Why Young Americans Can’t Think Morally

[Mister D]

Last week, David Brooks of the New York Times wrote a column on an academic study concerning the nearly complete lack of a moral vocabulary among most American young people. Here are excerpts from Brooks’s summary of the study of Americans aged 18 to 23. It was led by “the eminent Notre Dame sociologist Christian Smith”:

snip


“When asked to describe a moral dilemma they had faced, two-thirds of the young people either couldn’t answer the question or described problems that are not moral at all.”

snip

One key reason is what secularism does to moral standards. If moral standards are not rooted in God, they do not objectively exist. Good and evil are no more real than “yummy” and “yucky.” They are simply a matter of personal preference. One of the foremost liberal philosophers, Richard Rorty, an atheist, acknowledged that for the secular liberal, “There is no answer to the question, ‘Why not be cruel?’”
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/277693/why-young-americans-can-t-think-morally-dennis-prager]
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/277693/why-young-americans-can-t-think-morally-dennis-prager (http://[url)

[Conley]

One of the foremost liberal philosophers, Richard Rorty, an atheist, acknowledged that for the secular liberal, “There is no answer to the question, ‘Why not be cruel?’”

It seems to me even secular liberals have many reasons to not be cruel. I mean from a purely self-interest standpoint - being shunned by society, difficulty at work, problems with law enforcement, etc.

[Mister D]

One of the foremost liberal philosophers, Richard Rorty, an atheist, acknowledged that for the secular liberal, “There is no answer to the question, ‘Why not be cruel?’”

It seems to me even secular liberals have many reasons to not be cruel. I mean from a purely self-interest standpoint - being shunned by society, difficulty at work, problems with law enforcement, etc.


It isn't a question of whether an athesit or whatever can be a moral person. The issue is what we ultimately base our morality on. Sure, what you say is reasonable but ultimately Rorty is right. Why not be cruel? What is the ultimate justification for not being cruel particularly if being cruel is to my advantage in a given circumstance?

[Conley]

One of the foremost liberal philosophers, Richard Rorty, an atheist, acknowledged that for the secular liberal, “There is no answer to the question, ‘Why not be cruel?’”

It seems to me even secular liberals have many reasons to not be cruel. I mean from a purely self-interest standpoint - being shunned by society, difficulty at work, problems with law enforcement, etc.


It isn't a question of whether an athesit or whatever can be a moral person. The issue is what we ultimately base our morality on. Sure, what you say is reasonable but ultimately Rorty is right. Why not be cruel? What is the ultimate justification for not being cruel particularly if being cruel is to my advantage in a given circumstance?


Well there are plenty of examples of altruism in animal species as well. It really depends on the circumstances and I take issue with the blanket statement.

[Conley]

Here's the link if others are having trouble like I was -- this should work I think

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/277693/why-young-americans-can-t-think-morally-dennis-prager

[Mister D]

One of the foremost liberal philosophers, Richard Rorty, an atheist, acknowledged that for the secular liberal, “There is no answer to the question, ‘Why not be cruel?’”

It seems to me even secular liberals have many reasons to not be cruel. I mean from a purely self-interest standpoint - being shunned by society, difficulty at work, problems with law enforcement, etc.


It isn't a question of whether an athesit or whatever can be a moral person. The issue is what we ultimately base our morality on. Sure, what you say is reasonable but ultimately Rorty is right. Why not be cruel? What is the ultimate justification for not being cruel particularly if being cruel is to my advantage in a given circumstance?


Well there are plenty of examples of altruism in animal species as well. It really depends on the circumstances and I take issue with the blanket statement.


There very well may be but what does that suggest to you? What blanket statement do you take issue with?

Why do my links keep getting screwed up? ???

[Conley]

I think because you are using that [ url ] thing

You can just post the link directly and it automatically turns clickable I think

http://politirant.com

edit: yeah it converts auto

[Mister D]

I think because you are using that [ url ] thing

You can just post the link directly and it automatically turns clickable I think

http://politirant.com


Oh. I though i was supposed to do that. I'll just paste it from now on.

[Conley]

One of the foremost liberal philosophers, Richard Rorty, an atheist, acknowledged that for the secular liberal, “There is no answer to the question, ‘Why not be cruel?’”

It seems to me even secular liberals have many reasons to not be cruel. I mean from a purely self-interest standpoint - being shunned by society, difficulty at work, problems with law enforcement, etc.


