| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Fred Stone" |
| Date: |
11 May 2005 04:42:58 PM |
| Object: |
A Game of Moral Choices |
http://www.philosophersmag.com/bw/games/taboo.htm
Your Moralising Quotient of 0.33 compares to an average Moralising Quotient
of 0.38. This means that as far as the events depicted in the scenarios
featured in this activity are concerned you are more permissive than
average.
Your Interference Factor of 0.00 compares to an average Interference Factor
of 0.19. This means that as far as the events depicted in the scenarios
featured in this activity are concerned you are less likely to recommend
societal interference in matters of moral wrongdoing, in the form of
prevention or punishment, than average.
Your Universalising Factor of 1.00 compares to an average Universalising
Factor of 0.59. This means you are more likely than average to see moral
wrongdoing in universal terms - that is, without regard to prevailing
cultural norms and social conventions (at least as far as the events
depicted in the scenarios featured in this activity are concerned).
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: A Game of Moral Choices |
14 May 2005 12:56:57 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
http://www.philosophersmag.com/bw/games/taboo.htm
Your Moralising Quotient of 0.33 compares to an average Moralising Quotient
of 0.38. This means that as far as the events depicted in the scenarios
featured in this activity are concerned you are more permissive than
average.
Your Interference Factor of 0.00 compares to an average Interference Factor
of 0.19. This means that as far as the events depicted in the scenarios
featured in this activity are concerned you are less likely to recommend
societal interference in matters of moral wrongdoing, in the form of
prevention or punishment, than average.
Your Universalising Factor of 1.00 compares to an average Universalising
Factor of 0.59. This means you are more likely than average to see moral
wrongdoing in universal terms - that is, without regard to prevailing
cultural norms and social conventions (at least as far as the events
depicted in the scenarios featured in this activity are concerned).
..07, 0.0, 0.0
I don't care if the guy stuffs the chicken, I don't care to watch.
--
Jack
bobo1148atxmissiondotcom
http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/xmissionbobo/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: A Game of Moral Choices |
13 May 2005 08:27:50 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
http://www.philosophersmag.com/bw/games/taboo.htm
Moralizing quotient: 0.07
Intereference quotient: 0.00
Universalizing factor: 0.00
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe
in one fewer god than you do. When you understand
why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you
will understand why I dismiss yours."
-Stephen F. Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: A Game of Moral Choices |
13 May 2005 08:40:04 AM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
http://www.philosophersmag.com/bw/games/taboo.htm
Moralizing quotient: 0.07
Intereference quotient: 0.00
Universalizing factor: 0.00
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: -1.
:-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory A Greenman" |
|
| Title: Re: A Game of Moral Choices |
12 May 2005 01:19:06 AM |
|
|
In article
<1115847778.18f1701ed15071fc57a8ad2d9346c3bf@teranews>, Fred
Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> declared...
http://www.philosophersmag.com/bw/games/taboo.htm
I also tried their "Do-It-Yourself Deity"
http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/whatisgod.htm
They have a list of attributes and you have to say which are
necessary for a being to be god:
Omnipotent (all-powerful, able to do anything)
Omnibenevolent (all-loving)
Omniscient (all-knowing)
The Creator (of all that exists)
The Sustainer (if God ceased to exist, so would everything else)
Perfectly Free
Eternally Existing (will go on and on and on...)
A Personal God (a being with whom one can have a personal
relationship)
I selected the last one only. They told me that my definition was
plausible. Just to see what would happen, I then went back and
selected all of them and they raised a number of objections, not
all which I agree with.
The thing that bothered me about this is that, if say, the Greek
god Zeus actually existed, the only attribute above that he would
have is the last. Sure the christian god is supposed to have all
or almost all of these attributes but that doesn't mean they're
necessarily attributes required for a being to be a god.
--
Greg
----
greg -at- spencersoft -dot- com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sorhed" |
|
| Title: Re: A Game of Moral Choices |
12 May 2005 03:19:09 AM |
|
|
In the great debate about "A Game of Moral Choices" in alt.atheism,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> catapaulted the following boulder:
http://www.philosophersmag.com/bw/games/taboo.htm
Your Moralising Quotient of 0.50 compares to an average Moralising
Quotient of 0.34. This means that as far as the events depicted in the
scenarios featured in this activity are concerned you are less
permissive than average.
