# Solution to Ethics **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 19, 2017, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610 "2017-07-19T00:29:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610/321 "2017-07-21T02:33:42Z")
> [@Forest\_Green](#): > > Think to yourself this: > > How do my actions and statements solve as a decrypted sequence as “I don’t exist”? > > Follow that for the rest of your life. That’s my best advice to everyone. All contradictions ultimately solve as “I don’t exist”… pay attention to it. I shall waste no time pondering its meaning. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610/322 "2017-07-21T02:38:13Z")
> [@Forest\_Green](#): > > Sorry, I forgot the statutory rape comment: I stated that a species this immature would set the bar very low on statutory rape. I didn’t say it was a statute. You’re assuming that everyone responding to you is from the same species. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610/323 "2017-07-21T03:02:30Z")
> [@Forest\_Green](#): > > Sorry, I forgot the statutory rape comment: I stated that a species this immature would set the bar very low on statutory rape. I didn’t say it was a statute. What species are you? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610/324 "2017-07-21T03:08:57Z")
> [@Forest\_Green](#): > > Because it’s how definitions are formed. That’s not a responsive answer. What it amounts to is “because I say so.” You offer no rational argument to support it. And it’s also untrue. Whatever you have done in this thread has absolutely no relationship to how “definitions are formed.” Much of the time, you’re not even defining anything. You’re just drawing random connections between disparate concepts and pretending it’s a definition. I would suggest something—instead of insisting on your idiosyncratic definitions, use words in a way that your audience already accepts in order to explain your ideas. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610/325 "2017-07-21T04:00:55Z")
The existence of a meme is not proof of its own truth. It’s a kind of hearsay. ---
**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610/326 "2017-07-21T04:36:43Z")
> [@Ambivalid](#): > > Ok, let’s put that into a concrete example (preferably one other than sex). Give me an example of an otherwise cherished “something” being tainted by being facilitated by hypocrisy. What do you mean by “cherished” and “tainted”, btw? Let’s start with the basics. What is meant by “hypocrisy”? Please define that. ---
**Author:** ![cochrane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cochrane/32/10441_2.png) [@cochrane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cochrane)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610/327 "2017-07-21T04:57:17Z")
> [@Forest\_Green](#): > > An immature species will set a very low bar for statutory rape. > > The only crime is hypocrisy; if I gain from crime; my gains are tainted. I don’t plan 10 years down the road anymore… I plan infinitely, and I’m trying to plan all of your infinite lives as well, in the way that you want them planned. You folks laugh at me, but you are extremely young to someone like me. I’m 60. And I’m not the oldest Doper here by far. How old are you? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610/328 "2017-07-21T06:03:42Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > **Forest Green** - what are you prepared to unconditionally give to a woman? > > Not ‘do, in order to get’, not ‘give, in order to [anything]’. > > Give. What are you prepared to give, without any specific agenda? > [@Forest\_Green](#): > > The other phrase men throw around, is that women are whores… so to treat a woman like a whore is a contradiction; hypocrisy. I will try to be non-hypocritical - that’s all I can offer any relationship. > > Some of this is getting heated above; exasperated; which I am currently not… but they are serious points to address. You’ve said a lot about how people other than yourself behave. I am unable to reconcile your claims against reality - so I think it would be interesting to hear your claims about yourself. That’s why I asked this question. Now, since your perception of everyone else is, apparently, that they’re hypocrites, and given that I cannot make sense of that assertion, your statement that you would behave in a ‘non-hypocritical’ way doesn’t intrinsically mean anything to me. So please could you unpack the statement a little? What collection of behaviours and actions, in a relationship, do you see yourself actually doing, that constitute ‘non-hypocrtical’? ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610/329 "2017-07-21T10:22:37Z")
> [@](#): > > …because the concept you’re trying to describe is logically incoherent, and relies on entirely non-standard definitions of common terms. Quoted for truth. This right here is how you know it’s just straight up nuttery. Non standard doesn’t begin to cover it truly. It’s just word salad where the author has redefined all the words. Hardly original, been done to death. Far from amusing, just non sensical. And far too laboured to be entertaining. Unless the OP is still in high school, it’s just too sad to engage with, in my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610/330 "2017-07-21T11:25:05Z")
