Originally Posted by Melpomene

My roommate cracked this joke the other day: What is the difference between Santa and Tiger Woods? Santa only uses 3 ho's. That made me laugh.

But I am sick of hearing about this.

AHAHA ...

NICE!

Originally Posted by Melpomene

My roommate cracked this joke the other day: What is the difference between Santa and Tiger Woods? Santa only uses 3 ho's. That made me laugh.

But I am sick of hearing about this.

Haha! That's hilarious!

I agree though, it's seriously getting old and annoying. What's up with the # of women .. and the daily updates. It's definitely getting a lot more attention than it should be.

What's the difference between a car and a ball? ... Tiger can drive a ball 300 yards.

Originally Posted by lawleypop

That's if you consider promiscuity a flaw.

^^

If not, then this is good publicity and we should all shake his hand...but if life were like that, then women wouldn't stand a chance at getting some of his money for this 'admirable character trait.'

Originally Posted by Mowicz

What's the difference between a car and a ball? ... Tiger can drive a ball 300 yards.



If not, then this is good publicity and we should all shake his hand...but if life were like that, then women wouldn't stand a chance at getting some of his money for this 'admirable character trait.'

Just because the media and society tells you it's a bad trait, doesn't mean it is.

Hells yes I'll shake his hand. He gets his cake and eats it too.

Originally Posted by Melpomene

My roommate cracked this joke the other day: What is the difference between Santa and Tiger Woods? Santa only uses 3 ho's. That made me laugh.

But I am sick of hearing about this.

BAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAA

Originally Posted by lawleypop

Just because the media and society tells you it's a bad trait, doesn't mean it is.

Hells yes I'll shake his hand. He gets his cake and eats it too.

My point is that Tiger's opinion is essentially the end of discussion on the matter.

Does Tiger think it's a bad thing? Is he embarrassed?

Originally Posted by Mowicz

My point is that Tiger's opinion is essentially the end of discussion on the matter.

Does Tiger think it's a bad thing? Is he embarrassed?

Who knows. We hear what he tells the media. Who knows what he's REALLY thinking.

If I were him, I'd only say it was a bad thing if saying otherwise would lose me sponsorships.

How about all these women who knew he was in a relationship? Why does no one slam their morals?

Originally Posted by DavidR

How about all these women who knew he was in a relationship? Why does no one slam their morals?

Because being a golddigger seems acceptable nowadays?

Nah, I dunno. Because obviously it's better ratings for the media reporting that the most popular sportsman of all time has "flaws", just like the rest of us.

Because people didn't think that Tiger was a real human.

Originally Posted by DavidR

How about all these women who knew he was in a relationship? Why does no one slam their morals?

Originally Posted by lawleypop

That's if you consider promiscuity a flaw.

^^

Because Promiscuity is apparently ok. xD

---------------

Cheri: Note that I'm not directly attacking your perspective, I'm trying an axiomatic approach (although fair enough to say, I do consider promiscuity a 'bad thing,' though my perspective on the matter is not what's surfacing here).

You've raised a very good point, namely that morals are relative. But unfortunately, if that's the assumption then it opens up a whole world of possibilities, one of which I'm sure even you would disagree with (though finding the right one may take some work on my part).

There are essentially three perspectives:

1) "Religious" and/or "Law-based" morals (ie. 10-commandment based, golden-rule based, 'be a good person' morals, regardless of who it is, or who is around them...since many of the 'serious' laws (ie. first degree murder) followed directly from such a philosophy, they're directly linked, though not entirely the same)
2) "Majority rules" morals (ie. do what most people consider acceptable)
3) "Do what I feel like" and/or "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" morals (ie. do what you personally think is right/acceptable).

Clearly if promiscuity was a virtue, then it wouldn't be so under either of the first 2 categories...it's clearly in opposition to the golden rule/10 commandments (1) and 'the majority of people' (ie. the media) frown upon infidelity (2). As such, it has to be under the third philosophy.


So you're suggesting a moral set which leaves things up to the interpretation of the individual (of course one need not follow their own moral set...many people don't).

The standard example is that say, a serial killer would exclude 'murder' from their moral set...ie. to them, since they often times don't value human life in the same way, murder is not a big deal which is why they are able to take lives in such a way.

So to some people (ie. certain serial killers), murder may even be viewed as a virtue, and not as something to be frowned upon...but then of course, the majority of people would think they're a sick weirdo. And of course, murder is against the law/10 commandments...so this is clearly a case of (3) and not (2) or (1).


So now the punch line is...given this current discussion, ie. we're operating under (3)...can you possibly convince me that murder is wrong, without saying "It's against the law" or "It affects the life of another?" (in particular, promiscuity affects the lives of others in a negative way too). But these two arguments are, of course, up to 'personal interpretation' so I could very well just dismiss them as your opinion.

Either you'll come up with something ridiculously witty (at which point I would have failed to produce a convincing example...which happens, pobody's nerfect lol), or you'll conclude that you can't convince me.

If the latter is true, then there's nothing 'wrong' with murder under this axiom set...yet people are jailed for it (which is a contradiction).

Elin Nordegren asked her marriage counselor why, next time, she should go after Tiger with a 9-iron instead of the 3-iron she used the morning after thanksgiving?

