, 06:20 PM
"We are so thankful for the outpouring of love, care and prayers for our family during this most difficult situation with Josh. As parents we are so deeply grieved by our son’s decisions and actions. His wrong choices have deeply hurt his precious wife and children and have negatively affected so many others. He has also brought great insult to the values and faith we hold dear. Yesterday Josh checked himself into a long-term treatment center. For him it will be a long journey toward wholeness and recovery. We pray that in this he comes to complete repentance and sincere change. In the meantime, we will be offering our love, care and devoted support to Anna and our grandchildren as she also receives counsel and help for her own heart and future." ~ The Duggar Family

I wonder what "long term" means? I also wonder if someone can really change something like this...perhaps he can learn to better control his impulses...I'm not a big believer in mental health actually making a person better, though...mostly, it seems to perpetuate treatment.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-26-2015, 08:08 PM
I am a little confused. How are human morals challenged and defended as opposed to Christian morals? By moral absolution, do you mean forgiveness (either of yourself or by others)? If so, are you saying that you consider forgiveness 'dangerous and rife with flaws'?

Yes, you certainly are confused. Read my post again; I used the word absolutism, not absolution.

Two entirely different meanings:

absolutism
See definition in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
Syllabification: ab·so·lut·ism
Pronunciation: /ˈabsəl(y)o͞oˌtizəm/
Definition of absolutism in English:
noun

The acceptance of or belief in absolute principles in political, philosophical, ethical, or theological matters.


absolution
See definition in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
Syllabification: ab·so·lu·tion
Pronunciation: /ˌabsəˈl(y)o͞oSH(ə)n/
Definition of absolution in English:
noun

Formal release from guilt, obligation, or punishment.
================================================== =======

I'm willing to explain it again, once you have the vocabulary figured out, if you are still confused.

PS

Follow the advice in your own signature block! :)

TJMAC77SP
08-26-2015, 10:29 PM
Yes, you certainly are confused. Read my post again; I used the word absolutism, not absolution.

Two entirely different meanings:

absolutism
See definition in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
Syllabification: ab·so·lut·ism
Pronunciation: /ˈabsəl(y)o͞oˌtizəm/
Definition of absolutism in English:
noun

The acceptance of or belief in absolute principles in political, philosophical, ethical, or theological matters.


absolution
See definition in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
Syllabification: ab·so·lu·tion
Pronunciation: /ˌabsəˈl(y)o͞oSH(ə)n/
Definition of absolution in English:
noun

Formal release from guilt, obligation, or punishment.
================================================== =======

I'm willing to explain it again, once you have the vocabulary figured out, if you are still confused.

PS

Follow the advice in your own signature block! :)

You are right, I failed to read carefully and now you have wasted a whole post avoiding a question. Was that an oversight as a result of not reading carefully or intentional?

I will repeat the question for you............. "How are human morals challenged and defended as opposed to Christian morals?" That was really what had me confused.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-27-2015, 12:21 AM
You are right, I failed to read carefully and now you have wasted a whole post avoiding a question. Was that an oversight as a result of not reading carefully or intentional?

I will repeat the question for you............. "How are human morals challenged and defended as opposed to Christian morals?" That was really what had me confused.

You can debate and challenge a human. You can even convince a human to compromise.

You can't do that with someone's God. And since gods are always silent, there is no reasoning with them.

Even when one of God's prophets comes down from the mountain or out of a desert cave and starts telling others that they should stone people to death for adultery, or for working on the sabbath, or never to get a divorce.

It can take hundreds of years before society figures out that the profit was full of shit.

Look how long it took for humans to ditch slavery, a supposedly "God" sanctioned atrocity.

Why?

Because adherents of religions are operating under moral absolutism. What their religion says is the final word.

Christianity has mellowed considerably, but adherents to it are still non-yielding to reason in many cases.

PS

You wasted a post, not me. I'm very disappointed in you too. I know you are embarrassed for not knowing what absolutism means, but the least you could do is thank me for teaching you what it means.

Bos Mutus
08-27-2015, 01:59 PM
You can debate and challenge a human. You can even convince a human to compromise.

You can't do that with someone's God. And since gods are always silent, there is no reasoning with them.

Even when one of God's profits comes down from the mountain or out of a desert cave and starts telling others that they should stone people to death for adultery, or for working on the sabbath, or never to get a divorce.

It can take hundreds of years before society figures out that the profit was full of shit.

Look how long it took for humans to ditch slavery, a supposedly "God" sanctioned atrocity.

Why?

Because adherents of religions are operating under moral absolutism. What their religion says is the final word.

Christianity has mellowed considerably, but adherents to it are still non-yielding to reason in many cases.

PS

You wasted a post, not me. I'm very disappointed in you too. I know you are embarrassed for not knowing what absolutism means, but the least you could do is thank me for teaching you what it means.

prophet...just saying.

But, interesting...and what you say has merit.

Thinking people with good intentions might cuss and discuss and arrive at a "higher level" of morality. But, if one side of the discussion is convinced that God has set a moral code and there can be none higher...then there is no discussion and no reaching of a higher, more sophisticated, understanding.

The interesting part...even for you and I...is that if we talk of a "greater morality" and "inferior morality"...they must be greater or inferior with respect to some ultimate standard. What makes a morality inferior? Is it that it is further away from some moral ideal...what is that ideal?