Your Interference Factor of 0.40 compares to an average Interference
Factor of 0.17. This means that as far as the events depicted in the
scenarios featured in this activity are concerned you are more likely
to recommend societal interference in matters of moral wrongdoing, in
the form of prevention or punishment, than average.
Your Universalising Factor of 1.00 compares to an average
Universalising Factor of 0.55. This means you are more likely than
average to see moral wrongdoing in universal terms - that is, without
regard to prevailing cultural norms and social conventions (at least
as far as the events depicted in the scenarios featured in this
activity are concerned).
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N. aa #2208
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: A Game of Moral Choices |
12 May 2005 10:10:31 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 May 2005 09:19:09 +0100, Sorhed <Sorhed@fordor.gov> wrote:
In the great debate about "A Game of Moral Choices" in alt.atheism,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> catapaulted the following boulder:
http://www.philosophersmag.com/bw/games/taboo.htm
Your Moralising Quotient of 0.50 compares to an average Moralising
Quotient of 0.34. This means that as far as the events depicted in the
scenarios featured in this activity are concerned you are less
permissive than average.
Your Interference Factor of 0.40 compares to an average Interference
Factor of 0.17. This means that as far as the events depicted in the
scenarios featured in this activity are concerned you are more likely
to recommend societal interference in matters of moral wrongdoing, in
the form of prevention or punishment, than average.
Your Universalising Factor of 1.00 compares to an average
Universalising Factor of 0.55. This means you are more likely than
average to see moral wrongdoing in universal terms - that is, without
regard to prevailing cultural norms and social conventions (at least
as far as the events depicted in the scenarios featured in this
activity are concerned).
Interesting... which of the scenarios did you have a problem with?
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: A Game of Moral Choices |
11 May 2005 09:50:33 PM |
|
|
On 11 May 2005, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
http://www.philosophersmag.com/bw/games/taboo.htm
Results
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: -1.
If it's an action that hurts no one, is witnessed by no one, is performed
by consenting adults, and there is no remorse afterward, who the *****
cares?
Like the tree that falls in the forest...
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
Lovingly plonked by Roger Pearse
______________
"I'm sickened by all religions. Religion has divided people. I don't
think there's any difference between the pope wearing a large hat and
parading around with a smoking purse and an African painting his face
white and praying to a rock."
[Howard Stern]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: A Game of Moral Choices |
12 May 2005 10:08:02 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 May 2005 21:50:33 -0500, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:
On 11 May 2005, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
http://www.philosophersmag.com/bw/games/taboo.htm
Results
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: -1.
If it's an action that hurts no one, is witnessed by no one, is performed
by consenting adults, and there is no remorse afterward, who the *****
cares?
Like the tree that falls in the forest...
That's exactly the same score that I got. I'm still sniggering about
the frozen chicken question, which just goes to show that some people
never grow up.
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: A Game of Moral Choices |
12 May 2005 11:51:11 AM |
|
|
On 12 May 2005, Mephisto dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
On Wed, 11 May 2005 21:50:33 -0500, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:
On 11 May 2005, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:
http://www.philosophersmag.com/bw/games/taboo.htm
Results
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: -1.
If it's an action that hurts no one, is witnessed by no one, is
performed by consenting adults, and there is no remorse afterward, who
the ***** cares?
Like the tree that falls in the forest...
That's exactly the same score that I got. I'm still sniggering about
the frozen chicken question, which just goes to show that some people
never grow up.
Me, I prefer my fowl warm.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
Lovingly plonked by Roger Pearse
______________
"I'm sickened by all religions. Religion has divided people. I don't
think there's any difference between the pope wearing a large hat and
parading around with a smoking purse and an African painting his face
white and praying to a rock."
