@thenorfolkmafia
active 7 years, 1 month agoForum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I think many that use JC are actually fairly vulnerable themselves and would be more likely to be receiving money from charities rather than giving what little money some may have. I have spoken to a many regs in the rooms, without giving names there are a few who are in supported accommodation etc and others with various issues… it’s not the place to be asking for money from these people. We have a wide range of chatters on here, some affluent but many are possibly socially isolated and come here perhaps due to ill health etc that don’t want to be bombarded with requests for money every time they log on.
This is a chatsite.. lets keep it that way and not turn it into some marketing place with people asking for your credit card details. Haven’t we got enough of that already?
I think any admin would take less kindly to someone trolling threads calling someone ” alfie ” day after day when they clearly aren’t , crying about leaving the site continuously yet posting hours later and generally offering nothing to the site at all. My posts are either thread related , or related to the content of a post… yours are just repetitive inane childish crap about ” alfie”.
1 member liked this post.
I clicked the like but its with a hate filled intent
I will also go back to avoiding the boards as well.
Chow Chow.
yet true to form the resident drunk appears less than two hours later.. you can’t make it up lol 😅
Always someone begging for money, streets have charities pestering pedestrians, phones ringing from claims companies, PPI claims and now online we have to fork out… have a day off ffs. If you have a charity , why not start a just giving page instead of begging regs here for cash. It’s a chatroom not a humanitarian aid site where people should feel obliged to give cash. I also have an issue with the scandal involved with many of these charities where the money donated doesn’t go to the cause and ends up lining the pockets of those running it .
An unregistered user asking for charity money on jc, no thanks .. if I want to donate to a charity I dont need some patronising post from someone organising it on my behalf. … https://www.gov.uk/government/news/be-aware-of-suspect-donations-advice-for-charities
1 member liked this post.
Can we have a thumbs down button for comments we dont like?
Why not contribute to the thread instead of mindless soundbytes
A thumbs down button would be good tbh.
This would get one
Can we have a thumbs down button for comments we dont like?
Why not contribute to the thread instead of mindless soundbytes
1 member liked this post.
Ge talking about alcohol fuelled rants .. now that is the pot calling the kettle lol
1 member liked this post.
“How is sacrificing a child ever good even if it follows a certain law? You are confusing morality and legality” asks Norfolk. Well I’m sure that we both find the killing of a child to be horrifying. But if we were living in Inca Peru or Nazi Germany, then the killing of children would be a good both legally and morally, either because it appeases the gods or because they are Jewish. That’s because laws reflect the morality of a particular culture. There are many silly laws, but there are also fundamental laws – such as on murder – which reflect the morality of our society and not just some bureaucrat’s whim. Our society kills children – many children – but it’s usually hidden away in obscure news stories about Iraq or Libya or, in my youth, Vietnam. We kill children in war, but we deny it publicly as much as we can because the killing of children affects us fundamentally. Now id there’s no God, then morality is made by the culture we live in – it’s culturally determined. That means that it’s relative; It’s bad to kill children in modern Western society, but good to kill Jewish children in Nazi Germany or if you’re in the US Cavalry (Every good Injun is a dead Injun, and nits breed lice said General Sheridan). if the moral rules are built into us, though, (usually that means part of our DNA, written into us by whatever created us), then we regard the killing of children as wrong whatever society we live in. You create a resistance movement to stop the killing in Vietnam and advertise it when kids are killed (eg the My Lai massacre, or the famous photograph of a naked girl running screaming, her back on fire). or you try to hide your kid or help hide someone else’s kid in Inca Peru (we have no idea of whether this happened). Or you try to hide Jewish kids in Nazi Europe (we do know that this happened). This has nothing to do with people being rewarded for being good or punished for being bad. We know that isn’t what happens in our own society, where people hurt and crush in order to get promotion or higher status. It’s to do with human nature. Do we have an inherent sense of what is good, or is it all conditioned by our society? I say that if there is no god, then everything and anything is permitted – even a decision to care for others, even that is allowed. The only thing whihc stops rape, murder etc is the fear of being caught. I don’t accept that,. but if there’s no god then it follows. Yes? No??
Once again you are confusing legality and morality by implying simply because a culture finds something acceptable, it is therefore morally justified. Certain cultures have values within them which are deemed to be ” acceptable ” and legal but this doesn’t make them acceptable if we are using any sensible moral compass. You state “morality is made from the culture we live in ” which is inaccurate … lets use an eg in modern day Britain for something which is legal and fits within the laws of a certain “culture”.
In the Uk it is legal for a 75 year old man to marry and impregnate a consenting 16 year old- because it’s legal would you view that as “morally acceptable”? Most would use common sense and realise it represents a fairly revolting act of seediness and immorality yet it is still legal. Decades ago Savile indecently touched numerous underage girls but in that era although not truly accepted , it was deemed the way it was and no one acted upon it despite high ranking people knowing about his sordid activities. Does it suddenly become less acceptable/moral in 2017 because we have new laws , a new culture so therefore more morally viable ?
Less than a hundred years ago , black people weren’t allowed to sit next to white people on public transport, this was approved and considered “moral behaviour ” from all sorts of so called upstanding citizens from police to various dignitaries in respected professions. Morality and culture are linked but not to the extent where one defines the other to the extent you believe – simply because the majority of one culture accept something as morally acceptable doesn’t make it so but then it leads to the question of what is ” acceptable”.
I have my own moral compass which isn’t influenced by law or society but keep within laws like anyone else purely for self preservation. There is a road near my property which has been 30 MPH for years, I regularly drove down it at 40 MPH as I deemed it safe to do so . Many would start whining about the “law” , yet the speed limit is now 40 MPH so am I now morally right to do 40 but the day before the limit changed immoral and “dangerous”? On the same road, if it was winter I may do less than 30 so rather than quoting laws, cultures and what the masses of non thinking sheep do, use your own moral compass to define a perception of what is moral/immoral. As we are all different, there is no absolute answer and the original thread title is rendered unanswerable.
2 members liked this post.
