Which is the first fap you're truly responsible for?

If a child has been encouraged/told not to masturbate, then he is responsible for every one he does, right from the start!

 

Fap number 20. You've had more than enough fun with yourself at that point.

 

Yes absolutely. I've accepted responsibility for all my errors and wrongdoing from childhood onward. I knew right & wrong.

 

We could look at it the other way: You're responsible for every day you DON'T fap. Considering how many are addicted that is clearly a deliberate choice, and rather than going back in time we can look forward to more time free from it - and every day you don't it proves you can and have the power and ability to.

 

Culpability for one's actions occurs when one has attained the use of reason. For most children this is around ages 5,6, and 7 yrs of age. Once they have attained the use of reason then the amount of knowledge that they have will determine their level of culpability, for example a child who takes a piece of jewelry from their parents but doesnt understand its value is less malicious than the one that understands its value and takes it. With that said, I started masturbating when I was 12 yrs old, so I was responsible for every single one.


As for life begining at conception well that's is not a point of opinion, it's a biological fact.

 

Agreed. I was told not to do it but I started masturbating when I was 13 yrs old, so I was responsible for every single one.

 

Every one from day one, but it doesn’t matter really. It’s not a crime.

 

In response Plutonium, my thoughts are below (I acknowledge that I go off the subject a little)...


I don't recall ever being told by my parents or my teachers not to masturbate. The only time I even heard it mentioned was perhaps by some of the more confident boys in the playground.

I only began to understand the negative effects wanking had on me when I discovered NoFap 2 years ago. To an extent I feel like only from that day do I feel responsible for the M'ing that followed.

Responsibility is a tricky one for me to think about because when I step back and look at my life in PMO addiction, I don't feel like it is my fault. I only received help for my problem once I sought it, no one offered it to me. That help came in the form of the effective yet undeniably cult-like community that is NoFap. I have rarely spoken to people in my life about NoFap and when I have they have ridiculed the idea of a 'reboot'.

I think if we are talking about responsibility, fault and blame we need to focus on the fact that we have all taken charge and responsibility of our lives by being a part of this community. We have all got to a point where we have realised we need to change - that in itself is such a massive step towards recovery I feel. I think if we're talking about responsibility we should focus on the change in our future, not the sins of our past. Just remember, there are millions of people out there with this same addiction that aren't even aware of it yet (as I wasn't). Let's not beat ourselves up.

Finally my counter question is 'How much is society responsible for the addiction we all find ourselves in?'

 

The moment you figure out that this is a problem for you if that doesn't occur I can't fault a person for doing it no matter the age. A teen is fully responsible for THEIR choices. They have to figure out what is right & wrong. For some they don't have a problem with PMO they just do it every now and then, I'm that way with videogames. So the real question should be "Is fapping objectively bad" & to that I'd say no. There isn't objective morality, what exists is our subjective opinion based upon results. I know when I don't fap I'm more productive & don't feel that guilty burden upon me, but that's me some people will never join nofap & never have a problem with PMO.

Because of this it's personal responsibility we must choose to take. If it's a problem for us the very second we realize that is when we become responsible. If we choose to continue after negative consequences such as guilt, shame, isolation, etc. Then we no longer have the option of scapegoating. I'm a teen & I take 100% responsibility for all my past & future decisions.

 

By that mentality one can argue that Hitler did nothing wrong. That child rape is normal and healthy. That human sacrifice is justified. I'm sorry but I don't agree with you.

Knowledge of right and wrong isn't subject to opinion or cultural norm. If you're a mentally stable human being you would know the difference without anyone needing to tell you. Everyone has a conscious that isn't effected by what others around us are saying or doing. I don't need to rape someone to know it's wrong. I don't need to see the results or the consequence of an action to know its wrong.

 

Agreed, because of subjective morals. Subjectively we know that raping someone would be immoral because we as a society generally accept that sex is only ok with both sides consenting. But I don't understand your argument, if you say there is objective morality then you need to show me what it is. Hitler subjectively didn't do anything wrong, he thought he was doing the right thing. Subjectively we oppose that because subjectively we value human life generally. I know morality because of my subjective conscious. For example my conscious has no problems with eating meat. You might, it's all subjective. Your argument essentially is "I don't understand subjective morality therefore everything regarding morality is objective." This is an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Let me break it down. We do things that are good because righteous actions means everybody suffers less, you are part of everybody, therefore you take the actions & advocate what makes us suffer less. We don't rape people because subjectively we don't want to be raped so we as a society punish that behavior.