It isn't a question of whether an athesit or whatever can be a moral person. The issue is what we ultimately base our morality on. Sure, what you say is reasonable but ultimately Rorty is right. Why not be cruel? What is the ultimate justification for not being cruel particularly if being cruel is to my advantage in a given circumstance?


Well there are plenty of examples of altruism in animal species as well. It really depends on the circumstances and I take issue with the blanket statement.


There very well may be but what does that suggest to you? What blanket statement do you take issue with?

Why do my links keep getting screwed up? ???


That in the absence of morality cruelty is the chosen solution. I really don't think it's as bleak a picture as being painted. Most kids do know right from wrong. The older generation complaining about the younger one has been going on since recorded history. Anyhow I thought religion in this country was just as strong as before? Are the atheists growing?

[Mister D]

One of the foremost liberal philosophers, Richard Rorty, an atheist, acknowledged that for the secular liberal, “There is no answer to the question, ‘Why not be cruel?’”

It seems to me even secular liberals have many reasons to not be cruel. I mean from a purely self-interest standpoint - being shunned by society, difficulty at work, problems with law enforcement, etc.


It isn't a question of whether an athesit or whatever can be a moral person. The issue is what we ultimately base our morality on. Sure, what you say is reasonable but ultimately Rorty is right. Why not be cruel? What is the ultimate justification for not being cruel particularly if being cruel is to my advantage in a given circumstance?


Well there are plenty of examples of altruism in animal species as well. It really depends on the circumstances and I take issue with the blanket statement.


There very well may be but what does that suggest to you? What blanket statement do you take issue with?

Why do my links keep getting screwed up? ???


That in the absence of morality cruelty is the chosen solution. I really don't think it's as bleak a picture as being painted. Most kids do know right from wrong. The older generation complaining about the younger one has been going on since recorded history. Anyhow I thought religion in this country was just as strong as before? Are the atheists growing?


The point, as I understand it, is that the concepts of right and wrong don't actually mean anything anymore at least not in our public life. They are becoming increasingly relativized. That's not because people won't do the "right" thing but because there is no ultimate justification (i.e. a logical, rational one) for a decision between "right" and "wrong". How can we even define those terms? Indeed, why not be cruel when it suits me to be so? He's not saying society is going down the tubes but only that secularization (he appears to identify secularization with a decline in our traditional Christian ethical system) has had very real social consequences.

Christians should be teaching their children to live a certain way but everyone ultimately makes that decision for themselves. It should not surprise us that our childrens' conceptions of morality are a little confused given the messages they receive from a culture that celebrates relativistism.

[Conley]

Right, but in my mind there are very logical rules for doing what is 'right' in our society...perhaps it won't always be so if our culture completely abandons our traditions (though I think this is very unlikely). I could be cruel and shoplift from the corner market, but logically I won't because the risk of confrontation, arrest, etc. make it foolish. If we all lived in the wild then some aspects would be different - not all as there are plenty of examples in the animal kingdom - but there are many logical reasons to not be cruel and to act in concert with what is considered right and just. You can't be a jackass in our society and get away with it for too long before something in turn happens back to you.

[Conley]

Anyway I thought you left :P :D

[Mister D]

Right, but in my mind there are very logical rules for doing what is 'right' in our society...perhaps it won't always be so if our culture completely abandons our traditions (though I think this is very unlikely). I could be cruel and shoplift from the corner market, but logically I won't because the risk of confrontation, arrest, etc. make it foolish. If we all lived in the wild then some aspects would be different - not all as there are plenty of examples in the animal kingdom - but there are many logical reasons to not be cruel and to act in concert with what is considered right and just. You can't be a jackass in our society and get away with it for too long before something in turn happens back to you.


I must not be explaining this well. None of what you said is false but it misses the point. Two things: 1) If your decision not to behave a certain way is based on the possibility of punishment (confrontation, arrest etc.) it has nothing to do with morality and 2) this isn't a question of what is reasonable and what is not. What he is saying is that there is no ultimate justification for good behavior. Why should I choose the good in and of itself? The threat of punishment does not factor in. For example, stealing is against the law and you can make the case that I might get caught if I steal so therefore I shouldn't steal. Fine. That's a reasonable position but it's not what we are talking about. The risk of the penalty makes stealing less than worthwhile but our attitude toward stealing should be a moral one. It is simply wrong to take what does not belong to me. Is that clearer?