TJMAC77SP
08-27-2015, 02:37 PM
You can debate and challenge a human. You can even convince a human to compromise.

You can't do that with someone's God. And since gods are always silent, there is no reasoning with them.

Even when one of God's profits comes down from the mountain or out of a desert cave and starts telling others that they should stone people to death for adultery, or for working on the sabbath, or never to get a divorce.

It can take hundreds of years before society figures out that the profit was full of shit.

Look how long it took for humans to ditch slavery, a supposedly "God" sanctioned atrocity.

Why?

Because adherents of religions are operating under moral absolutism. What their religion says is the final word.

Christianity has mellowed considerably, but adherents to it are still non-yielding to reason in many cases.

PS

You wasted a post, not me. I'm very disappointed in you too. I know you are embarrassed for not knowing what absolutism means, but the least you could do is thank me for teaching you what it means.

BM has already pointed out your lack of knowledge regarding a religious seer or divine intermediary and the money earned in excess of costs from a business enterprise I will skip that lesson.

Since Christian morals are debated all the time within the myriad of sects of the various Christian churches I still see a logic fail in your claims.

BM has summed up my disagreement with your characterization perfectly. Perhaps if I were as articulate...........who knows?

What is the standard by which you make a judgment as to what moral is inferior or superior? In the end is it an opinion. I can understand that.

SomeRandomGuy
08-27-2015, 03:13 PM
prophet...just saying.

But, interesting...and what you say has merit.

Thinking people with good intentions might cuss and discuss and arrive at a "higher level" of morality. But, if one side of the discussion is convinced that God has set a moral code and there can be none higher...then there is no discussion and no reaching of a higher, more sophisticated, understanding.

The interesting part...even for you and I...is that if we talk of a "greater morality" and "inferior morality"...they must be greater or inferior with respect to some ultimate standard. What makes a morality inferior? Is it that it is further away from some moral ideal...what is that ideal?

If I understand AA correctly he would support collectivism instead of absolutism. As mankind evolves, we collectively decide on the things that will benefit the greater good. For example, at one point society believed that gay marriage was wrong. A majority of the people against gay marriage were opposed on religious grounds. What the Bible says about gay marriage hasn't changed. So what did? The "morally superior" position here is that we shouldn't discriminate against those who choose to be different. It can definitely be argued whether that is actually a morally superior position though. Why is a gay marriage morally superior to a polygamist marriage or even a bestiality marriage? Society has decided that for the collective good of everyone we will allow gay marriage.

The same themes run throughout the abortion debate. Who are we to tell a woman whether or not she can have an abortion? Society doesn't value the life of the unborn, so we leave that decision to the mother. What happens when that logic gets extended though? Elderly people are quite a drain on society. If my father has Alzheimers he surely isn't valuable to society. Why can't I choose to terminate his life? We even see some of this thinking in Obamacare with what was referred to as "death panels." At what point do we stop paying medical costs for an elderly person who is terminally ill? Religious people consider this "playing God" but if there is not a God there is nothing wrong with letting "nature take it's course." It isn't a morally superior position to one that a Christian would hold but it probably is better for the "collective society."

Bos Mutus
08-27-2015, 03:23 PM
If I understand AA correctly he would support collectivism instead of absolutism. As mankind evolves, we collectively decide on the things that will benefit the greater good. For example, at one point society believed that gay marriage was wrong. A majority of the people against gay marriage were opposed on religious grounds. What the Bible says about gay marriage hasn't changed. So what did? The "morally superior" position here is that we shouldn't discriminate against those who choose to be different. It can definitely be argued whether that is actually a morally superior position though. Why is a gay marriage morally superior to a polygamist marriage or even a bestiality marriage? Society has decided that for the collective good of everyone we will allow gay marriage.

The same themes run throughout the abortion debate. Who are we to tell a woman whether or not she can have an abortion? Society doesn't value the life of the unborn, so we leave that decision to the mother. What happens when that logic gets extended though? Elderly people are quite a drain on society. If my father has Alzheimers he surely isn't valuable to society. Why can't I choose to terminate his life? We even see some of this thinking in Obamacare with what was referred to as "death panels." At what point do we stop paying medical costs for an elderly person who is terminally ill? Religious people consider this "playing God" but if there is not a God there is nothing wrong with letting "nature take it's course." It isn't a morally superior position to one that a Christian would hold but it probably is better for the "collective society."

Reminds me of the lifeboat game....

Song about it:




Lifeboat ~ by Steve Taylor


Teacher: Good morning, class!
Class: Good morning, Mrs. Aryan.
Teacher: Today we're going to play a game!
Class: Yay!
Teacher: This game is called Lifeboat. All together...
Class: Lifeboat!
Teacher: Good! Lifeboat is a lesson in values clarification. Can you say values clarification?
Class: No.
Teacher: Values clarification is where your little minds decide which lives are worth living and which lives are worth ... ahem ... not living. Now here's how we play. A big ship just sank. There are five people on the lifeboat. But the lifeboat is only made for two. I'll list the five people on the chalkboard, and you, class, will decide which three will be thrown overboard. Are we ready?
Class: Yes, Mrs. Aryan.
Teacher: Good! First, there's an old, old crippled grandfather. Second, there's a mentally handicapped person in a wheelchair.
Alison: What's mentally handicapped?
Teacher: It means they can never be a productive members of society. Third, there's an overweight woman on welfare, with a sniffling, whimpering baby.
Max: Is the baby on welfare, too?
Teacher: Let's not push Mrs. Aryan...
Sydney: Who else is in the boat?
Teacher: A young, white doctor with blue eyes and perfect teeth, and Joan Collins. Now, class, take five minutes to make your decision. Times up! Well class?