 

Subjective mortality is self contradictory, simply put because there would be no such thing as right or wrong. Who's to say that your morality is right and my morality is wrong? It simply can't exist. By definition good and evil don't make sense, it would only come down to what's more or less beneficial. If evil and good don't exist than how would we know the difference between the two? Why would we even bother to put an effort towards good and not evil? Why would we as a society emplace law's which punish evil?

If mortality only existed because of our evolution, wouldn't it be based on what would benefit the individual for survival? Wouldn't that mean that it would be OK to euthanize the mentally challenged, that theft is justified for the homeless and hungry, that war is necessary to keep the human population down. In no circumstance would a society ever agree that these things are righteous. The reason morality even exists in collective societies is because moral truths exists objectively outside of what might benefit us.

If you agree that what Hitler did was wrong, what gives you the authority to say it was wrong? How would you be able to justify that it's wrong? If anything from an evolutionary point of view, what Hitler did was right. He took out the competition and boasted the economy of Germany.

I'd say what Hitler did was wrong... even if the Nazis and Hitler didn't know it, it was still wrong. Even if they won the war and made everyone a Nazi, they're actions were still wrong. This is a fact that is not changed based on what you and I think.

If we lived in a world of subjective morality, we would not have objective consequences. There would be no justification for a judge to punish criminals who have no malicious intend to commit more crimes. We know this isn't the case. Even if I'm sorry for my crimes I'm still going to have to serve time for it. Justice can only be justified with objective truths and morality.

Good and Evil are objectively true regardless of time, culture or opinion.

 

You're misunderstanding. Let me quote myself in my previous reply

"Let me break it down. We do things that are good because 'righteous' actions means everybody suffers less, you are part of everybody, therefore you take the actions & advocate what makes us suffer less. We don't rape people because subjectively we don't want to be raped so we as a society punish that behavior."

Good & Evil are constructs we've made for suffering. Nothing more just like numbers are axioms we've made to help better understand the universe.

"Subjective mortality is self contradictory, simply put because there would be no such thing as right or wrong. Who's to say that your morality is right and my morality is wrong? It simply can't exist."

Exactly, if you truly heard yourself you'd understand. There is no such thing objectively as right or wrong, it's what we make of it. We don't rape people because we don't want our children or ourselves to get raped, we condemn the holocaust because a jew is a human, your a human, that could be you if such behavior continued.

"If we lived in a world of subjective morality, we would not have objective consequences. There would be no justification for a judge to punish criminals who have no malicious intend to commit more crimes. We know this isn't the case. Even if I'm sorry for my crimes I'm still going to have to serve time for it. Justice can only be justified with objective truths and morality."

That's simply ignorant, we have consequences because objectively we don't have to suffer the crime. We punish stealing because we subjectively view theft as something undesirable.

Your arguments while they might have good intentions don't accurately reflect the truth of the situation. Hitler objectively didn't do anything wrong because morality isn't objective it depends on culture, religion, etc. When owning slaves was ok people would tell you objectively it's ok. Through subjective reasoning we came to the conclusion it wasn't despite books like the bible saying it's cool.

To whom do you boast of your morality from, if it's from a holy book most have very corrupt laws. The old testament in the bible for example says to stone children if they are stubborn. To kill homosexuals, that you can beat a slave to the point of death as long as it takes two-three days.

The Qu'ran says to chop off unbelievers throats & fingers.

You might argue we were born with a conscious. & that's true because if you're an asshole that brings suffering then you're not getting laid. We feel murder is wrong because it's in our best evolutionary interest to view things that way & instill that value in our descendants for their survival & yours. But consciousness is subjective, the very fact you disagree with me about one of the things I've found to be true shows this. Subjectively you view objective morality as necessary. Subjectively I don't. Meaning consciousness is actually an argument in favor of subjective morality.

Many will brain-wash you into thinking that morality must be objective but that's not true. I hope this explanation gave you some insight.

 

It's a crime of passion IMO.

 

This is an assumption your making. It does not explain ethical dilemmas when suffering is not involved. For example it is legal for me to cheat on my wife but it is not ethical. No one suffers if I slack off at my job, but it is not ethical. no one suffers if I cheat here and there without being caught but it's still wrong. There are many actions that do not lead to direct suffering that are still wrong!