[Howard Stern]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: A Game of Moral Choices |
12 May 2005 06:49:59 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 May 2005 11:51:11 -0500, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:
On 12 May 2005, Mephisto dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
On Wed, 11 May 2005 21:50:33 -0500, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:
On 11 May 2005, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:
http://www.philosophersmag.com/bw/games/taboo.htm
Results
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.
Your Interference Factor is: 0.00.
Your Universalising Factor is: -1.
If it's an action that hurts no one, is witnessed by no one, is
performed by consenting adults, and there is no remorse afterward, who
the ***** cares?
Like the tree that falls in the forest...
That's exactly the same score that I got. I'm still sniggering about
the frozen chicken question, which just goes to show that some people
never grow up.
Me, I prefer my fowl warm.
LOL! Yes, seems to make more sense.
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: A Game of Moral Choices |
11 May 2005 07:12:16 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 May 2005 21:42:58 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
in news message <1115847778.18f1701ed15071fc57a8ad2d9346c3bf@teranews>
wrote:
http://www.philosophersmag.com/bw/games/taboo.htm
Your Moralising Quotient of 0.33 compares to an average Moralising Quotient
of 0.38. This means that as far as the events depicted in the scenarios
featured in this activity are concerned you are more permissive than
average.
Your Interference Factor of 0.00 compares to an average Interference Factor
of 0.19. This means that as far as the events depicted in the scenarios
featured in this activity are concerned you are less likely to recommend
societal interference in matters of moral wrongdoing, in the form of
prevention or punishment, than average.
Your Universalising Factor of 1.00 compares to an average Universalising
Factor of 0.59. This means you are more likely than average to see moral
wrongdoing in universal terms - that is, without regard to prevailing
cultural norms and social conventions (at least as far as the events
depicted in the scenarios featured in this activity are concerned).
Results
Your Moralising Quotient of 0.00 compares to an average Moralising
Quotient of 0.38. This means that as far as the events depicted in the
scenarios featured in this activity are concerned you are more
permissive than average.
Your Interference Factor of 0.00 compares to an average Interference
Factor of 0.20. This means that as far as the events depicted in the
scenarios featured in this activity are concerned you are less likely
to recommend societal interference in matters of moral wrongdoing, in
the form of prevention or punishment, than average.
Your Universalising Factor of -1 compares to an average Universalising
Factor of 0.55. Your score of -1 indicates that you saw no moral wrong
in any of the activities depicted in these scenarios, which means that
it is not possible for this activity to determine the extent to which
you see moral wrongdoing in universal terms (i.e., without regard to
prevailing cultural norms and social conventions).
````
Although, I was fairly yuked out thinking about sex with a frozen
chicken, and eating a dead cat.
Liz #658 BAAWA
The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that
their interests and his own are the same -- Stendhal
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jimmy B." |
|
| Title: Re: A Game of Moral Choices |
13 May 2005 05:32:16 PM |
|
|
Liz wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2005 21:42:58 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
in news message <1115847778.18f1701ed15071fc57a8ad2d9346c3bf@teranews>
wrote:
http://www.philosophersmag.com/bw/games/taboo.htm
Your Moralising Quotient of 0.33 compares to an average Moralising Quotient
of 0.38. This means that as far as the events depicted in the scenarios
featured in this activity are concerned you are more permissive than
average.
Your Interference Factor of 0.00 compares to an average Interference Factor
of 0.19. This means that as far as the events depicted in the scenarios
featured in this activity are concerned you are less likely to recommend
societal interference in matters of moral wrongdoing, in the form of
prevention or punishment, than average.
Your Universalising Factor of 1.00 compares to an average Universalising
Factor of 0.59. This means you are more likely than average to see moral
wrongdoing in universal terms - that is, without regard to prevailing
cultural norms and social conventions (at least as far as the events
depicted in the scenarios featured in this activity are concerned).
Results
Your Moralising Quotient of 0.00 compares to an average Moralising
Quotient of 0.38. This means that as far as the events depicted in the
scenarios featured in this activity are concerned you are more
permissive than average.
Your Interference Factor of 0.00 compares to an average Interference
Factor of 0.20. This means that as far as the events depicted in the
scenarios featured in this activity are concerned you are less likely
to recommend societal interference in matters of moral wrongdoing, in
the form of prevention or punishment, than average.
