Page 1 of 8

World's happiest man..

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:44 am
by Bombadil
Anna and Lucy DeCinque, the women dubbed the “world’s most identical twins”, have revealed the surprising reason they want to both to get pregnant at the same time by their shared boyfriend.


It is, actually, quite a surprising reason.

The Perth women explained the idea, which would make their future children both half-sibling and cousin, actually came from their mum Jeanna.


Good idea.. mum!

Discussing the complications of trying to fall pregnant at the same time, the pair admitted it would be a difficult.
“It’s going to be another challenge. There’s a lot of pressure on Ben.”


Yeah, real pressure bro'

The pair met their boyfriend Ben in 2012, explaining to The Sun that they came as a “package”. “We were upfront that we came as a package, and he insisted that was fine with him,” Anna said.


I bet he insisted..

'no, seriously girls, I'm like totally fine sleeping with both of you..'
'are you sure?'
'I've never been more sure of anything in my life'.


Technically I cannot see anything wrong with this, I don't even suppose it's against the law in any way. However do you think it's right? I will add that they seem to have spent what in my view is a relatively obscene amount of money on cosmetic surgery.

In November last year, the siblings unveiled their new “natural” look after spending $250,000 on surgery, admitting they regretted spending that amount of cash on cosmetic procedures.


Something seems off with a family that indulges in this way but each to their own I guess.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:47 am
by Valentine Z
I generally am saddened that someone took that title away from me.

For the topic itself, I'm not sure about it. Sharing the same boyfriend? It feels very, very odd, though at least it's not inbreeding. It's just polygamy, though "bi-gamy".

In short, I am sort of neutral on this. It's not illegal, and it's not cheating if all 3 of them are fine, but... what a weird love triangle!

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:49 am
by Western Vale Confederacy
I could've sworn I watched smutty videos about that!

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:50 am
by Thermodolia
Valentine Z wrote:I generally am saddened that someone took that title away from me.

For the topic itself, I'm not sure about it. Sharing the same boyfriend? It feels very, very odd, though at least it's not inbreeding. It's just polygamy, though "bi-gamy".

In short, I am sort of neutral on this. It's not illegal, and it's not cheating if all 3 of them are fine, but... what a weird love triangle!

Well it’s not illegal in some parts of the world, though it might be a cultural no no

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:52 am
by Bombadil
Thermodolia wrote:
Valentine Z wrote:I generally am saddened that someone took that title away from me.

For the topic itself, I'm not sure about it. Sharing the same boyfriend? It feels very, very odd, though at least it's not inbreeding. It's just polygamy, though "bi-gamy".

In short, I am sort of neutral on this. It's not illegal, and it's not cheating if all 3 of them are fine, but... what a weird love triangle!

Well it’s not illegal in some parts of the world, though it might be a cultural no no


I'm not sure how illegal it is anywhere.. they're not married, they're just getting pregnant - though I'm sure there's countries where being pregnant without being married is illegal.

EDIT: that bastion of human rights that is the World Cup hosting Qatar for example..

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:54 am
by Deutschess Kaiserreich
Better love triangle than twilight

I don't know if there's a love triangle in twilight but that shit shows done everything and did it bad

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:57 am
by The Blaatschapen
Do you have a link to the source?

:blush:


This is fine btw.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:58 am
by New haven america
I didn't know who you were talking about so I looked up pictures of them.

Are we sure these 2 are actually people and not just robots? Cause I'm getting some roboty vibes from them.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:59 am
by Bombadil
New haven america wrote:I didn't know who you were talking about so I looked up pictures of them.

Are we sure these 2 are actually people and not just robots? Cause I'm getting some roboty vibes from them.


Yeah.. that's kind of why I didn't link to the source, I felt their appearance might colour the discussion.. however here it is for the source nazis..

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real- ... 581bcb695f

Part of me feels they've been overly indulged in attention and this is a result, the need for evermore attention.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:11 am
by Dawetid
This is why we need to keep monogamy, and only allow sexual relationship between spouses. If they really want a child, then they can go and adopt.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:13 am
by New haven america
Dawetid wrote:This is why we need to keep monogamy, and only allow sexual relationship between spouses. If they really want a child, then they can go and adopt.

Let's not and say we didn't.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:16 am
by Dawetid
New haven america wrote:
Dawetid wrote:This is why we need to keep monogamy, and only allow sexual relationship between spouses. If they really want a child, then they can go and adopt.

Let's not and say we didn't.

I’m not sure about you, but I prefer to have moral standards, even if it means sacrificing pleasure.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:17 am
by New haven america
Dawetid wrote:
New haven america wrote:Let's not and say we didn't.

I’m not sure about you, but I prefer to have moral standards, even if it means sacrificing pleasure.