I understand what you're saying but what the author suggests is not that society is gong to fall apart overnight. There are ample reasons to do what is "right". The problem is that not only that what is "right" has become hopelessly subjective but the ethical system our young people are introduced to these days has no foundation. Yes, there are penalties for "bad" behavior but what is ultimately right or wrong is ultimately a matter of how I happen to feel about it.

[Conley]

Right, but in my mind there are very logical rules for doing what is 'right' in our society...perhaps it won't always be so if our culture completely abandons our traditions (though I think this is very unlikely). I could be cruel and shoplift from the corner market, but logically I won't because the risk of confrontation, arrest, etc. make it foolish. If we all lived in the wild then some aspects would be different - not all as there are plenty of examples in the animal kingdom - but there are many logical reasons to not be cruel and to act in concert with what is considered right and just. You can't be a jackass in our society and get away with it for too long before something in turn happens back to you.


I must not be explaining this well. None of what you said is false but it misses the point. Two things: 1) If your decision not to behave a certain way is based on the possibility of punishment (confrontation, arrest etc.) it has nothing to do with morality


To me this underscores my point. In the absence of morality we both agree there is still a logical reason to not be cruel. Yes?

[Conley]

So in reply to : "There is no answer to the question, ‘Why not be cruel?’”"

I simply disagree with the author. Logic is the answer to the question.

[Mister D]

Right, but in my mind there are very logical rules for doing what is 'right' in our society...perhaps it won't always be so if our culture completely abandons our traditions (though I think this is very unlikely). I could be cruel and shoplift from the corner market, but logically I won't because the risk of confrontation, arrest, etc. make it foolish. If we all lived in the wild then some aspects would be different - not all as there are plenty of examples in the animal kingdom - but there are many logical reasons to not be cruel and to act in concert with what is considered right and just. You can't be a jackass in our society and get away with it for too long before something in turn happens back to you.


I must not be explaining this well. None of what you said is false but it misses the point. Two things: 1) If your decision not to behave a certain way is based on the possibility of punishment (confrontation, arrest etc.) it has nothing to do with morality


To me this underscores my point. In the absence of morality we both agree there is still a logical reason to not be cruel. Yes?


Agreed but there are as many logical reasons to be cruel as reasons not to be cruel.

[Mister D]

So in reply to : "There is no answer to the question, ‘Why not be cruel?’”"

I simply disagree with the author. Logic is the answer to the question.


But you and the author are talking about different things. He is discussing morality while you are suggesting that there are logical reasons why people will do what's "right" that have nothing to do with their conscience. I agree with both of you. I would only add in reference to your point that there are perfectly logical reasons to do what is "wrong".

[Conley]

Right, but in my mind there are very logical rules for doing what is 'right' in our society...perhaps it won't always be so if our culture completely abandons our traditions (though I think this is very unlikely). I could be cruel and shoplift from the corner market, but logically I won't because the risk of confrontation, arrest, etc. make it foolish. If we all lived in the wild then some aspects would be different - not all as there are plenty of examples in the animal kingdom - but there are many logical reasons to not be cruel and to act in concert with what is considered right and just. You can't be a jackass in our society and get away with it for too long before something in turn happens back to you.


I must not be explaining this well. None of what you said is false but it misses the point. Two things: 1) If your decision not to behave a certain way is based on the possibility of punishment (confrontation, arrest etc.) it has nothing to do with morality


To me this underscores my point. In the absence of morality we both agree there is still a logical reason to not be cruel. Yes?


Agreed but there are as many logical reasons to be cruel as reasons not to be cruel.


Well...I don't know how we could even resolve that. I disagree but I'm not sure how I could prove it. :D Good discussion though.

[Conley]

So in reply to : "There is no answer to the question, ‘Why not be cruel?’”"

I simply disagree with the author. Logic is the answer to the question.


But you and the author are talking about different things. He is discussing morality while you are suggesting that there are logical reasons why people will do what's "right" that have nothing to do with their conscience. I agree with both of you. I would only add in reference to your point that there are perfectly logical reasons to do what is "wrong".


Would you say that I am taking his question out of context then?