> [@simster](#): > > 2014 thread? I thought this posters rhetoric was familiar He is actually _less_ wordy now than he was then. Take a look at [his thread on evolution](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=735713). ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610/331 "2017-07-21T11:30:11Z")
> [@cochrane](#): > > I’m 60. And I’m not the oldest Doper here by far. How old are you? He said earlier in the thread that he is 40. (But that doesn’t include his 400 billion years in hell.) ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610/332 "2017-07-21T13:50:32Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > See post #151. It’s 100% the same guy. yeah - I thought this shtick was familiar. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Forest\_Green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8dc957/32.png) [@Forest\_Green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Forest_Green)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610/333 "2017-07-21T14:56:27Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I will point out the gibberish in this post once, then I am going to let you flounder along with your idiolect and your lack of knowledge and your smug, self satisfied opinions of your beliefs. > > 1. You are attributing to me words I have not said. You now claim that if someone has the same feelings that I have toward my beloved, I am going to be jealous. I specifically said no such thing. I have known men who had the identical feelings toward my fiancee as I had. They did not act on those feelings. They made no effort to “take her away” from me or to separate her from me, and I developed no jealousy toward them. Similarly, I have developed feelings toward different women who were in committed relationships. I respected those relationships and took no action to separate the partners. The man in the relationship developed no attitude of jealousy toward me, (as I know, having now been friends with those couples for over 40 years). > This is just nonsense that you invent, to spin your world view. > > 2. Your use of the phrase “conspicuous consumption” is ludicrous. Actual conspicuous consumption has no bearing on the topic. The rest of your gibberish is simply illogical. That some people will fail to adhere to their profession of love does not mean that “people are going to do what they are going to do” despite the vows in the ceremony. In fact, despite a culture that has moved away from committed monogamy, more than half of all people remain true to their spouses and of those who fail in that regard, for most it is a one-time failure following which they continue to adhere to those vows. (The “one time” indicates a relationship with one other person over a period of time that may be a one-night stand or an affair of some time, but most people return to their spouse.) So in your odd little world, anyone who fails to keep their vows one time, (still less than half the population), invalidates the profession of vows. That is nonsense. > > 3. Your definition of perpetual motion machine is silly and meaningless. A perpetual motion machine is an actual machine that performs tasks, but also produces sufficient extra power to power itself. Setting that aside, where is your proof that existence will continue forever? > The “psycho-neuro-linguistic” word is pseudo-philosophical gibberish. As to your claims about what other people mean when they state an opinion: just silly. That you want to dictate that when a person happens to be in a good mood and expresses that feeling, they must put all kinds of conditions on their words in order to avoid violating some rule that you have invented is your sad little problem. The words expressed communicate to the audience what the person intended to communicate. They, personally, felt good. To come in from the outside and insist that a person MUST mean what you dictate is nothing more than hubris on your part. You persist in misusing many words, (jealousy, conspicuous consumption, perpetual motion, etc.,). If you have the right to demand that other people follow a specific list of meanings for the sentence “It is a nice day.”, then we should have the right to demand that you follow the norms of conversation and use those words in ways that meet dictionary definitions.