Your Universalising Factor of -1 compares to an average Universalising
Factor of 0.55. Your score of -1 indicates that you saw no moral wrong
in any of the activities depicted in these scenarios, which means that
it is not possible for this activity to determine the extent to which
you see moral wrongdoing in universal terms (i.e., without regard to
prevailing cultural norms and social conventions).
````
Although, I was fairly yuked out thinking about sex with a frozen
chicken, and eating a dead cat.
Liz #658 BAAWA
The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that
their interests and his own are the same -- Stendhal
I got the same score as you, 0, 0, and -1. The cat thing sort of yucked
me out, I had to keep telling myself that it isn't a health quiz. Road
kill is just so dirty.
Also the incest thing. I kept thinking about my sisters. Yuck!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: A Game of Moral Choices |
11 May 2005 10:29:26 PM |
|
|
On 11 May 2005, Liz dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
Although, I was fairly yuked out thinking about sex with a frozen
chicken, and eating a dead cat.
I almost stumbled on the incest thing. I kept having to remind myself that
it wasn't me, which made it easy since all I have is a brother.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
Lovingly plonked by Roger Pearse
______________
"I'm sickened by all religions. Religion has divided people. I don't think
there's any difference between the pope wearing a large hat and parading
around with a smoking purse and an African painting his face white and
praying to a rock."
[Howard Stern]
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: A Game of Moral Choices |
11 May 2005 11:17:40 PM |
|
|
"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote
I almost stumbled on the incest thing. I kept having to
remind myself that it wasn't me, which made it easy
since all I have is a brother.
Is he cute? Top or bottom? Cut or uncut? What's his sign?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: A Game of Moral Choices |
12 May 2005 09:03:02 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 May 2005 00:12:16 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2005 21:42:58 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
in news message <1115847778.18f1701ed15071fc57a8ad2d9346c3bf@teranews>
wrote:
http://www.philosophersmag.com/bw/games/taboo.htm
Your Moralising Quotient of 0.33 compares to an average Moralising Quotient
of 0.38. This means that as far as the events depicted in the scenarios
featured in this activity are concerned you are more permissive than
average.
Your Interference Factor of 0.00 compares to an average Interference Factor
of 0.19. This means that as far as the events depicted in the scenarios
featured in this activity are concerned you are less likely to recommend
societal interference in matters of moral wrongdoing, in the form of
prevention or punishment, than average.
Your Universalising Factor of 1.00 compares to an average Universalising
Factor of 0.59. This means you are more likely than average to see moral
wrongdoing in universal terms - that is, without regard to prevailing
cultural norms and social conventions (at least as far as the events
depicted in the scenarios featured in this activity are concerned).
Results
Your Moralising Quotient of 0.00 compares to an average Moralising
Quotient of 0.38. This means that as far as the events depicted in the
scenarios featured in this activity are concerned you are more
permissive than average.
Your Interference Factor of 0.00 compares to an average Interference
Factor of 0.20. This means that as far as the events depicted in the
scenarios featured in this activity are concerned you are less likely
to recommend societal interference in matters of moral wrongdoing, in
the form of prevention or punishment, than average.
Your Universalising Factor of -1 compares to an average Universalising
Factor of 0.55. Your score of -1 indicates that you saw no moral wrong
in any of the activities depicted in these scenarios, which means that
it is not possible for this activity to determine the extent to which
you see moral wrongdoing in universal terms (i.e., without regard to
prevailing cultural norms and social conventions).
````
Although, I was fairly yuked out thinking about sex with a frozen
chicken, and eating a dead cat.
Mine came out the exact same, but the only thing I yuked out on was
eating the cat. Although I don't see how you can have sex with a
frozen chicken without hurting yourself. I would think freezer burn
would result.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank J Warner" |
|
| Title: Re: A Game of Moral Choices |
12 May 2005 06:01:44 PM |
|
|
In article <4288617b.85097218@news-west.newscene.com>, Kate
<cobalt@newscene.com> wrote:
Mine came out the exact same, but the only thing I yuked out on was
eating the cat. Although I don't see how you can have sex with a
frozen chicken without hurting yourself. I would think freezer burn
would result.