[Mister D]

Right, but in my mind there are very logical rules for doing what is 'right' in our society...perhaps it won't always be so if our culture completely abandons our traditions (though I think this is very unlikely). I could be cruel and shoplift from the corner market, but logically I won't because the risk of confrontation, arrest, etc. make it foolish. If we all lived in the wild then some aspects would be different - not all as there are plenty of examples in the animal kingdom - but there are many logical reasons to not be cruel and to act in concert with what is considered right and just. You can't be a jackass in our society and get away with it for too long before something in turn happens back to you.


I must not be explaining this well. None of what you said is false but it misses the point. Two things: 1) If your decision not to behave a certain way is based on the possibility of punishment (confrontation, arrest etc.) it has nothing to do with morality


To me this underscores my point. In the absence of morality we both agree there is still a logical reason to not be cruel. Yes?


Agreed but there are as many logical reasons to be cruel as reasons not to be cruel.


Well...I don't know how we could even resolve that. I disagree but I'm not sure how I could prove it. :D Good discussion though.


Bingo. We probably couldn't resolve that and that's what he is getting at.

Yes, and we need more of them. I will try to start getting a little more serious. I think Grumpy has a point.

[Mister D]

So in reply to : "There is no answer to the question, ‘Why not be cruel?’”"

I simply disagree with the author. Logic is the answer to the question.


But you and the author are talking about different things. He is discussing morality while you are suggesting that there are logical reasons why people will do what's "right" that have nothing to do with their conscience. I agree with both of you. I would only add in reference to your point that there are perfectly logical reasons to do what is "wrong".


Would you say that I am taking his question out of context then?


No, I think I may have worded myself poorly.

[Conley]

Right, but in my mind there are very logical rules for doing what is 'right' in our society...perhaps it won't always be so if our culture completely abandons our traditions (though I think this is very unlikely). I could be cruel and shoplift from the corner market, but logically I won't because the risk of confrontation, arrest, etc. make it foolish. If we all lived in the wild then some aspects would be different - not all as there are plenty of examples in the animal kingdom - but there are many logical reasons to not be cruel and to act in concert with what is considered right and just. You can't be a jackass in our society and get away with it for too long before something in turn happens back to you.


I must not be explaining this well. None of what you said is false but it misses the point. Two things: 1) If your decision not to behave a certain way is based on the possibility of punishment (confrontation, arrest etc.) it has nothing to do with morality


To me this underscores my point. In the absence of morality we both agree there is still a logical reason to not be cruel. Yes?


Agreed but there are as many logical reasons to be cruel as reasons not to be cruel.


Well...I don't know how we could even resolve that. I disagree but I'm not sure how I could prove it. :D Good discussion though.


Bingo. We probably couldn't resolve that and that's what he is getting at.

Yes, and we need more of them. I will try to start getting a little more serious. I think Grumpy has a point.


I think there's room for both. We can joke about Centurion slugs or talk about deeper issues. I don't want us to have a bug up our butts about it...wherever the discussion goes.

[Mister D]

Right, but in my mind there are very logical rules for doing what is 'right' in our society...perhaps it won't always be so if our culture completely abandons our traditions (though I think this is very unlikely). I could be cruel and shoplift from the corner market, but logically I won't because the risk of confrontation, arrest, etc. make it foolish. If we all lived in the wild then some aspects would be different - not all as there are plenty of examples in the animal kingdom - but there are many logical reasons to not be cruel and to act in concert with what is considered right and just. You can't be a jackass in our society and get away with it for too long before something in turn happens back to you.


I must not be explaining this well. None of what you said is false but it misses the point. Two things: 1) If your decision not to behave a certain way is based on the possibility of punishment (confrontation, arrest etc.) it has nothing to do with morality


To me this underscores my point. In the absence of morality we both agree there is still a logical reason to not be cruel. Yes?


Agreed but there are as many logical reasons to be cruel as reasons not to be cruel.


Well...I don't know how we could even resolve that. I disagree but I'm not sure how I could prove it. :D Good discussion though.


Bingo. We probably couldn't resolve that and that's what he is getting at.

Yes, and we need more of them. I will try to start getting a little more serious. I think Grumpy has a point.


I think there's room for both. We can joke about Centurion slugs or talk about deeper issues. I don't want us to have a bug up our butts about it...wherever the discussion goes.