By this logic its ok to abuse animals. It's also ok if someone who likes to get raped to go around and rape people. My friend we do not condemn to holocaust because we don't want it happening to us. We condemn the holocaust because its wrong, regardless of who or what it happened to. Right and wrong are not of what we make of it, we do not live in a society based on what is more or less beneficial to human survival.

If your going to claim that the holy books are full of corrupt laws, isn't that being a bit intellectually dishonest? Your making assertive claims for what is wrong and right yet your arguing that its all speculation to opinion. As you said yourself that evil and good do not exist, therefore you shouldn't be making claims of evil or good. You can merely say that they are not beneficial to human survival.

This is also contradictory. If you don't believe an objective morality, you can't believe in objective truths. You can't proclaim a statement to be true when you believe things are based on our subjective sense.

I know your heart is in the right place. But reality isn't merely based on our opinions. Life doesn't work that way, there are things that our outside of what we believe or what we think and these things do not change.

 

"This is an assumption your making. It does not explain ethical dilemmas when suffering is not involved. For example it is legal for me to cheat on my wife but it is not ethical."

That's making an assumption that ethics are objective morals, for example what about cases of polygamy, where both sides practice that yet they don't tell the other their partners. Cheating on your wife breaks a vow, however that is only meaningful if we subjectively value that vow.

"No one suffers if I slack off at my job, but it is not ethical. no one suffers if I cheat here and there without being caught but it's still wrong. There are many actions that do not lead to direct suffering that are still wrong!"

This is just flat out dishonest. People do suffer if you slack off. You slow down everyone making people despise you, which will making others retaliate. Not to mention your mental well-being. We're a tribal species meaning we feel valuable when we bring value because it helps ensure our survival.

"By this logic its ok to abuse animals."

Absolutely agree, I have no problems with animals being abused if it is for a productive reason. I wish this was me joking, but an animal isn't human. What's wrong with treating cows inhumanely if the end is still it turning into a delicious burger? Objectively every thing will die one day, why should animals be valued when they can't retaliate against me for thinking this way? My conscious nor any God has told me it's wrong. So if that's true & our conscious is the source of morality which you believe is objective, objectively killing animals is fine. Because my conscious has no problem with it & morality is objective. This falls on it's head. Obviously the truth is more a shade of grey, things aren't that black and white.


"It's also ok if someone who likes to get raped to go around and rape people. My friend we do not condemn to holocaust because we don't want it happening to us. We condemn the holocaust because its wrong, regardless of who or what it happened to. Right and wrong are not of what we make of it, we do not live in a society based on what is more or less beneficial to human survival. "

Did Hitler think the holocaust was wrong, if morality is truly objective why did some at the time have no problem with it?


"If your going to claim that the holy books are full of corrupt laws, isn't that being a bit intellectually dishonest? Your making assertive claims for what is wrong and right yet your arguing that its all speculation to opinion. As you said yourself that evil and good do not exist, therefore you shouldn't be making claims of evil or good. You can merely say that they are not beneficial to human survival."

I said evil & good are axioms like numbers. They're abstract concepts to help understand the universe. Numbers don't exist humans created them to represent things that did exist, just because something is an axiom doesn't mean it isn't helpful. This is an attack on my character not an attack on my argument. My argument essentially was if the source of morality was objective such as in the book the bible then slavery is objectively good, & killing unbelievers/homosexuals. Meaning objective morality if it existed might be grimmer than subjective morality.

"This is also contradictory. If you don't believe an objective morality, you can't believe in objective truths. You can't proclaim a statement to be true when you believe things are based on our subjective sense."

This is a lie. This is like saying I can't enjoy Sonic 06 because it has glitches, therefore you deny that Sonic was a successful franchise made by Sega. These two things aren't related just because they share the word "Sonic" or in this case "Objective". An objective truth would be the laws of physics. While morality is subjective, it's kind of like food flavors, you might think one is great while I despise the same one.

This very discussion shows we have different morals. You think abusing animals is objectively wrong, me I could care less about a creature unless it shows human traits that feel close to home. So again I ask, if there is objective morality where does it come from, if from holy books slavery & killing doubters is ok, if from conscious then everyone should have the same moral views no matter what, which we both as a society know that to be false.

Our values come from our childhood & society. It might be scary & perhaps you don't understand it, but that doesn't make it false.

 

Very astute reasoning, you have my attention young man.

 

I would tend to disagree with this. If a parent tells their kid not to do something and they do it, it's wrong? Not really, same w if they tell them to do something.