Calluses.
-Frank
--
fwarner1-at-franksknives-dot-com
Here's some of my work:
http://www.franksknives.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: A Game of Moral Choices |
12 May 2005 06:12:11 PM |
|
|
Frank J. Warner wrote:
Mine came out the exact same, but the only thing I yuked out on was
eating the cat. Although I don't see how you can have sex with a
frozen chicken without hurting yourself. I would think freezer burn
would result.
Calluses.
Or gravy.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: A Game of Moral Choices |
12 May 2005 06:31:47 PM |
|
|
"skyeyes" <skyeyes@dakotacom.net> wrote in message
news:1115939531.575787.264450@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Frank J. Warner wrote:
Mine came out the exact same, but the only thing I yuked out on was
eating the cat. Although I don't see how you can have sex with a
frozen chicken without hurting yourself. I would think freezer burn
would result.
Calluses.
Or gravy.
GAK!!! :P
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchpoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Great Hairy One" |
|
| Title: Re: A Game of Moral Choices |
13 May 2005 04:24:03 PM |
|
|
In article <3ei7b0F3a1psU1@individual.net>,
says...
GAK!!! :P
Now that reminds me of a porn movie I saw once, where this cute girl
walks into a sandwich shop and orders a sandwich. Of course, she's so
cute that the sandwich making guy has to have a wank. He splooges in her
sandwich, which she then eats.
When she asks about the mayonnaise, he replies "I made it myself!"
--
The Great Hairy One,
BAAWA all night long
SMASHing it to the masses
====================================
CEO EAC Roleplaying Division
Roleplay. Just do it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Knight" |
|
| Title: Re: A Game of Moral Choices |
13 May 2005 07:03:35 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 May 2005 07:24:03 +1000, The Great Hairy One
<the.great.hairy@GEEmail.com> wrote:
In article <3ei7b0F3a1psU1@individual.net>,
says...
GAK!!! :P
Now that reminds me of a porn movie I saw once, where this cute girl
walks into a sandwich shop and orders a sandwich. Of course, she's so
cute that the sandwich making guy has to have a wank. He splooges in her
sandwich, which she then eats.
When she asks about the mayonnaise, he replies "I made it myself!"
That'll do it for Subways.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Great Hairy One" |
|
| Title: Re: A Game of Moral Choices |
14 May 2005 05:20:45 AM |
|
|
In article <mbga81h76mfbgjs2u156qb379vugudho02@4ax.com>,
says...
That'll do it for Subways.
No wonder I never eat there!
--
The Great Hairy One,
BAAWA all night long
SMASHing it to the masses
====================================
CEO EAC Roleplaying Division
Roleplay. Just do it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: A Game of Moral Choices |
16 May 2005 01:10:59 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 May 2005 00:03:35 GMT, Steve Knight <wooly@sonic.net>
wrote:
On Sat, 14 May 2005 07:24:03 +1000, The Great Hairy One
<the.great.hairy@GEEmail.com> wrote:
In article <3ei7b0F3a1psU1@individual.net>,
says...
GAK!!! :P
Now that reminds me of a porn movie I saw once, where this cute girl
walks into a sandwich shop and orders a sandwich. Of course, she's so
cute that the sandwich making guy has to have a wank. He splooges in her
sandwich, which she then eats.
When she asks about the mayonnaise, he replies "I made it myself!"
That'll do it for Subways.
rrrrrrroooooooooooolllllllllllllliiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnngggggggggg
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: A Game of Moral Choices |
13 May 2005 07:04:04 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 May 2005 07:24:03 +1000, The Great Hairy One
<the.great.hairy@GEEmail.com> wrote:
In article <3ei7b0F3a1psU1@individual.net>,
says...
GAK!!! :P
Now that reminds me of a porn movie I saw once, where this cute girl
walks into a sandwich shop and orders a sandwich. Of course, she's so
cute that the sandwich making guy has to have a wank. He splooges in her
sandwich, which she then eats.
When she asks about the mayonnaise, he replies "I made it myself!"