Class: Throw over grandpa 'cause he's getting pretty old
Throw out the baby or we'll all be catching it's cold
Throw over fatty and we'll see if she can float
Throw out the retard, and they won't be rocking the boat
Teacher: Very good! That was fun, wasn't it?

Class: Yes, Mrs. Aryan.
Teacher: For our next lesson, we're going to do an experiment!
Class: Yay!
Teacher: We're going to test the law of gravity, just like Galileo, by dropping two objects out the window, one heavy and one light, to see which one hits the sidewalk first. Now what shall we use for the lighter object? I'm thinking of something small and square...
Class: An eraser?
Teacher: Good! And what shall we use for the heavy object? I'm thinking of something round and bouncy. Tommy, I haven't given you permission to leave your seat. Class, the bell has not rung. What do you... oh! Oh! Class, put me down! Class, put me down this instant! What? What are you? Oh! Oh! Oh!

Class: Throw over teacher and we'll see if she can bounce
We've learned our lesson, teacher says perfection's what counts
She's getting old and gray and wears an ugly coat
Throw over teacher and we'll play another game of lifeboat

Throw over grandpa 'cause he's getting pretty old
Throw out the baby or we'll all be catching it's cold
Throw over fatty and we'll see if she can float
Throw out the retard, and they won't be rocking the boat

Yay!


This song is written and performed by a Christian artist as criticism of the modern moral code in deciding which lives are more valuable...

Bos Mutus
08-27-2015, 06:17 PM
The Ashley Madison hack has revealed a lot of interesting things about the men who used the extramarital-dating site, including which cities (http://www.businessinsider.com/ashley-madison-data-chart-of-cheaters-2015-8), states (http://www.businessinsider.com/ashley-madison-leak-reveals-which-states-like-to-cheat-the-most-2015-8), and universities (http://www.businessinsider.com/top-american-universities-with-the-most-cheaters-according-to-ashley-madison-2015-8) they're from. But what about the women?
It turns out, there may not have been very many women. As in, almost none.
Gizmodo editor-in-chief Annalee Newitz analyzed the data (http://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-madison-database-1725558944) from the site's user database and found a lot of suspicious stuff suggesting that nearly all the female accounts were fake, maintained by the company's employees.
First, the official numbers. The info that the hackers published contained about 31 million accounts apparently belonging to men, and about 5 million apparently belonging to women.
But when Newitz dug deeper, she found a bunch of test accounts that ended with ashleymadison.com, suggesting that they were created internally (90% of them were for women), as well as 350 female accounts for people with the same and very unusual last name.
Then she found three really damning pieces of data:


Only 1,492 of the women in the database had ever opened their inbox to check their messages on the site. That's compared with more than 20 million men.
Only 2,409 of the women had ever used the site's chat function, versus more than 11 million men.
Only 9,700 of the women had ever responded to a message from another person on the site, versus almost 6 million men. (This number was greater than the number of women who checked messages because it's possible to answer messages in bulk when you first visit the site, without ever opening your inbox.)

It's possible that most of the women signed up but never did anything.
Either way, Newitz writes, Ashley Madison is a site where tens of millions of men write mail, chat, and spend money for women who aren't there."


This is more how I pictured that site...bunch of dudes...

Absinthe Anecdote
08-28-2015, 01:20 PM
prophet...just saying.

Crap!

Thanks for catching that! I just corrected that in my post. Would you mind fixing it in the quote for me?




But, interesting...and what you say has merit.

Thinking people with good intentions might cuss and discuss and arrive at a "higher level" of morality. But, if one side of the discussion is convinced that God has set a moral code and there can be none higher...then there is no discussion and no reaching of a higher, more sophisticated, understanding.

That is at the heart of what I'm saying.

Any moral code based on a god impedes development and enlightenment. Since gods never speak, their moral codes become stagnate over time.

Any God relies on humans to write their moral codes, and since there are people who actually believe they are sacred, they loath changing them.

While change does occur with religious doctrine, it is a painfully slow process that often takes generations to reconcile.

That is the very basis of my claim that Christian morals are inferior. Humans who are unencumbered by a silent God have the ability to more quickly revise and refine their morals, as their collective knowledge increases.




The interesting part...even for you and I...is that if we talk of a "greater morality" and "inferior morality"...they must be greater or inferior with respect to some ultimate standard. What makes a morality inferior? Is it that it is further away from some moral ideal...what is that ideal?

This is a great question. Unlike TJ, you are actually raising a valid question to my claim about inferior morals.

In the context of this discussion, I claim that inferior moral codes are those that are tied to a deity that never speaks (that would be all deities known to man).

The reason God-based moral codes are inferior is because they are too often resistant to change, very often in the face of new knowledge and understanding.

In other words, my claim about inferior and superior morals is restricted to how they respond to new information and change.

However, I think that you are making a wider observation about morality in general.