\* Do you agree with that? > > - I am mostly a descriptivist, not a prescriptivist, so meaning is what the majority of people associate with a word, not what some pedant or eccentric wishes to impose from their own idiolect. > > 1. There are games without losers and your inability to recognize that is part of the reason why you appear to have a really warped view of the world. That there are people who are better than other people at some games is irrelevant. Your claim was that to win one must enjoy another person’s loss. If I play solitaire, it is irrelevant to me whether I am the best or the worst player of that game. I have no idea whether others are better or worse than I am and I make no effort to discover which people (if any) play better or worse than I do. It is utter invented rubbish to claim that my enjoyment derives from taking joy in another’s loss when I am happy even if I am the worst player in the world. You are trying to impose a reality on me that is of your invention and has no bearing on the real world. > > 2. So, now, misusing the words “conspicuous consumption,” and now “flirting” (it does not mean what you claim it means on the one hand and it is quite possible to flirt without having any intention to engage in sex with the object of one’s flirting), you want to tell me, whom you do not know and with whose life you are utterly unfamiliar, what I am like and what I do. Piffle. You are doing exactly the same thing that other posters are doing when they speculate on your “sad” life, hatred of women, or inability to get a date. Don’t you feel a bt hypocritical? > > 3. :rolleyes: > > 4. No. And your paraphrase is not what I said. Saying that providing the opportunity and means for suicide is the only valid response for a person suffering abuse instead of saying that it is valid to remove the abused from the abuser is nonsense. > As to what I sound like, (especially since most of what you claim I sound like is a distorted invention not based on what I have actually said), would it be legitimate in this discussion to say that you sound like a misogynist with your claims about women? A number of posters have suggested that you have various psychological issues. Are those legitimate arguments in this discussion? If one has to invent what another person says or does in order to condemn their words or actions, they have pretty much lost the argument _ab initio_. > > 5. I have no idea what “asshole through omission” means in this or any other context, It appears to be nothing more than a gratuitous insult. > Rape is terrible and wrong, but permitting a person who has raped to engage in sex says nothing about whether they “deserve” to have sex. Suppose an eighteen year old rapist who chose that act out of a bad upbringing and various psychological issues, serves time in prison, makes amends to the victim, gets counseling that changes their mindset, and then, at age 35, falls in love with a woman who is aware of his past but accepts him anyway. Your claim is that he can never “deserve” sex and that anyone who does not condemn him, now, for his past deeds is “defending his past behavior.” Utter rubbish. > > These are the sort of unreal claims that you have made throughout this thread. Your claim that men call women whores is along the same imaginary lines. Some men refer to women as whores. No one with whom I work, no one with whom I went to school, and no one in my family would ever use such language. I have, on very rare occasions, encountered a jerk that speaks that way. That you believe that all men do so speaks volumes of the manner in which you are out of touch with reality. > > Based on your previous behavior, I presume that you will respond with another little rant that misuses words as if their meaning differed from that generally accepted and that you will begin to try to slide (not very) subtle insults at me by hypothesizing how I “really” am. I am not going to bother replying to that upcoming screed. However, I should note that attempts to slide insults into the discussion will not be met with acceptance. I did post number 6 immediately after. Number 1.) has 2 steps. To be upset that someone has a sexual interaction with your partner, that both you and your partner like, and that like each other, is a contradiction to the same behavior you and your partner use to even be together. I not only discussed the contradiction here, which sadly enough in the case of sexual property like this, I imagine it makes you in some way feel better about yourself that someone has feelings for your partner and doesn’t have this type of relationship with them in some way; which is a second layer of feeling better because someone lost in order for you to win. Just like sports; failure is what causes you to celebrate. The second step is that to the extent you hoard your own sexuality; you are necessarily representing less love being distributed through the human population. I’m not saying sleep with anyone, because as we both know, sex is a matter of deserve, a person who has never raped a person, who is good company, always deserves sex more than a rapist, no matter what the rapist does later; if only raping atoners get sex, and non raping decent people don’t get sex, everyone will want to be a raping atoner. 