You know, I could have done without that story.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: A Game of Moral Choices |
13 May 2005 07:39:02 PM |
|
|
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:42953fee.207579609@news-west.newscene.com...
On Sat, 14 May 2005 07:24:03 +1000, The Great Hairy One
<the.great.hairy@GEEmail.com> wrote:
In article <3ei7b0F3a1psU1@individual.net>,
says...
GAK!!! :P
Now that reminds me of a porn movie I saw once, where this cute girl
walks into a sandwich shop and orders a sandwich. Of course, she's so
cute that the sandwich making guy has to have a wank. He splooges in her
sandwich, which she then eats.
When she asks about the mayonnaise, he replies "I made it myself!"
You know, I could have done without that story.
We ALL could have done without that story :P
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchpoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Great Hairy One" |
|
| Title: Re: A Game of Moral Choices |
14 May 2005 05:21:35 AM |
|
|
In article <3ekvl2F3kms8U1@individual.net>,
says...
We ALL could have done without that story :P
Note to self - only tell the clean, G rated stories around Kate and
Robyn, for they are squeamish.
:)
--
The Great Hairy One,
BAAWA all night long
SMASHing it to the masses
====================================
CEO EAC Roleplaying Division
Roleplay. Just do it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: A Game of Moral Choices |
12 May 2005 06:07:58 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 May 2005 16:01:44 -0700, Frank J Warner
<warnerf@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> in news message
<120520051601443301%warnerf@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> wrote:
In article <4288617b.85097218@news-west.newscene.com>, Kate
<cobalt@newscene.com> wrote:
Mine came out the exact same, but the only thing I yuked out on was
eating the cat. Although I don't see how you can have sex with a
frozen chicken without hurting yourself. I would think freezer burn
would result.
Calluses.
I have so many questions, none of which I want an answer to.
Überwench #658 Now a *real* atheist!
Dame Liz the Undaunted Ath.D BAAWA
Charter Member of SMASH
and Queen of the known universe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank J Warner" |
|
| Title: Re: A Game of Moral Choices |
12 May 2005 09:27:01 PM |
|
|
In article <v8o781du6lk895amg02lo0d34njdqqa2uk@4ax.com>, Liz
<ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2005 16:01:44 -0700, Frank J Warner
<warnerf@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> in news message
<120520051601443301%warnerf@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> wrote:
In article <4288617b.85097218@news-west.newscene.com>, Kate
<cobalt@newscene.com> wrote:
Mine came out the exact same, but the only thing I yuked out on was
eating the cat. Although I don't see how you can have sex with a
frozen chicken without hurting yourself. I would think freezer burn
would result.
Calluses.
I have so many questions, none of which I want an answer to.
It's not as bad as it seems. I once hired a young man who was a
newlywed. Not long after I hired him, he brought up the subject of sex.
His exact words were, "Hey, Frank. Did you ever f__k so much you got a
callus on your d__k? I mean, is that *normal*?"
I told him he should probably bring it up with his doctor. But I've
remembered the conversation ever since.
I do remember that his pretty little wife seemed perpetually happy, and
tired, all at the same time. Imagine *those* calluses.
-Frank
--
Here's some of my work:
http://www.franksknives.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: A Game of Moral Choices |
12 May 2005 10:10:29 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 May 2005 19:27:01 -0700, Frank J Warner
<warnerf@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> in news message
<120520051927015328%warnerf@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> wrote:
In article <v8o781du6lk895amg02lo0d34njdqqa2uk@4ax.com>, Liz
<ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2005 16:01:44 -0700, Frank J Warner
<warnerf@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> in news message
<120520051601443301%warnerf@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> wrote:
In article <4288617b.85097218@news-west.newscene.com>, Kate
<cobalt@newscene.com> wrote:
Mine came out the exact same, but the only thing I yuked out on was
eating the cat. Although I don't see how you can have sex with a
frozen chicken without hurting yourself. I would think freezer burn
would result.
Calluses.
I have so many questions, none of which I want an answer to.
It's not as bad as it seems. I once hired a young man who was a
newlywed. Not long after I hired him, he brought up the subject of sex.
