Assume Nothing

... I wrote relatively long post to accidentally backspace. In short, I find it slightly presumptuous to base his character on those actions alone. It's not unlikely that he's simply inexperienced, and he has a poor interpretation of what dating really is. The financial aspect can be daunting if his interpretation of dating is to constantly buy eachother gifts, nights out, and expensive meals. We don't know enough about the context of him 'making out' with other girls - variables such as time period and sexual attraction are very relevant. It's a bit difficult to judge if we lack these details. In regards to the polyamory/monogamy - I'm not sure how you can infer that. Please elaborate. Premise 4 and 5 are simply assumptions that's as likely to be right as it would be wrong. It's based very loosely on what actually happened, and therefore postulating these outcomes are foolish at this stage. It seems like much of the reasoning is projection or generalizations of other occurrences. It's important to bear context in mind.

I think you're experiencing a confused state between trying to dismiss it for the sake of preserving a friendship, and acting on the psychological impulse. I think it'll be a good idea to be relatively open about it, and ask the guy how he feels about the entire situation. It's not your fault if he's the one who's trying to get your attention. It may be that he has already determined who he likes, but he lacks the confidence to tell either of you - even those who appear confident can have difficulty confiding in such a delicate issues, especially for someone who has never dated before. If you're both in that kind of situation, it's going to be a long process of testing the waters. I can't see any harm in it, but we'll see from the other responses you get.

I see that as an opportunity - but it might be too early to 'date' him. It might be a good idea to get to truly know him first, which is where self-confidence comes in. I'm a little confused on the story in terms of where 'Mary' fits in - is it possible to have a more condensed version so it could be more easily understood?

It's true - we each hold different moral values, and different systems to judge whether an action is moral or not. The objective of this thread is to find the most meaningful, practical system that could be applied to every day life to maximize welfare. An important part of doing so would be to clarify which systems we use - e.g. consequentialism, emotivism, divine command, etc. Could any of them be deemed superior to the other?

The all-encompassing question: What makes an action or decision moral/immoral? Are you a moral person, and why? [hide=Here's what I conceive Ethics/Morality to be]Ethics - the study of the moral principles which we adhere to. The fundamental purpose of such is to allow communities and societies to grow and prosper, to maximize happiness and to minimize pain. It's not a fruitless concept, either - by a simple agreement to not commit homicide on the basis that we don't want to be killed either, our race can grow healthily without the myriad of problems that comes associated with homicide (retribution, vengeance, escalating tension, etc.) Of course, there are other ways to define morality, as it has never been clearly defined at all. I find the most meaningful ones to be the most relevant, hence my definition of it. I personally adopt many principles of consequentialism, as it's a practical means of measuring whether an action/decision has any implications on somebody else. Would you prefer a world with anthropomorphic morals, or one with none at all?[/hide]

What do you mean by social benefits? Why would one be uncomfortable with the idea of polyamorous relationships? There's no family involved. It's just two individuals, living their lives with all the freedom in the world, and these two individuals happen to fool around sometimes. There's no "relationship." Oops - I thought you advocated polygamy, not polyamory. My interpretation of polyamory is to have 'multiple intimate sexual partners, with no strings attached'. Please correct me if I'm wrong. When I refer to social benefits, I mean benefits to society as a whole; i.e. if everyone adopted it, then society would benefit because of increased overall happiness/wellbeing, or better family bonds when conceiving children. I don't have any moral qualms against either forms, but I can definitely see commitment issues arising as sex and emotions are not mutually exclusive. I'm unlikely to be able to provide any points for long-term monogamy vs long term polyamory, though. I don't think that far ahead.

I've stayed out of the argument because I've seen no point in it. I've got a question though - does polygamous relationships offer any social benefits over a monogamous relationship? If so, does it outweigh the potential drawbacks? Does it have to be imposed on those who aren't comfortable with the idea of polygamous relationships? A problem I see with polygamy is the fact that there's a problem regarding family issues, and a lack of commitment could prove deleterious in the long term (especially if several partners get pregnant simultaneously, unexpectedly).

The issue I have with ethnic pride is the fact that it's not because of a personal accomplishment, but rather - accident of birth. It's impossible to choose where you're born, or who you're born from - so what are you really celebrating?

Banned for failing to ridicule. ~ "lol"

I spent much of my day watching how [bleep]ed up the world could be. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl9y3SIPt7o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HrZXx7wlyw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ6E3cShcVU http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/PTO/IMTFE/IMTFE-8.html I'd paste more, but I think it's pretty sufficient. DISCLAIMER: Some of the graphical content may be disturbing. Viewer discretion is advised.