2.) The nature of the vows are unethical in the first place. The analogy for conspicuous consumption is actually exact in that instance, (analogies seldom are) - weddings are exactly the conspicuous consumption of relationship in the same way that modifying the tailpipe of a truck is the conspicuous consumption of driving a truck down the road. Let me ask you this? Do you really think that somehow the relationship magically changes when you have a wedding; that you are both now closer? That it’s “real”? Was it just fake before? Actually, the wedding itself is fake; a flourish, it is accepting the delusion that the relationship couldn’t have ever been real or wasn’t real until you had it; a lie, a fake. It’s a lie. It’s a hypocrisy. A contradiction. 3.) Existence always exists, because if it ever ceased to exist, we, being a subset of existence, wouldn’t be here to have this discussion. Existence is the definition of perpetual motion. The proof for that is unassailable. 4.) Would you play solitaire if you won every time, or if you lost every time? I honestly 100% doubt it, I think the fact that it can be lost, is what appeals to you; that there are still losers. You can deny it, I don’t believe you. 5.) Heterosexual men don’t flirt with people they won’t have sex with; women do that constantly. I’ve repeatedly stated that in this thread. Flirting for men is approach escalation, approach escalation in a sex dimorphic species is wrong when you are a member of the stronger gender. 6.) I posted immediately after 7.) Life on this planet doesn’t always afford the opportunity in this context to remove the abuser, not everyone is a masochist; and forcing them to be such makes you a sadist, not everyone is a sadist. 8.) Asshole through omission is not speaking about the most serious sexual problems, in order to assure that the person is now informed about the abuse in order to raise awareness, and facilitate also the beginnings of a transparently consensual sexual act. It’s called taking social responsibility. Sexual stratification on the heterosexual male side, is a problem so severe in and of itself, that even if you were to stop all verbal abuse, all disease, all poverty, all starvation, all war, all homicide; women would commit no suicides, and men would still commit mass suicides. If this is not pointed out; the sex is ill-gotten gains. You were a neglect abuser to acquire it. ---
**Author:** ![Forest\_Green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8dc957/32.png) [@Forest\_Green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Forest_Green)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610/334 "2017-07-21T15:03:29Z")
Miller: Robbing someone at gunpoint is not hypocrisy? Hypocrisy is also when you have a standard that you say other people aren’t allowed to use except you. Think about that. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610/335 "2017-07-21T15:09:15Z")
> [@Forest\_Green](#): > > I did post number 6 immediately after. > > Number 1.) has 2 steps. To be upset that someone has a sexual interaction with your partner, that both you and your partner like, and that like each other, is a contradiction to the same behavior you and your partner use to even be together. I not only discussed the contradiction here, which sadly enough in the case of sexual property like this, I imagine it makes you in some way feel better about yourself that someone has feelings for your partner and doesn’t have this type of relationship with them in some way; which is a second layer of feeling better because someone lost in order for you to win. Just like sports; failure is what causes you to celebrate. The second step is that to the extent you hoard your own sexuality; you are necessarily representing less love being distributed through the human population. I’m not saying sleep with anyone, because as we both know, sex is a matter of deserve, a person who has never raped a person, who is good company, always deserves sex more than a rapist, no matter what the rapist does later; if only raping atoners get sex, and non raping decent people don’t get sex, everyone will want to be a raping atoner. > > 2.) The nature of the vows are unethical in the first place. The analogy for conspicuous consumption is actually exact in that instance, (analogies seldom are) - weddings are exactly the conspicuous consumption of relationship in the same way that modifying the tailpipe of a truck is the conspicuous consumption of driving a truck down the road. Let me ask you this? Do you really think that somehow the relationship magically changes when you have a wedding; that you are both now closer? That it’s “real”? Was it just fake before? Actually, the wedding itself is fake; a flourish, it is accepting the delusion that the relationship couldn’t have ever been real or wasn’t real until you had it; a lie, a fake. It’s a lie. It’s a hypocrisy. A contradiction. > > 3.) Existence always exists, because if it ever ceased to exist, we, being a subset of existence, wouldn’t be here to have this discussion. Existence is the definition of perpetual motion. The proof for that is unassailable. > > 4.) Would you play solitaire if you won every time, or if you lost every time? I honestly 100% doubt it, I think the fact that it can