I submit that there might not be an ultimate standard of morality. I further submit that since morality appears to be merely a human concept, that it is always tied to human behavior. Therefore there is little reason to suspect that there is a mathematical equation for morality, or as you put it, an ideal standard.

PS

Your question reminded me of the dialog between Socrates and Euthyphro.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-28-2015, 01:29 PM
BM has already pointed out your lack of knowledge regarding a religious seer or divine intermediary and the money earned in excess of costs from a business enterprise I will skip that lesson.

Please! I made a spelling error. You clearly did not know the difference between absolutism and absolution.


Since Christian morals are debated all the time within the myriad of sects of the various Christian churches I still see a logic fail in your claims.

BM has summed up my disagreement with your characterization perfectly. Perhaps if I were as articulate...........who knows?

What is the standard by which you make a judgment as to what moral is inferior or superior? In the end is it an opinion. I can understand that.

I just responded to Bos Mutus.

Give me a little more than tossing the phrase logic fail at me. I don't appreciate you piggy backing on Bos Mutus post as the basis of your objection.

Especially since he wasn't entirely refuting my claim, but raising a wider question about the concept of morality.

TJMAC77SP
08-28-2015, 02:16 PM
Please! I made a spelling error. You clearly did not know the difference between absolutism and absolution.


I just responded to @Bos Mutus (http://forums.militarytimes.com/member.php?u=30622).

Give me a little more than tossing the phrase logic fail at me. I don't appreciate you piggy backing on @Bos Mutus (http://forums.militarytimes.com/member.php?u=30622) post as the basis of your objection.

Especially since he wasn't entirely refuting my claim, but raising a wider question about the concept of morality.

Oh come on. You know very well that I misread the word you wrote for another one. You have been reading my posts for years and know Goddamn well that I know the difference between the two words. Stick to actually arguing merits of your posts and save the snarky deflection shit for the dolts. BTW....you didn't misspell anything. You used the wrong word entirely.

I am certainly sure you didn't like me piggybacking on BM's post but I did because what he said was more articulate than what I have been trying to get across to you. I am not entirely refuting your claim either. Except your claim that Christian values are inferior over any other values. BM pointed out that to make a claim of something being inferior you have to have a standard and with regard to morals that standard is in the end a judgment. Your judgment regarding anything Christian is hardly objective and I get that. Your passion doesn't make it true.

Your premise is that because Duggar couldn't get divorced due to his religious beliefs, a belief that is hardly held universally in the Christian world, he resorted to sites like Ashley Madison. Given that it is safe to assume that of the millions caught up in the hack a tiny percentage are of this same Christian subset and yet chose to go on Ashley Madison over getting a divorce, your assertion, based solely on the actions of Duggar that Christian values in general are 'inferior' is without a doubt a logic fail. I use the phrase because it fits.

EDIT: Am I safe in assuming that your dislike of my previous post was indeed intended and not a 'mistake' as the previous dislike of one of my posts?

Bos Mutus
08-28-2015, 02:19 PM
Crap!

Thanks for catching that! I just corrected that in my post. Would you mind fixing it in the quote for me?

That is at the heart of what I'm saying.

Any moral code based on a god impedes development and enlightenment. Since gods never speak, their moral codes become stagnate over time.

Any God relies on humans to write their moral codes, and since there are people who actually believe they are sacred, they loath changing them.

While change does occur with religious doctrine, it is a painfully slow process that often takes generations to reconcile.

That is the very basis of my claim that Christian morals are inferior. Humans who are unencumbered by a silent God have the ability to more quickly revise and refine their morals, as their collective knowledge increases.

I'm not disagreeing with you on that, really. I'm also of the mind that the moral code of ancient gods was devised by ancient men. Men who, we like to think, were significantly less sophisticated than we are today.

Not to mention, their code could not an did not consider some of the present day moral dilemma created by the advancement of technology, for example. The Bible does not speak clearly on the morality of cloning humans...


This is a great question. Unlike TJ, you are actually raising a valid question to my claim about inferior morals.

In the context of this discussion, I claim that inferior moral codes are those that are tied to a deity that never speaks (that would be all deities known to man).

The reason God-based moral codes are inferior is because they are too often resistant to change, very often in the face of new knowledge and understanding.

In other words, my claim about inferior and superior morals is restricted to how they respond to new information and change.

However, I think that you are making a wider observation about morality in general.

I submit that there might not be an ultimate standard of morality. I further submit that since morality appears to be merely a human concept, that it is always tied to human behavior. Therefore there is little reason to suspect that there is a mathematical equation for morality, or as you put it, an ideal standard.

PS

Your question reminded me of the dialog between Socrates and Euthyphro.

The lingering question of what the standard is by which we measure greater and lesser still bugs me a bit.

The Darwinist might say that morals, like instinct, developed evolutionally as the fittest way for our species to survive. Therefore, the "greatest" moral code would be that one which most enhances our species ability to survive. This could be troublesome though, because, for example, killing off our handicapped before they can reproduce, like some animals do, might best enhance our survival, but we wouldn't consider that moral today. Same with your idea of greater for the collective good. Obviously, taking care of elderly and handicapped taps the resources from the collective good, but we still think of them as moral things to do.