... on a semi related note, my parents got pulled over by patrol cops today. It was most certainly an interesting experience. I've told them they're terrible drivers, but they only listen when it's told by the cops. Why don't people just learn? Oh, and they weren't drunk or anything. It was also the part that made it funny.

I don't think I could phrase it any better than you did. It approximately sums up my thoughts on the subject.

And what if you NEVER get invited to parties, NEVER hear of them, you're friends NEVER have them or even go to them. what then? sorry if im being aggressive I've had a [bleep] of a night, im highly pissed off and frustrated at the 100% NON EXISTENT of my social life because none of my friends have or go to parties, or dont invite me, or when they do, the only single girl there is a village bicycle with insane extra emotion baggage and suddenly the parties ruined and you've once more met NO ONE with your friends never ever ever ever helping you in any social situation including talking, meeting people, or even hooking up which has so far happened to E V E R Y friend of mine, but me. Yes, Im mad. Do you think we're the ones who chooses your social circles? Do you honestly think that you can make things better by not doing anything about it? Is it really that difficult to try and change things yourself? You're the sole cause of the issues you complain about, and you're the only one who can solve it. There is a reason why people are so intolerant of your complaining; you don't listen to advice, and you don't act on it when you do. It's your responsibility, and therefore you're the one who has to address these issues. There's no use in pretending that it's everyone else's fault. I can be relatively certain that some people in your life probably do help you, but you're unwilling to listen/accept the assistance. I can only speculate, but judging on the basis of your posts, it's not an implausible idea - but I digress. If you truly want a girlfriend/boyfriend to hook up with, then take the step to talk to a girl/boy. Your dependency on your supposed 'friends' is only hurting you - it's unlikely that you'll ever build the self-confidence if you're going to require someone holding your hand all the way. Reconsidering your lack of social skills, and social interaction - it may not be so wise. It's a good idea to start by understanding the mentality of your desired potential partners, and the attributes/traits that they like/dislike. Reflect on these attributes, and try to minimize the undesirable traits you currently have first. Work onwards from there. You're trying to take big leaps against a fast moving river and it's only knocking you back. Have some tenacity; it'll pay off in the end. EDIT: I like how you consider a social life to be partying and getting drunk with 'friends'. I think you need to revise your understanding of some of these terms.

Are you implying that you're on moral high-ground here? I don't see the necessity for the disrespect. There's a difference between supporting ideas with reason, as opposed to supporting ideas with evidence. Do realise that you're the one who has gone into the tangent of discussing medical issues, not me. I was still referring to cultural and ethnic identity. Who's points are irrelevant now?

There's this thing called context; I wasn't referring to the medical status - I was referring to social/economical/political status, and the role ethnicity has on one's identity. Stop making baseless assumptions about my motives. Oh, and try to note the term 'almost'. It really helps if you actually read my posts.

I think the reason why ethnicity matters is simply because of the cultural upbringing that goes hand in hand with ethnicity. On it's own, however, it's almost irrelevant though.

I did pretty much everything an adult could do when I turned 18, save drinking/marriage/driving. Huzzah.

Banned for believing in conspiracy theories.

I don't see anything 'dickish' about it. To be completely apathetic to the entire situation is different from being emotionally insensitive, and it's important to be aware of the distinction. I don't see how it's helping to be blaming yourself either.

If by rice porridge, you're referring to congee, then I'd agree with you. If by rice porridge, you mean porridge made with rice instead of oats... I can't say my preferences matches yours.

I think a realist could be defined to be an individual who rejects the impractical and/or idealistic. Or, alternately, they 'deal with reality on reality's terms, by focusing on the observable and objective facts.' I'm not sure if I'm a realist, but it seems to fit me pretty well.

... but you look nothing like your avatar :(

Banned for not composing an elaborate post which explains where morality is derived from.

I don't agree on that notion. Why do you think f2pers 'deserve' a free trial of the member's game? If my inference is incorrect, then feel free to correct me.

Does being "white trash" mean you or I face being prejudiced by a member of the racial majority in your day-to-day life? Prevent you from receiving as much pay on average? Lead to you being unemployed for longer periods of time? It's double standards in the strictest sense, yes, but the implications of racism on white people and the implications of racism on black people are on two different levels, hence there being two standards. Fair point. On the most basic level, it's still a double standard. I guess it extends much farther than name-calling for racial prejudice against minorities like African-Americans and such.