be lost, is what appeals to you; that there are still losers. You can deny it, I don’t believe you. > > 5.) Heterosexual men don’t flirt with people they won’t have sex with; women do that constantly. I’ve repeatedly stated that in this thread. Flirting for men is approach escalation, approach escalation in a sex dimorphic species is wrong when you are a member of the stronger gender. > > 6.) I posted immediately after > > 7.) Life on this planet doesn’t always afford the opportunity in this context to remove the abuser, not everyone is a masochist; and forcing them to be such makes you a sadist, not everyone is a sadist. > > 8.) Asshole through omission is not speaking about the most serious sexual problems, in order to assure that the person is now informed about the abuse in order to raise awareness, and facilitate also the beginnings of a transparently consensual sexual act. It’s called taking social responsibility. Sexual stratification on the heterosexual male side, is a problem so severe in and of itself, that even if you were to stop all verbal abuse, all disease, all poverty, all starvation, all war, all homicide; women would commit no suicides, and men would still commit mass suicides. If this is not pointed out; the sex is ill-gotten gains. You were a neglect abuser to acquire it. Reading this, I’m reminded of Carl Sagan, and his brilliant observation: “…they laughed at Bozo the clown, too.” ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610/336 "2017-07-21T15:13:45Z")
> [@Forest\_Green](#): > > Miller: Robbing someone at gunpoint is not hypocrisy? Hypocrisy is also when you have a standard that you say other people aren’t allowed to use except you. Think about that. I don’t think that word means weans what you think it means. “Hypo” means “below” and “Chrissy” was a character on _Three’s Company_. What does robbing someone at gunpoint have to do with playing cowgirl with a vacuous blonde? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610/337 "2017-07-21T15:26:39Z")
> [@Forest\_Green](#): > > Miller: Robbing someone at gunpoint is not hypocrisy? That’s correct-Very good! ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610/338 "2017-07-21T15:27:22Z")
> [@Forest\_Green](#): > > Miller: Robbing someone at gunpoint is not hypocrisy? Hypocrisy is also when you have a standard that you say other people aren’t allowed to use except you. Think about that. And how does that apply to armed robbery? ---
**Author:** ![Forest\_Green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8dc957/32.png) [@Forest\_Green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Forest_Green)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610/339 "2017-07-21T15:33:01Z")
I want to state a mass confusion people have about their fantasy worlds, and I’m directing it more at heterosexual females, because the situation is more critical to that regard. In the female fantasy world, people can’t deserve sex more than another person, even though they have the highest stratifying of any sexual group in the human species - which is hypocrisy. They have such a narrow view of this, that in their fantasy world, a raping atoner deserves sex more than non-rapists, and the non rapists, in order to be good guys, aren’t supposed to have any feelings that this is wrong, if they do, obviously they were undeserving of sex, and the female made the right choice. What females don’t understand, is that it actually does hurt, a lot to have such severe sexual stratification, in and of itself, compounded by the fact that the most deserving males in the species have a zero percent chance of having sex. Zero. Just like other people are not your robots when it comes to “your” partner, where they all live in this fantasy world where they have to stop being like you, in order to make you happy, the men of this world aren’t just robots when they work hard to deserve sex, in the case that sex is being distributed, and cannot get it. When I made the comment about, if only raping atoners got sex, then all the men would want to be raping atoners… that’s not actually true, some men have depth of character, and this depth of character, people with real feelings, will simply commit suicide. The things women don’t want men to have, the thing that women claim makes them undeserving (the man having feelings). They’re not stupid, they know females will never have sex with good men. ---
**Author:** ![Forest\_Green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8dc957/32.png) [@Forest\_Green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Forest_Green)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610/340 "2017-07-21T15:35:05Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > And how does that apply to armed robbery? So nobody is allowed to use armed robbery you? Are you no longer a hypocrite if everyone has a gun, and the new vocation is armed robbery for all 7 billion of us, because that’s the new law? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/solution-to-ethics/791610.md?page=18)