No doubt, man. I can't be here as much as I am and engage in serious discussion the whole time. These are the kind of discussions that genuinely distract from my work. :-[ The banter is no big deal. Print some checks...leave a comment...calm a client down...leave a comment...so on and so on.

[Mister D]

Maybe I should try and start or continue at least one serious discussion topic per day.

[Conley]

Right, but in my mind there are very logical rules for doing what is 'right' in our society...perhaps it won't always be so if our culture completely abandons our traditions (though I think this is very unlikely). I could be cruel and shoplift from the corner market, but logically I won't because the risk of confrontation, arrest, etc. make it foolish. If we all lived in the wild then some aspects would be different - not all as there are plenty of examples in the animal kingdom - but there are many logical reasons to not be cruel and to act in concert with what is considered right and just. You can't be a jackass in our society and get away with it for too long before something in turn happens back to you.


I must not be explaining this well. None of what you said is false but it misses the point. Two things: 1) If your decision not to behave a certain way is based on the possibility of punishment (confrontation, arrest etc.) it has nothing to do with morality


To me this underscores my point. In the absence of morality we both agree there is still a logical reason to not be cruel. Yes?


Agreed but there are as many logical reasons to be cruel as reasons not to be cruel.


Well...I don't know how we could even resolve that. I disagree but I'm not sure how I could prove it. :D Good discussion though.


Bingo. We probably couldn't resolve that and that's what he is getting at.

Yes, and we need more of them. I will try to start getting a little more serious. I think Grumpy has a point.


I think there's room for both. We can joke about Centurion slugs or talk about deeper issues. I don't want us to have a bug up our butts about it...wherever the discussion goes.


No doubt, man. I can't be here as much as I am and engage in serious discussion the whole time. These are the kind of discussions that genuinely distract from my work. :-[ The banter is no big deal. Print some checks...leave a comment...calm a client down...leave a comment...so on and so on.


Yep, exactly my thoughts.

[MMC]

They followed their feelings.

Without God and Judeo-Christian religions, what else is there?.....snip~

Everything and nothing!!!!!
Does Morality come from Righteousness or is it the other way round?

[MMC]

Oh and another thing.....even in a serious discussion there are moments of levity. Consider the average conversation about whats going on in this country. People are talking and they are serious about the discussion. Then an agreement on something breaks the convo. Levity usually steps in. A laugh, an after thought, a joke. If the topic is serious it will immediately fall back into that play. Despite the break in a moment in time.

When I talk about any issue. I think people will know if I am talking or just bull-shiting.
or Shooting the shit so to speak. If one is serious about the the subject, then one is engaged into discussing it. Don't you think? So for myself, i would not make to much out of such.

I have noticed when we have good content up or whether we are just throwing up videos and messing around. We have maintained the same numbers. You can take it for what it is worth.

[Conley]

They followed their feelings.

Without God and Judeo-Christian religions, what else is there?.....snip~

Everything and nothing!!!!!
Does Morality come from Righteousness or is it the other way round?


I guess by including God in that statement you are including most of the world's religions. I often have to remind myself how many on this planet are not from a Judeo-Christian background, even though it seems so prominent in my daily life and even in my travels. We are not alone. :o

[Mister D]

They followed their feelings.

Without God and Judeo-Christian religions, what else is there?.....snip~

Everything and nothing!!!!!
Does Morality come from Righteousness or is it the other way round?


I guess by including God in that statement you are including most of the world's religions. I often have to remind myself how many on this planet are not from a Judeo-Christian background, even though it seems so prominent in my daily life and even in my travels. We are not alone. :o


I'm being theoretical when I say God or religion in such conversations.

[MMC]

They followed their feelings.

Without God and Judeo-Christian religions, what else is there?.....snip~

Everything and nothing!!!!!
Does Morality come from Righteousness or is it the other way round?


I guess by including God in that statement you are including most of the world's religions. I often have to remind myself how many on this planet are not from a Judeo-Christian background, even though it seems so prominent in my daily life and even in my travels. We are not alone. :o


The writer of the Article is who put God and the Judeo-Christian Religion at the end of his piece. Which is why I came with what I did.

[Conley]

They followed their feelings.

Without God and Judeo-Christian religions, what else is there?.....snip~

Everything and nothing!!!!!
Does Morality come from Righteousness or is it the other way round?


