quote:

---

Originally written by Dikiyoba:

The essay looks good to me. The only thing I think it needs is to make everything after "...and to hold people to a higher standard than this will cause a host of problems." a new (and concluding) paragraph.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

The joke among those less enthused with the idea of spending another hour learning each week after already spending six hours each day in regular school was that CCD stood for Central City Dump, and in my opinion, it's equally as accurate a name as the official one.

---

Have you ever mentioned this before this topic? It sounds really familiar, and Dikiyoba is trying to decide whether Dikiyoba heard it from you or from someone else.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:

I completely agree with the main points in your essay. I like that you back your ideas with logic and even with personal experiences rather than preconceived notions. The one problem I have is that you deal mostly with separate examples, rather than tying your entire argument together at some point. Maybe you just don’t have one, but if you do, I am curious as to what your overall ‘rule’ is regarding morals. You make it clear that you don’t agree that going with ‘nature’ is always right. The closest you come to having such a ‘rule’ is probably when you say offending people is bad, but then you say that offending people can mean too many different things for that ever to be conceivable.

---

quote:

---

I’ll give you my own outlook on morals because it’s what I do. Tell me what you think.

Here is the single biggest problem with today's moral system: it is designed to protect the weak. It goes against nature to protect the weak, with one exception. Other than that one exception, the weak should be allowed to suffer. Honestly, how weak of mind and soul does someone have to be in order to be offended by a word to the point of being 'damaged?' These people are a burden on the species and should not be allowed to reproduce let alone get their way by censoring the strong. Such rules only weaken the strong, and we strong like profanity, it is a great way to add emphasis when you’re trying to make a ****ing point. The same goes for pornography. No one is shoving it down your throat, just show some damn fortitude you weaklings, and look the other way when confronted with it. Why try to deprive others that might benefit?

The one exception to this rule is children. Children are the most valuable natural resource known to man, and should be protected at all costs. Profanity should not hurt them to begin with, since they should not have preconceived notions about the words, the same goes for pornography, which is (in most cases) perfectly natural. As for the unnatural stuff, well, the child should be allowed to make the decision as to whether or not they enjoy it, rather than being told it is wrong outright. However, when it comes to physical acts, that is where even I must draw a line. Children are not mature enough to make decisions regarding their bodies. Though I would draw the line probably a little younger than 18, I agree with most laws regarding sex and minors that exist today.

But for everyone else, morals are useful only for protecting the weak. This is an ideal that society has gotten backwards. Why hinder yourself for the benefit of those that are already a burden on society? I’m not saying this in regard to all things, mind you. I believe in ‘an eye for an eye.’ Murder must be repaid with death, assault with torture, and theft with fines. These are all acts which are easily defined and punished. However, when it comes to profanity, religion, sexual preferences, thoughts or what-have-you, these things simple can not be punished, as punishing them would only do unnecessary damage to the offender. Those that are offended by these things don’t have to be offended, they choose to be. That is unacceptable to me, and it should be for all of us if we hope to move forward as a species.

Edit: I won’t comment on any grammatical errors because I believe this is also an instrument of the weak. Grammar standards only exist so that writings can be understandable to everyone. But really, only the weak really need to adhere to these standards. The strong, when allowed to move beyond them, can create and read things like poetry. I would rather see poetry than a bland essay, even if it does make your idea more understandable to the weak. But really, should the weak be reading this?