Morals are subjective.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:19 am
by The Legion of the Shadow
It's a bit strange, but they're not doing anything wrong or illegal, so I'm fine with it. And that guy's probably pretty happy. :)

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:21 am
by The Free Joy State
I find this set-up a little weird, but as long as all parties are fully-consenting adults who are happy with the situation, no-one's being cheated on and everyone can leave if they wish... it's none of my business what they do in the bedroom.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:25 am
by Dogmeat
Bombadil wrote:
New haven america wrote:I didn't know who you were talking about so I looked up pictures of them.

Are we sure these 2 are actually people and not just robots? Cause I'm getting some roboty vibes from them.


Yeah.. that's kind of why I didn't link to the source, I felt their appearance might colour the discussion.. however here it is for the source nazis..

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real- ... 581bcb695f

Part of me feels they've been overly indulged in attention and this is a result, the need for evermore attention.

Their appearance is... quite distracting. Yes.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:28 am
by The Galactic Supremacy
New haven america wrote:
Dawetid wrote:I’m not sure about you, but I prefer to have moral standards, even if it means sacrificing pleasure.

Morals are subjective.


Honestly, if you hold that morals are subjective and can be subject to change, you yourself hold no morals. Morality is objectively a way to distinguish between right and wrong, and if you say these principles can change in any way, by the will of the people, through the passing of time, or whatever, that alone disproves subjective morality.

Morality is objectively decided by certain unchanged principles.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:30 am
by Dawetid
The Galactic Supremacy wrote:
New haven america wrote:Morals are subjective.


Honestly, if you hold that morals are subjective and can be subject to change, you yourself hold no morals. Morality is objectively a way to distinguish between right and wrong, and if you say these principles can change in any way, by the will of the people, through the passing of time, or whatever, that alone disproves subjective morality.

Morality is objectively decided by certain unchanged principles.

Permission to quote in my signature?

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:33 am
by New haven america
The Galactic Supremacy wrote:
New haven america wrote:Morals are subjective.


Honestly, if you hold that morals are subjective and can be subject to change, you yourself hold no morals. Morality is objectively a way to distinguish between right and wrong, and if you say these principles can change in any way, by the will of the people, through the passing of time, or whatever, that alone disproves subjective morality.

Morality is objectively decided by certain unchanged principles.

And if you told the Kali Hindu worshippers of India that human sacrifice is bad, well then you'd probably be sacrificed to Kali as that is basically a blasphemous statement towards them. (Well, they kinda can't now cause the Indian government has told them not to, but it ain't stoppin' them from trying)

Morality only means what a group decides it means, and that is subject to change throughout the world.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:35 am
by The Galactic Supremacy
Dawetid wrote:
The Galactic Supremacy wrote:
Honestly, if you hold that morals are subjective and can be subject to change, you yourself hold no morals. Morality is objectively a way to distinguish between right and wrong, and if you say these principles can change in any way, by the will of the people, through the passing of time, or whatever, that alone disproves subjective morality.

Morality is objectively decided by certain unchanged principles.

Permission to quote in my signature?

Absolutely.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:37 am
by The Free Joy State
The Galactic Supremacy wrote:
New haven america wrote:Morals are subjective.


Honestly, if you hold that morals are subjective and can be subject to change, you yourself hold no morals. Morality is objectively a way to distinguish between right and wrong, and if you say these principles can change in any way, by the will of the people, through the passing of time, or whatever, that alone disproves subjective morality.

Morality is objectively decided by certain unchanged principles.

Certain principles remain unchanged over time, because society has decided it is beneficial for them to remain so: murder is wrong, rape is wrong, etc.

Other principles have changed. Marrying a minor used to be acceptable (even quite recently; now, society is generally appalled by the idea). LGBTQ people used to be regarded as mentally ill; we have now learned that being gay is at least largely innate and that is no longer held to be true in most Western countries (except by a vocal minority). It used to be acceptable to beat your wife; now it will land you in jail in many countries. Writing with the left hand was regarded as evil (now we would probably laugh at anyone who made that assertion).

All moral standards that have changed with greater understanding. All of which suggests that morality is adapted from what is seen as the standard for the time.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:49 am
by Bombadil
The Free Joy State wrote:
The Galactic Supremacy wrote:
Honestly, if you hold that morals are subjective and can be subject to change, you yourself hold no morals. Morality is objectively a way to distinguish between right and wrong, and if you say these principles can change in any way, by the will of the people, through the passing of time, or whatever, that alone disproves subjective morality.

Morality is objectively decided by certain unchanged principles.

Certain principles remain unchanged over time, because society has decided it is beneficial for them to remain so: murder is wrong, rape is wrong, etc.