I guess by including God in that statement you are including most of the world's religions. I often have to remind myself how many on this planet are not from a Judeo-Christian background, even though it seems so prominent in my daily life and even in my travels. We are not alone. :o


The writer of the Article is who put God and the Judeo-Christian Religion at the end of his piece. Which is why I came with what I did.


Oh I understand...when I think of the populations of India and China relative to the rest of the world it is just incredible to me:

"With 1,210,000,000 (1.21 billion) people, India is currently the world's second largest country. India crossed the one billion mark in the year 2000, one year after the world's population crossed the six billion threshold.

Demographers expect India's population to surpass the population of China, currently the most populous country in the world, by 2030. At that time, India is expected to have a population of more than 1.53 billion while China's population is forecast to be at its peak of 1.46 billion (and will begin to drop in subsequent years)."

http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/indiapopulation.htm

China and India combined are almost 40% of Mankind. Doesn't that blow your mind? It does mine.

[Mister D]

China may experience a demographic collapse in the coming decades because of the one child policy, decreased fertility and the sex imbalance. Or so it has been forecasted. India looks like it will remain pretty poor and I don't see how that could possibly change with continued population growth. Environmental degradation is pretty bad in both countries.

[Mister D]

That's not what I realy wanted to say though! :D ::)

Christianity is on the rise in China. Granted, it's a peculiar eastern Christianity and may appear bizarre to us in some respects.

[Conley]

That's not what I realy wanted to say though! :D ::)

Christianity is on the rise in China. Granted, it's a peculiar eastern Christianity and may appear bizarre to us in some respects.


Yes, most things coming out of China are pretty bizarre from my perspective, but I know what you're saying. And even a small movement in China amounts to a massive number of people. I expect there will be a population collapse at some point but who really knows. Still, 40%! When I think of environmental pollution it almost seems like the US is irrelevant, considering.

[Mister D]

That's not what I realy wanted to say though! :D ::)

Christianity is on the rise in China. Granted, it's a peculiar eastern Christianity and may appear bizarre to us in some respects.


Yes, most things coming out of China are pretty bizarre from my perspective, but I know what you're saying. And even a small movement in China amounts to a massive number of people. I expect there will be a population collapse at some point but who really knows. Still, 40%! When I think of environmental pollution it almost seems like the US is irrelevant, considering.


Agreed. It's pointless to reduce carbon emissions in the west if India and China continue to pump out an increasing amount of emissions.

[MMC]

That's not what I realy wanted to say though! :D ::)

Christianity is on the rise in China. Granted, it's a peculiar eastern Christianity and may appear bizarre to us in some respects.


Yes, most things coming out of China are pretty bizarre from my perspective, but I know what you're saying. And even a small movement in China amounts to a massive number of people. I expect there will be a population collapse at some point but who really knows. Still, 40%! When I think of environmental pollution it almost seems like the US is irrelevant, considering.


http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=1277656509789&id=0a846fa4fd19558957a476f24525543c&url=http%3a%2f%2fimstars.aufeminin.com%2fstars%2ff an%2fmichelle-yeoh%2fmichelle-yeoh-20051215-90831.jpg http://ts3.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=1238541541462&id=ea690d9ad0028104e4239ba82e0c84a1&url=http%3a%2f%2f2.bp.blogspot.com%2f_-O7esdGkoHo%2fSW0MmMxCQhI%2fAAAAAAAANA4%2febqyCZtuR Z0%2fs400%2fmk5a.jpg

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=1238189945492&id=1d324aaa80014e1b57cc92e913b5cb2a&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.celebrity8x10s.com%2fphotos%2 ftn%2f21579_22.jpg http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=1234164196141&id=5a6dfae15ac6f04d5caef1270dcab376&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.abandomoviez.net%2fdb%2fperso na%2fMichelle_Yeoh.jpg

Nothing bizarre about Michelle Yeoh.....Fortune Cookie, anyone?