I've heard it proposed that humans are actually in a state of devolution now...that the weakest and most ill-fit tend to reproduce more. If you were to accept the idea that poor are genetically inferior, then this theory has some merit. Of course, this theory is popular amongst racist groups...what with the minorities having all those kids in order to milk the welfare system and what-not.

I do think our moral code though has extended beyond evolutionary usefulness...but, I can't really say for sure where it comes from and where it is headed. Then again, is there an ultimate standard for knowledge of the universe? (The Theory of Everything?) Not within our immediate grasp, but we continue to learn more and achieve a higher level of knowledge...and if there is an ultimate standard out there of knowing everything, it still doesn't necessarily imply it is therefore God with a big G, but could be kind of a god with small g, in a non-personal god kind of way.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-28-2015, 02:38 PM
Oh come on. You know very well that I misread the word you wrote for another one. You have been reading my posts for years and know Goddamn well that I know the difference between the two words. Stick to actually arguing merits of your posts and save the snarky deflection shit for the dolts. BTW....you didn't misspell anything. You used the wrong word entirely.

I am certainly sure you didn't like me piggybacking on BM's post but I did because what he said was more articulate than what I have been trying to get across to you. I am not entirely refuting your claim either. Except your claim that Christian values are inferior over any other values. BM pointed out that to make a claim of something being inferior you have to have a standard and with regard to morals that standard is in the end a judgment. Your judgment regarding anything Christian is hardly objective and I get that. Your passion doesn't make it true.

Your premise is that because Duggar couldn't get divorced due to his religious beliefs, a belief that is hardly held universally in the Christian world, he resorted to sites like Ashley Madison. Given that it is safe to assume that of the millions caught up in the hack a tiny percentage are of this same Christian subset and yet chose to go on Ashley Madison over getting a divorce, your assertion, based solely on the actions of Duggar that Christian values in general are 'inferior' is without a doubt a logic fail. I use the phrase because it fits.

EDIT: Am I safe in assuming that your dislike of my previous post was indeed intended and not a 'mistake' as the previous dislike of one of my posts?

Unfortunately it was intended.

You aren't putting enough effort into your posts.

TJMAC77SP
08-28-2015, 02:49 PM
Unfortunately it was intended.

You aren't putting enough effort into your posts.

Guess I should have included a sarcasm emoticon or something.

Bos Mutus
08-28-2015, 02:49 PM
BM pointed out that to make a claim of something being inferior you have to have a standard and with regard to morals that standard is in the end a judgment.

However...this doesn't imply that I believe the Biblical moral code is the ultimate standard.

I still tend to agree with AA in that the God of the Bible is an invention of ancient peoples...and is morally inferior to what could be achieved without it...and I agree with AA that the biblical morality could be holding us back from achieving a greater morality.

The standard that we measure that by, is till a question of mine...

I think a lot of believers would agree with this too...I mean, the idea that we should stone a raped woman is, of course, morally abhorrent to us...now, modern day Christians would say "well, the OT doesn't really apply like that anymore"....okay, but whey is it in the Holy Scriptures to begin with...and where is the "greater moral" that tells you that the OT is immoral in comparison?


Your judgment regarding anything Christian is hardly objective and I get that. Your passion doesn't make it true.

Your premise is that because Duggar couldn't get divorced due to his religious beliefs, a belief that is hardly held universally in the Christian world, he resorted to sites like Ashley Madison. Given that it is safe to assume that of the millions caught up in the hack a tiny percentage are of this same Christian subset and yet chose to go on Ashley Madison over getting a divorce, your assertion, based solely on the actions of Duggar that Christian values in general are 'inferior' is without a doubt a logic fail. I use the phrase because it fits.

On this, I would still say that even Christian morality would dictate that cheating on your spouse is more immoral than divorce. So, on that point, AA's assertion misses. Christian morals do not say that divorce is worse than cheating...

Christian sub-culture might...or the social pressures that go along with being Christian might encourage one to be more willing to take on "hidden sins" rather than public ones. I don't think that is Christian morals, really.

...I also think, when AA uses the term Christian, he's talking about the people that run around with great big smiles praising jesus...i.e. what we might think of as Evangelical Christians.

I think what you're saying is that you're a Christian, but not really part of that sub-culture...and don't have the same morals as those guys...so we're really talking about two different things. The casual Christian that a lot of people are, isn't stigma'd by divorce...and is also not CEO of the Family Values Association or whatever.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-28-2015, 03:01 PM
I'm not disagreeing with you on that, really. I'm also of the mind that the moral code of ancient gods was devised by ancient men. Men who, we like to think, were significantly less sophisticated than we are today.

Not to mention, their code could not an did not consider some of the present day moral dilemma created by the advancement of technology, for example. The Bible does not speak clearly on the morality of cloning humans...



The lingering question of what the standard is by which we measure greater and lesser still bugs me a bit.

The Darwinist might say that morals, like instinct, developed evolutionally as the fittest way for our species to survive. Therefore, the "greatest" moral code would be that one which most enhances our species ability to survive. This could be troublesome though, because, for example, killing off our handicapped before they can reproduce, like some animals do, might best enhance our survival, but we wouldn't consider that moral today. Same with your idea of greater for the collective good. Obviously, taking care of elderly and handicapped taps the resources from the collective good, but we still think of them as moral things to do.