His exact words were, "Hey, Frank. Did you ever f__k so much you got a
callus on your d__k? I mean, is that *normal*?"
I told him he should probably bring it up with his doctor. But I've
remembered the conversation ever since.
I do remember that his pretty little wife seemed perpetually happy, and
tired, all at the same time. Imagine *those* calluses.
I hope they are still going strong. :)
Überwench #658 Now a *real* atheist!
Dame Liz the Undaunted Ath.D BAAWA
Charter Member of SMASH
and Queen of the known universe
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: A Game of Moral Choices |
16 May 2005 01:10:09 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 May 2005 19:27:01 -0700, Frank J Warner
<warnerf@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> wrote:
In article <v8o781du6lk895amg02lo0d34njdqqa2uk@4ax.com>, Liz
<ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2005 16:01:44 -0700, Frank J Warner
<warnerf@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> in news message
<120520051601443301%warnerf@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon.net> wrote:
In article <4288617b.85097218@news-west.newscene.com>, Kate
<cobalt@newscene.com> wrote:
Mine came out the exact same, but the only thing I yuked out on was
eating the cat. Although I don't see how you can have sex with a
frozen chicken without hurting yourself. I would think freezer burn
would result.
Calluses.
I have so many questions, none of which I want an answer to.
It's not as bad as it seems. I once hired a young man who was a
newlywed. Not long after I hired him, he brought up the subject of sex.
His exact words were, "Hey, Frank. Did you ever f__k so much you got a
callus on your d__k? I mean, is that *normal*?"
I told him he should probably bring it up with his doctor. But I've
remembered the conversation ever since.
I do remember that his pretty little wife seemed perpetually happy, and
tired, all at the same time. Imagine *those* calluses.
Natural French tickler? ;)
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Anthoney" |
|
| Title: Re: A Game of Moral Choices |
12 May 2005 12:05:07 PM |
|
|
Kate wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2005 00:12:16 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2005 21:42:58 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
in news message <1115847778.18f1701ed15071fc57a8ad2d9346c3bf@teranews>
wrote:
http://www.philosophersmag.com/bw/games/taboo.htm
Your Moralising Quotient of 0.33 compares to an average Moralising
Quotient of 0.38. This means that as far as the events depicted in the
scenarios featured in this activity are concerned you are more permissive
than average.
Your Interference Factor of 0.00 compares to an average Interference
Factor of 0.19. This means that as far as the events depicted in the
scenarios featured in this activity are concerned you are less likely to
recommend societal interference in matters of moral wrongdoing, in the
form of prevention or punishment, than average.
Your Universalising Factor of 1.00 compares to an average Universalising
Factor of 0.59. This means you are more likely than average to see moral
wrongdoing in universal terms - that is, without regard to prevailing
cultural norms and social conventions (at least as far as the events
depicted in the scenarios featured in this activity are concerned).
Results
Your Moralising Quotient of 0.00 compares to an average Moralising
Quotient of 0.38. This means that as far as the events depicted in the
scenarios featured in this activity are concerned you are more
permissive than average.
Your Interference Factor of 0.00 compares to an average Interference
Factor of 0.20. This means that as far as the events depicted in the
scenarios featured in this activity are concerned you are less likely
to recommend societal interference in matters of moral wrongdoing, in
the form of prevention or punishment, than average.
Your Universalising Factor of -1 compares to an average Universalising
Factor of 0.55. Your score of -1 indicates that you saw no moral wrong
in any of the activities depicted in these scenarios, which means that
it is not possible for this activity to determine the extent to which
you see moral wrongdoing in universal terms (i.e., without regard to
prevailing cultural norms and social conventions).
````
Although, I was fairly yuked out thinking about sex with a frozen
chicken, and eating a dead cat.
Mine came out the exact same, but the only thing I yuked out on was
eating the cat. Although I don't see how you can have sex with a
frozen chicken without hurting yourself. I would think freezer burn
would result.
I think you thaw it first.
Not that I'm claiming any personal experience in this!
--
Kevin Anthoney
kanthoney[a]dsl.pipex.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