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Student of Trinity:

More importantly, a lot of traditional morality that deals with minor but common issues is based on a 'broken windows' theory. (This is the theory of community policing, which says that arresting vandals prevents drive-by shootings, and for which there seems to be some evidence.) In the Christian case this goes back to Jesus's frequent statement that 'the one who is faithful in little things will be faithful in big things'. Letting little things slip by fosters a mental climate, in one's own conscience if nowhere else, in which bigger and bigger things become easier and easier. So you need to use the little things to build your own integrity.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Student of Trinity:

One is that on little matters like swearing, the preferences of the many can outweigh the freedom of the one, no matter how irrational these preferences may be. If everyone in some village hates yellow, it's obnoxious for a stranger to go around waving yellow flags in their faces, no matter how innocent yellow may be in absolute terms. Obviously there are limits to this principle, but it seems to me that it does have some weight, which you neglect.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Nioca:

It, quite bluntly, is the sign of a shallow mind, and not because it's insulting. Using the word implies that you're basing an entire ethnic group on the behaviour of one person, or even worse, your own prejudice.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Ephesos:

[quote]

quote:

---

Originally written by The Almighty Do-er of Stuff:
I find it hard to imagine as well, because there probably is no such case. The point I was trying to make, rather, was that simply being attracted to children, and even such things as viewing lolicon hentai, neither of which involves actually engaging in sexual behavior with the child, harm nobody. Was the point unclear?

---

It was, a bit. It sounded like you were treating child abuse and pedophilia as separate entities. Either that, or I got confused and thought you meant the act of pedophilia instead of pedophilic thoughts.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Archimandrite Micawber:

As for the article... seems rather like a student conversation after a few drinks. Personal reflections; commonplace; of no particular interest to anyone else; that kind of thing. No offense, but if I were a publisher, I wouldn't print it. But I guess maybe the US magazine market is different, what would I know?

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Garrison:

I suggest you use standard citation style to make things a little clearer. Perhaps the University of Massachusettes uses a different style, but I'm pretty sure the MLA would have you internally cite, for instance, the second source as (Slack). The bibliography itself should be alphabetized by the author's last name.

---

quote:

---

This is awkward and creates a break of flow and narrator character. I suggest specifically mentioning Crowley in the text of your essay. The "for your convenience" phrase also breaks character and I suggest smoothing it out.

---

quote:

---

Again, I am not familiar with the style of The Watermark, but parenthetical information is usually meant to be terse and used sparingly. Some of the ones you use are little long. I can see you making a rational argument for the use of each, but the question to ask is whether they are all necessary.

The divine brick joke, for instance, is fine for the tone of the essay, but the line "...a situation for which we are highly unlikely to find any evidence within our lifetimes anyway" is a little lengthy.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

[b](I am reluctant to speak in absolutes with regards to morals, as the world we live in contains a great deal of variety in circumstance that is rarely adequately covered by blanket rules; hence, I said “most likely.” This is the basis for a large part of my system of beliefs, but I digress.)

---

This could probably be taken out of parenthesis without losing any meaning.[/b][/quote[

The sentence itself wouldn't lose meaning, but the parentheses here are meant to mark the text within as a side note that is not directly relevant to the paragraph containing it, but is nevertheless important to understand, as I use subjective statements throughout the essay that would otherwise give the essay an unsure and inconsistent tone.

quote:

---

[b] ...or wishing he could punch the jerk who was apparently in such a hurry that he had to roughly shove him aside?

---

Additionally, it seems a bit wordy.[/b]

---

quote:

---

In the second paragraph, "and which set" could be changed to "and set."

---

quote:

---

"thinking about going to bed with him or her" seems more natural in common usage than "thinking about bedding them."

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

The teacher had gotten done what he needed to get done that day and decided he didn't want to teach anymore.

---

I just wanted to point out a change in tone. It's fine otherwise.

---

quote:

---

Regarding your arguments, I think they are logical enough for people to take them seriously. However, a university magazine might require more of you since I suspect they receive many essays like yours.

---

quote:

---

Upon close and rhetorical scrutiny, your essay would need concrete arguments with clear premises.

---

quote:

---

The emphasis of logic over arbitrarily assigned "divine" morals is clearly the focus in your essay, but I felt it denies any inherent goodness in people.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally written by The Almighty Do-er of Stuff:

So fools do not have as much of a right to speak their minds as everyone else? Who decides who is a fool and who is not?

---

They are enfranchised to it, though it might not be right to do it.

---