I've heard it proposed that humans are actually in a state of devolution now...that the weakest and most ill-fit tend to reproduce more. If you were to accept the idea that poor are genetically inferior, then this theory has some merit. Of course, this theory is popular amongst racist groups...what with the minorities having all those kids in order to milk the welfare system and what-not.

I do think our moral code though has extended beyond evolutionary usefulness...but, I can't really say for sure where it comes from and where it is headed. Then again, is there an ultimate standard for knowledge of the universe? (The Theory of Everything?) Not within our immediate grasp, but we continue to learn more and achieve a higher level of knowledge...and if there is an ultimate standard out there of knowing everything, it still doesn't necessarily imply it is therefore God with a big G, but could be kind of a god with small g, in a non-personal god kind of way.

I have the least problems with utilitarian based morals, I don't buy into utilitarianism completely. The concepts put forward by Bentham and Mill are often misunderstood and linked to hedonism, and there is a case for that.

But in general, I am most at ease with Bentham and Mill.

My view is that since human existence is dynamic, our morals and values are also dynamic. Change appears constant in the universe. So it seems that our values will often change according to our situation at any given time.

Again, that is one of my sticking points with God-based morals, being they are resistant to change and new knowledge.

Humanity has reached a pivotal point in evolution. I don't think we can assume there is any path for evolutionary processes.
It certainly isn't a linear path.

There are certainly far more many dead ends in evolution, than continuing tracks. Most aren't even linear.

It is fascinating to ponder such things, and it need not be scary or depressing.

Bos Mutus
08-28-2015, 03:09 PM
I have the least problems with utilitarian based morals, I don't buy into utilitarianism completely. The concepts put forward by Bentham and Mill are often misunderstood and linked to hedonism, and there is a case for that.

But in general, I am most at ease with Bentham and Mill.

My view is that since human existence is dynamic, our morals and values are also dynamic. Change appears constant in the universe. So it seems that our values will often change according to our situation at any given time.

Humanity has reached a pivotal point in evolution. I don't think we can assume there is any path for evolutionary processes.

There are certainly far more many dead ends in evolution, than continuing tracks. Most aren't even linear.

It is fascinating to ponder such things, and it need not be scary or depressing.

I understand that what we consider moral and valuable change...and can be situational, as well...but not sure that means their actual morality and value change...but just rather our understanding and sophistication changes.

For example...6,000 years ago it may have been the moral things, as far as everyone is concerned, to stone a woman who was raped. Yes, morals and values have changed...I still think, by measure to some unknown standard, the people at that time were unsophisticated in their moral understanding. It was immoral then and it's immoral now...they just didn't know it.

Our knowledge of the universe changes, too...back then they thought earth was the center and all the stars and planets revolved around it. Knowledge of the Universe changes. But, They were wrong about the universe, and I believe they were wrong about morality.

Morality is a more elusive topic though...we can test and "prove" things about knowledge...not quite sure how we do that with morality...but I don't think we have a greater understanding of it now than did those people, not that truth of it changed...and in that understanding, sophistication and greater morality.

Kind of like that Supreme Court deal on "what is obscene"...I'm having a difficult time defining it, but I know it when I see it.

Rollyn01
08-28-2015, 03:16 PM
However...this doesn't imply that I believe the Biblical moral code is the ultimate standard.

I still tend to agree with AA in that the God of the Bible is an invention of ancient peoples...and is morally inferior to what could be achieved without it...and I agree with AA that the biblical morality could be holding us back from achieving a greater morality.

The standard that we measure that by, is till a question of mine...

I think a lot of believers would agree with this too...I mean, the idea that we should stone a raped woman is, of course, morally abhorrent to us...now, modern day Christians would say "well, the OT doesn't really apply like that anymore"....okay, but whey is it in the Holy Scriptures to begin with...and where is the "greater moral" that tells you that the OT is immoral in comparison?



On this, I would still say that even Christian morality would dictate that cheating on your spouse is more immoral than divorce. So, on that point, AA's assertion misses. Christian morals do not say that divorce is worse than cheating...

Christian sub-culture might...or the social pressures that go along with being Christian might encourage one to be more willing to take on "hidden sins" rather than public ones. I don't think that is Christian morals, really.

...I also think, when AA uses the term Christian, he's talking about the people that run around with great big smiles praising jesus...i.e. what we might think of as Evangelical Christians.

I think what you're saying is that you're a Christian, but not really part of that sub-culture...and don't have the same morals as those guys...so we're really talking about two different things. The casual Christian that a lot of people are, isn't stigma'd by divorce...and is also not CEO of the Family Values Association or whatever.

Being that this may sound traitorous (at least among fellow Atheists/Agnostics), it may be that the Old Testament was included in the Bible as a historical reference to compare the difference in changes of thought. While there was a time where I was actually trying to rationalize the Bible (impossible goal, I know), I came to such a conclusion. I would like to think that the OT was never meant to have any bearing or application among Christians. It merely demonstrates how violent and flawed people were due to being so misguided and instinctual in how they see life and how they go about trying to improve it.

Where war and subjugation was constantly used and the only answer (even in modern times this is still thought to be the only way), we see in the NT that this is only a short term solution to a long term problem. People have largely lost, and in many cases given up, the ability to control themselves. Individual self-control seems to be the overall goal but such a message is lost due to people still being heavily reliant on God and still being subservient to him. They still give control to other who have no self-control.

