Yeah, that’s phlegmpeen.
I hipe you never get a Shih Tzu.
Or a Cocker Spaniel.
Hey!! Bernie was named by my young son, because it was nominally “his” dog (guess who had to do all the work and pay and all the expenses, though?). And it actually came from his name for a gigantic plush toy Saint Bernard that he got when he was about six, which was bigger than he was at the time…
So go ahead, mock a six-year-old’s idea for a dog name. 
On the plus side, you could copyright the name and sue everyone else who uses it.
(more words here)
@Max_S regales us with his latest what-if scenario. Thankfully it got locked fairly quickly, with even the title changed to something less odious.
Yeah, that was a surprising and strange departure for him. I guess he’s got a day to think on his sins.
I legitimately like @Max_S, what the hell?! I hope that maybe he was low on blood sugar or something and this is an anomaly.
That’s not trolling, that’s just…wildly inappropriate oversharing. Good call on the mods’ part.
Now I’m genuinely curious what the original title was. Can’t be any worse than the actual text of his OP, can it?
Not grokking how hoomon interaction works is kind of his schtick, this is just more of the same. A little further, but not off-brand, really.
Yeah, this reminds me of when he talked about gay and/or trans people, saying he considered them to have a “mental disorder”, and that he didn’t understand why anyone would have a problem with that statement; but before anyone could actually be offended he gave his own definition of the word “disorder” which basically meant “not common” (which, statistically, is pretty clearly true) and “not negative or wrong, just not the most common state of things”.
Like… “disorder” is an emotionally loaded term; if you say “I don’t understand why anyone has a problem with that term once I strip it of all of that negative context by specifying a very non-standard definition of the word” you, as MrDibble said, don’t really grokk how hoomon interaction works.
No, it wasn’t. It kinda summarized to OP. But titles are a lot more prominent when you browse the site than a random post is, so they matter more.
Threads that challenge moral axioms are hard to have when those most likely to participate don’t understand the principles of debate on ethical codes.
I could or could not agree with you, depending on what exactly you mean. If you mean that you have to be very careful when presenting these types of arguments if they involve something considered especially heinous, treating them with respect, then I agree. Max_S failed to do this. His post reads like “I’m trying to find a scenario where rape is okay”–like his goal is to justify rape. He does not seem to actually realize that many people may be rape victims, and that you should not discuss that topic flippantly. You need to set up this sort of thing very carefully, and make sure you have receptive audience that is okay with the discussion.
However, it’s also very possible that you’re trying to argue some principle like “you’re not allowed to get offended” or other such nonsense. That somehow debating “ethical codes” resolves you of the obligations of normal conversation. This is obviously not the case.
Finally, it’s possible you mean some principles that I am not thinking of or am not aware of. In which case, I would ask you to describe them.
Whichever it is, more details would be nice. Though, if it’s the second one, I would understand if you didn’t want to bring it up, as no one here is going to agree with that.
Waiting for “Argle Bargle Hive Mind!”
Who was it years ago that had the idea of surgically altering and shaving chimpanzees so you could have a legal bordello?
Can’t be a complete stranger to them, can he? I got the impression that he is married.
Yeah, you do have to be careful because the audience here is emotionally juvenile. I’m not sure why since such pride is taken in fighting ignorance and participating in neutered debates.
Ultimately the one truth in the universe is might makes right. However, in human societies we have different sets of moral codes that different people follow. These are based on sets of axiomatic principles that differ over time and space and even in a particular society are nowhere near universally adopted or agreed upon. Why or how these developed is irrelevant. What is relevant is that different sets of principles do exist and followed logically result in different conclusions of what is moral.
Max had a pretty contrived scenario that presented a stark choice and forced people to examine the underlying nature of morality. Which is that a particular conclusion of what is or is not moral is not an absolute truth.
Now, would I participate in such a thread? Not here with this emotionally immature audience and their enablers. It’s too fundamental and would serve no productive purpose other than to point out that obvious fact.
Luckily for you, I’m learning Buzzletongue! Bzz Bzz bzzz, bzzz!
Nothing I have seen indicates this. And he’s pretty young. Have you maybe gotten him mixed up with someone else.