Other principles have changed. Marrying a minor used to be acceptable (even quite recently; now, society is generally appalled by the idea). LGBTQ people used to be regarded as mentally ill; we have now learned that being gay is at least largely innate and that is no longer held to be true in most Western countries (except by a vocal minority). It used to be acceptable to beat your wife; now it will land you in jail in many countries. Writing with the left hand was regarded as evil (now we would probably laugh at anyone who made that assertion).

All moral standards that have changed with greater understanding. All of which suggests that morality is adapted from what is seen as the standard for the time.


One might possibly derive some degree of objective morality on the basis of fairness, or aversion to inequity, that to take something, a life, an object or even sense of security, without due recompense is unfair and thus immoral. Primates recognise fairness, I doubt they recognise morality as much so I'd likely say morality arises, in part at least, from that sense of fairness.

Thus one might argue that in sleeping with twins the boyfriend is enjoying an unfair benefit, but unfair to whom? I suspect that argument doesn't stand and so this is not an immoral issue.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:53 am
by The Galactic Supremacy
New haven america wrote:
The Galactic Supremacy wrote:
Honestly, if you hold that morals are subjective and can be subject to change, you yourself hold no morals. Morality is objectively a way to distinguish between right and wrong, and if you say these principles can change in any way, by the will of the people, through the passing of time, or whatever, that alone disproves subjective morality.

Morality is objectively decided by certain unchanged principles.

And if you told the Kali Hindu worshippers of India that human sacrifice is bad, well then you'd probably be sacrificed to Kali as that is basically a blasphemous statement towards them. (Well, they kinda can't now cause the Indian government has told them not to, but it ain't stoppin' them from trying)

Morality only means what a group decides it means, and that is subject to change throughout the world.

No. No. That's cultural relativism. Morality, as mentioned previously, is the distinction of what is right and wrong, not the individual or collective perceptions of it. People can believe certain things to be right or wrong, but that does not universally determine what is right or wrong. And regarding your overly specific example, is murder in Country A not still murder in Country B? Obviously not. The nature of the action was not different, the opinion of the people regarding the action was different. It all comes down to what the people hold as principles to determine their opinion. If they value life, their culture will reflect it.

Your statement also is not able to explain moral overlaps between cultures on certain ethical issues, basically where all/most cultures agree that a certain action is right or wrong. These shared principles that cross-cultures is the single most reliable evidence that proves an objective morality and that there exists a higher moral code that is best considered the truth.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:54 am
by The Blaatschapen
Bombadil wrote:
New haven america wrote:I didn't know who you were talking about so I looked up pictures of them.

Are we sure these 2 are actually people and not just robots? Cause I'm getting some roboty vibes from them.


Yeah.. that's kind of why I didn't link to the source, I felt their appearance might colour the discussion.. however here it is for the source nazis..

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real- ... 581bcb695f

Part of me feels they've been overly indulged in attention and this is a result, the need for evermore attention.


I'm not a source nazi.

I'm just a bit pervy. Learn the difference :p

PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:00 am
by The Free Joy State
Bombadil wrote:
The Free Joy State wrote:Certain principles remain unchanged over time, because society has decided it is beneficial for them to remain so: murder is wrong, rape is wrong, etc.

Other principles have changed. Marrying a minor used to be acceptable (even quite recently; now, society is generally appalled by the idea). LGBTQ people used to be regarded as mentally ill; we have now learned that being gay is at least largely innate and that is no longer held to be true in most Western countries (except by a vocal minority). It used to be acceptable to beat your wife; now it will land you in jail in many countries. Writing with the left hand was regarded as evil (now we would probably laugh at anyone who made that assertion).

All moral standards that have changed with greater understanding. All of which suggests that morality is adapted from what is seen as the standard for the time.


One might possibly derive some degree of objective morality on the basis of fairness, or aversion to inequity, that to take something, a life, an object or even sense of security, without due recompense is unfair and thus immoral. Primates recognise fairness, I doubt they recognise morality as much so I'd likely say morality arises, in part at least, from that sense of fairness.

Thus one might argue that in sleeping with twins the boyfriend is enjoying an unfair benefit, but unfair to whom? I suspect that argument doesn't stand and so this is not an immoral issue.

I mean, I don't doubt someone would make an argument that -- by having two girlfriends -- the boyfriend is depriving another man of his chance at a girlfriend, and that would be unfair.

But, as no-one (contrary to what some persons seem to think) has an entitlement to either sex or love (thus the boyfriend is not taking someone's right) there's no unfairness there either.

I think there is an international, and cross-species (at least with certain primates) code that recognises fairness (prohibitions against murder, rape and robbery would apply). We could call that "morality". But, then you get so many people trying to bunch so many other cultural and historical laws, from various religious and philosophical texts, under that same umbrella (the whole pro-wife-beating/evil-left-handedness metric) and, of course, people get uncomfortable.