To be honest, I don't mind a person who uses God as a reason to be motivated to do something positive. I just fear that they let religion do the thinking for them and thus ended up with a skewered view that can be controlled and taken advantage of to the determent of everyone involved and many who are not.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-28-2015, 03:25 PM
Oh come on. You know very well that I misread the word you wrote for another one. You have been reading my posts for years and know Goddamn well that I know the difference between the two words. Stick to actually arguing merits of your posts and save the snarky deflection shit for the dolts. BTW....you didn't misspell anything. You used the wrong word entirely.

I am certainly sure you didn't like me piggybacking on BM's post but I did because what he said was more articulate than what I have been trying to get across to you. I am not entirely refuting your claim either. Except your claim that Christian values are inferior over any other values. BM pointed out that to make a claim of something being inferior you have to have a standard and with regard to morals that standard is in the end a judgment. Your judgment regarding anything Christian is hardly objective and I get that. Your passion doesn't make it true.

Your premise is that because Duggar couldn't get divorced due to his religious beliefs, a belief that is hardly held universally in the Christian world, he resorted to sites like Ashley Madison. Given that it is safe to assume that of the millions caught up in the hack a tiny percentage are of this same Christian subset and yet chose to go on Ashley Madison over getting a divorce, your assertion, based solely on the actions of Duggar that Christian values in general are 'inferior' is without a doubt a logic fail. I use the phrase because it fits.

EDIT: Am I safe in assuming that your dislike of my previous post was indeed intended and not a 'mistake' as the previous dislike of one of my posts?


No! For the third or fourth time. I used Josh Duggar's situation as an illustration of the problems with Christian morality. I never said that Duggar is proof that Christian morals are inferior. You are coming up with that by not reading carefully.

I further went on to frame my statement within a more narrow context.

Which you seemingly refuse to acknowledge and keep omitting when you quote my posts.

See posts #49, #43 and #35. You even ignored a significant portion of what I said in post #22, the one that started all of this.

You want me to stop treating you like a dolt? Stop acting like one.

Bos Mutus
08-28-2015, 03:33 PM
Being that this may sound traitorous (at least among fellow Atheists/Agnostics), it may be that the Old Testament was included in the Bible as a historical reference to compare the difference in changes of thought. While there was a time where I was actually trying to rationalize the Bible (impossible goal, I know), I came to such a conclusion. I would like to think that the OT was never meant to have any bearing or application among Christians. It merely demonstrates how violent and flawed people were due to being so misguided and instinctual in how they see life and how they go about trying to improve it.

Yes...traitorous in that assumes there is a grand plan in the writing and saving of scripture and a reason for everything...an idea I'm not buying.

But, yes, people could come to that idea as a way of explaining why and unchanging, same yesterday, today and tomorrow God...is presented in the OT is such a barbaric, jealous, unsophisticated God when compared to the NT God or modern day morals...but, really, I think it's a bit of drummed up rationalization as people try to hold onto their belief in God while being presented with evidence to the contrary.

It's kind of like the "God put the fossils there to test your faith" idea...not buying it.


Where war and subjugation was constantly used and the only answer (even in modern times this is still thought to be the only way), we see in the NT that this is only a short term solution to a long term problem. People have largely lost, and in many cases given up, the ability to control themselves. Individual self-control seems to be the overall goal but such a message is lost due to people still being heavily reliant on God and still being subservient to him. They still give control to other who have no self-control.

To be honest, I don't mind a person who uses God as a reason to be motivated to do something positive.

I'm pretty with you on that...if God is the reason some people behave themselves...then why take that away and be stuck with another asshole.


I just fear that they let religion do the thinking for them and thus ended up with a skewered view that can be controlled and taken advantage of to the determent of everyone involved and many who are not.

My general belief is not that religion is the cause of all this evil that is often tied to it...but just that it's a convenient tool for evil men to use. If there were no religion, they would use another tool.

Eternal life is a pretty strong motivator though...without it, it would be really hard to have suicide bombers and stuff, but it could still be done...legacy, 15 minutes of fame, believing your loved ones will respect you after your death for it, believing you are doing it for country or family...all reasons people have been willing to sacrifice their own lives for what they believe in....and also "values" that can be controlled and skewered for some influential someone's personal gain.

Rollyn01
08-28-2015, 04:01 PM
Yes...traitorous in that assumes there is a grand plan in the writing and saving of scripture and a reason for everything...an idea I'm not buying. It's kind of like the "God put the fossils there to test your faith" idea...not buying it.

I'm pretty with you on that...if God is the reason some people behave themselves...then why take that away and be stuck with another asshole.



My general belief is not that religion is the cause of all this evil that is often tied to it...but just that it's a convenient tool for evil men to use. If there were no religion, they would use another tool.

Eternal life is a pretty strong motivator though...without it, it would be really hard to have suicide bombers and stuff, but it could still be done...legacy, 15 minutes of fame, believing your loved ones will respect you after your death for it, believing you are doing it for country or family...all reasons people have been willing to sacrifice their own lives for what they believe in....and also "values" that can be controlled and skewered for some influential someone's personal gain.