[Conley]

Roll the dice a billion or so times and You'll get a Yao Ming or a hot chick every once in a while. Those are statistical anomalies MMC ;D

[Mister D]

Roll the dice a billion or so times and You'll get a Yao Ming or a hot chick every once in a while. Those are statistical anomalies MMC ;D


:D ;)

[MMC]

Roll the dice a billion or so times and You'll get a Yao Ming or a hot chick every once in a while. Those are statistical anomalies MMC ;D


Super❤SEXY & HOT❤ Mainland Chinese Girls ！！② (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr5yueGbrEg#)

http://politirant.com/Smileys/oldrant/roflmao.gif Statistical Anomalies you say.....hmmmm right after you point out that China holds one quarter of the earth's population.http://politirant.com/Smileys/oldrant/geez.gif :D ;)

[Conley]

Yep, so for everyone one of those there are 99 who you wouldn't want cooking you breakfast :)

[MMC]

Yep, so for everyone one of those there are 99 who you wouldn't want cooking you breakfast :)


Don't you worry my brutha once they become globalized.....they will know how to cook from the microwave. Plus as long as they can cook some rice. I will handle the cooking.
Besides I will have pressed and clean clothes, a very neat and clean place, and shouldnt we all be like Mormons and Arabs and have as many wives as we want? ::) ;D

[Conley]

Yep, so for everyone one of those there are 99 who you wouldn't want cooking you breakfast :)


Don't you worry my brutha once they become globalized.....they will know how to cook from the microwave. Plus as long as they can cook some rice. I will handle the cooking.
Besides I will have pressed and clean clothes, a very neat and clean place, and shouldnt we all be like Mormons and Arabs and have as many wives as we want? ::) ;D


Having five or six subservient wives does sound really good. Heck I'd settle for one subservient woman! ;D

[MMC]

Yep, so for everyone one of those there are 99 who you wouldn't want cooking you breakfast :)


Don't you worry my brutha once they become globalized.....they will know how to cook from the microwave. Plus as long as they can cook some rice. I will handle the cooking.
Besides I will have pressed and clean clothes, a very neat and clean place, and shouldnt we all be like Mormons and Arabs and have as many wives as we want? ::) ;D


Having five or six subservient wives does sound really good. Heck I'd settle for one subservient woman! ;D


Yeah, screw that 76 Virgin thing.....I want experienced sex sla erm I mean Women. :D

[Conley]

:D :D :D

I have no problem with virgins if they're willing to learn ;D

[Mister D]

Yep, so for everyone one of those there are 99 who you wouldn't want cooking you breakfast :)


Don't you worry my brutha once they become globalized.....they will know how to cook from the microwave. Plus as long as they can cook some rice. I will handle the cooking.
Besides I will have pressed and clean clothes, a very neat and clean place, and shouldnt we all be like Mormons and Arabs and have as many wives as we want? ::) ;D


Having five or six subservient wives does sound really good. Heck I'd settle for one subservient woman! ;D


Not sure about this. Having 6 wives might just be hell on Earth. :-\ Careful with this one. fellas.

[Conley]

Subservient is the key word! ;D

[Conley]

Like I said, one would be just fine. >:D

[MMC]

Subservient is the key word! ;D


Could you imagine.....having like 5 or 6 wives. Wht do the Mormons do nowadays? Don't they legally marry one but still keep the others around as common law?
Looks at those Arabs and whatnot. 100 wives. Do you know how many headaches that would be. Do you know how stressed out a man would be. >:D

[Mister D]

Subservient is the key word! ;D


Yeah, but they will still bicker amongst themselves. I don't know...you might have to get separate quarters for each one. I can't imagine being trapped with 6 broads who don't like each other. :o

[Conley]

Subservient is the key word! ;D


Yeah, but they will still bicker amongst themselves. I don't know...you might have to get separate quarters for each one. I can't imagine being trapped with 6 broads who don't like each other. :o


All that room and board is going to run up the cost too. I would make them do live webcam shows to offset the expenses. O0 >:D

[Mister D]

Subservient is the key word! ;D


Yeah, but they will still bicker amongst themselves. I don't know...you might have to get separate quarters for each one. I can't imagine being trapped with 6 broads who don't like each other. :o


All that room and board is going to run up the cost too. I would make them do live webcam shows to offset the expenses. O0 >:D


You have this all thought out! :o :o ;D

[Conley]

Subservient is the key word! ;D


Yeah, but they will still bicker amongst themselves. I don't know...you might have to get separate quarters for each one. I can't imagine being trapped with 6 broads who don't like each other. :o


All that room and board is going to run up the cost too. I would make them do live webcam shows to offset the expenses. O0 >:D


You have this all thought out! :o :o ;D


:D This is the dream man!!