Yeah, I wasn't buying it either. I try to give the benefit of the doubt during my transition away from Christianity but gave up after realizing most of the people who "speak for God" or "act on His will" are the worst of assholes and their congregation is convince that this is not only not true, but willfully ignore the constant harm (financial, sexual, emotional, etc.) that they do to each other. At that point, I saw it would be better to learn self-control and be free from the influence of others' greed and deceit.

Problem is, politicians seem to play the same game. If you really compare the two, you would see that all politicians (without reference to their religion) follow the same "You be rewarded if you follow me but after the fact" bullshit that many religious people subscribe themselves to. "Just follow our laws and good things will happen" and when bad things happen "Someone else is responsible". It's very sad that we have a constitution that suppose to steer us away from the church influencing the politics of the people but most of the politics is made by people who are firmly religious.

We will continue to be screwed until we can safely say that we actually have separation of church and state. However, I don't think that will happen as long as Josh Dumber and other "Christians" like him are still supported and thought to be a flawed but good Christian who just so happened to succumb to the devil and thus we need to keep making excuses for people who just lack empathy, understanding and self-control.

TJMAC77SP
08-28-2015, 04:09 PM
No! For the third or fourth time. I used Josh Duggar's situation as an illustration of the problems with Christian morality. I never said that Duggar is proof that Christian morals are inferior. You are coming up with that by not reading carefully.

I further went on to frame my statement within a more narrow context.

Which you seemingly refuse to acknowledge and keep omitting when you quote my posts.

See posts #49, #43 and #35. You even ignored a significant portion of what I said in post #22, the one that started all of this.

You want me to stop treating you like a dolt? Stop acting like one.

Show me where I have omitted anything from any of your posts.

You used Josh Duggar, who follows one of countless versions of Christian morals, to paint Christian morals en masse as 'inferior'. You have of course posed a lot more words than that but your original post is summed up by what I have said. Have you retracted that statement? If so, I definitely missed that.

You framed your statement within a more narrow context? Can you show me where you did that because all I have seen is an attempt to defend your original too broadly stated opinion?

Your extreme and obsessive bias against Christianity trips you up every time.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-28-2015, 04:51 PM
Show me where I have omitted anything from any of your posts.

You used Josh Duggar, who follows one of countless versions of Christian morals, to paint Christian morals en masse as 'inferior'. You have of course posed a lot more words than that but your original post is summed up by what I have said. Have you retracted that statement? If so, I definitely missed that.

You framed your statement within a more narrow context? Can you show me where you did that because all I have seen is an attempt to defend your original too broadly stated opinion?

Your extreme and obsessive bias against Christianity trips you up every time.

Why don't you go back and read the fucking thread again? You are most certainly missing other points I've made. Either that or you are intentionally ignoring areas where I've clarified my statement.

Most of what you are harping on is explained in my posts. Some of it is in posts directed at Bos Mutus .

I'm starting to get really pissed at you. I'm not calling you a doltish asshole, but I'm starting to think that.

TJMAC77SP
08-28-2015, 09:17 PM
Why don't you go back and read the fucking thread again? You are most certainly missing other points I've made. Either that or you are intentionally ignoring areas where I've clarified my statement.

Most of what you are harping on is explained in my posts. Some of it is in posts directed at @Bos Mutus (http://forums.militarytimes.com/member.php?u=30622) .

I'm starting to get really pissed at you. I'm not calling you a doltish asshole, but I'm starting to think that.

Have you retracted or modified your original statement? If so, then I will apologize and let it go. If you are still trying to tie a universally broad statement about Christian morals being inferior and referencing the Bronze Age or whatever then I'll let my words stand.

As to how pissed you get............just mark it as another win in the spreadsheet and you'll be okey-dokey. Other than that, I can't help you.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-29-2015, 02:00 AM
Have you retracted or modified your original statement? If so, then I will apologize and let it go. If you are still trying to tie a universally broad statement about Christian morals being inferior and referencing the Bronze Age or whatever then I'll let my words stand.

As to how pissed you get............just mark it as another win in the spreadsheet and you'll be okey-dokey. Other than that, I can't help you.

The fact that you have to ask that question means you aren't reading my posts or the rest of the thread very closely.

I refuse to spoon feed you, by going back and quoting my own posts for you. I've done that for you in the past, but you are becoming spoiled and intellectually lazy.

No more.

Put on your big boy pants and read the damned thread. If you can't do that, I won't help you.

TJMAC77SP
08-29-2015, 03:51 AM
The fact that you have to ask that question means you aren't reading my posts or the rest of the thread very closely.

I refuse to spoon feed you, by going back and quoting my own posts for you. I've done that for you in the past, but you are becoming spoiled and intellectually lazy.

No more.

Put on your big boy pants and read the damned thread. If you can't do that, I won't help you.

So that would be a no to retracting or modifying your original statement? I say that because there is no fucking way in this world that your ego would pass up to opportunity to shove that down my throat. Got it.

Don't worry though, you still have your spreadsheet.

Absinthe Anecdote
08-29-2015, 03:59 AM
So that would be a no to retracting or modifying your original statement? I say that because there is no fucking way in this world that your ego would pass up to opportunity to shove that down my throat. Got it.

Don't worry though, you still have your spreadsheet.

If you had read the thread, you wouldn't have to ask.

Not joking, what you are doing here is 100 times worse than Rainmaker and garhkal combined.