The counselor said “Because, now you’re closer to the green.”

lol

Originally Posted by Mowicz

Because Promiscuity is apparently ok. xD

---------------

Cheri: Note that I'm not directly attacking your perspective, I'm trying an axiomatic approach (although fair enough to say, I do consider promiscuity a 'bad thing,' though my perspective on the matter is not what's surfacing here).

You've raised a very good point, namely that morals are relative. But unfortunately, if that's the assumption then it opens up a whole world of possibilities, one of which I'm sure even you would disagree with (though finding the right one may take some work on my part).

There are essentially three perspectives:

1) "Religious" and/or "Law-based" morals (ie. 10-commandment based, golden-rule based, 'be a good person' morals, regardless of who it is, or who is around them...since many of the 'serious' laws (ie. first degree murder) followed directly from such a philosophy, they're directly linked, though not entirely the same)
2) "Majority rules" morals (ie. do what most people consider acceptable)
3) "Do what I feel like" and/or "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" morals (ie. do what you personally think is right/acceptable).

Clearly if promiscuity was a virtue, then it wouldn't be so under either of the first 2 categories...it's clearly in opposition to the golden rule/10 commandments (1) and 'the majority of people' (ie. the media) frown upon infidelity (2). As such, it has to be under the third philosophy.


So you're suggesting a moral set which leaves things up to the interpretation of the individual (of course one need not follow their own moral set...many people don't).

The standard example is that say, a serial killer would exclude 'murder' from their moral set...ie. to them, since they often times don't value human life in the same way, murder is not a big deal which is why they are able to take lives in such a way.

So to some people (ie. certain serial killers), murder may even be viewed as a virtue, and not as something to be frowned upon...but then of course, the majority of people would think they're a sick weirdo. And of course, murder is against the law/10 commandments...so this is clearly a case of (3) and not (2) or (1).


So now the punch line is...given this current discussion, ie. we're operating under (3)...can you possibly convince me that murder is wrong, without saying "It's against the law" or "It affects the life of another?" (in particular, promiscuity affects the lives of others in a negative way too). But these two arguments are, of course, up to 'personal interpretation' so I could very well just dismiss them as your opinion.

Either you'll come up with something ridiculously witty (at which point I would have failed to produce a convincing example...which happens, pobody's nerfect lol), or you'll conclude that you can't convince me.

If the latter is true, then there's nothing 'wrong' with murder under this axiom set...yet people are jailed for it (which is a contradiction).

I know you're not attacking me. ;P No worries there. I'm gonna reply, but it might not be the most well thought out since, you know.... 2 exams tomorrow that I'm cramming for. >_< Anywho!

I'll start off with saying that 1) and 2) go hand in hand. What the majority find acceptable stems from some sort of religious background. Thou shall not kill. Why not? Because the bible says so (and probably some other sacred texts, but I haven't read those ones).

I'm going to move my perspective that I've made clear in previous threads. It's human nature to want companionship/love/sex. Yet for some reason, looking for more than one partner or "multiple connections" is frowned upon. Why? Because of 1). Tiger's just doing what's natural to him (and technically, humanity) and he gets shit for it? Because he's married? Big deal. Like the institution of marriage means anything anymore. If he still took care of his wife, didn't give her STDs, put his kids through school, showed his wife affection, what's the problem? Sex is just sex. Why should someone you like ****ing someone else affect you? Sex has 2 purposes: reproduction and pleasure. If you get pleasure while with someone, who cares what that person does on their own time.

And no, I can't convince you that murder is morally wrong. I don't think it is. I'll argue to the death that if we didn't have the laws we have, (many more) people would be killing left, right, and center.

I blame it all on religion (XD), and it shocks me how so many religious values are still engrained in society.

Originally Posted by lawleypop

I know you're not attacking me. ;P No worries there. I'm gonna reply, but it might not be the most well thought out since, you know.... 2 exams tomorrow that I'm cramming for. >_< Anywho!

I'll start off with saying that 1) and 2) go hand in hand. What the majority find acceptable stems from some sort of religious background. Thou shall not kill. Why not? Because the bible says so (and probably some other sacred texts, but I haven't read those ones).

1 and 2 certainly overlap...but they're different things. Many things are religiously/lawfully 'bad' which the majority of people now consider ok. (I'll leave it to your imagination to come up with an example :p)

I'm going to move my perspective that I've made clear in previous threads. It's human nature to want companionship/love/sex. Yet for some reason, looking for more than one partner or "multiple connections" is frowned upon.

The problem is that (assuming it's all true) Tiger hurt people in the process. If his wife had agreed to be in some sort of "open" relationship, then it'd be more acceptable (to some people, namely those who don't oppose the concept of an open relationship in the first place). I don't think a 'one night stand' is as socially unacceptable as adultery (though some oppose it regardless)...but when it drags others into the mix, it becomes a bad thing. Tiger made a vow, or in other words, he promised his wife that she was enough for him, and that he would never hurt her in such a serious way...so there are two problems:

a) It's a flat out lie (generally frowned upon)
b) He hurt his wife, who trusted him (again, hurting others is frowned upon)

Why? Because of 1). Tiger's just doing what's natural to him (and technically, humanity) and he gets shit for it?

Side note 1: I think this is simply something we've been conditioned to feel entitled to. There's no reason why someone 'needs' to get friendly with everyone they know...in my opinion the notion that we have 'animal instincts' such as this is pure propaganda (ie. the whole notion of 'animals do it, therefore it's ok').

There are many things animals do which are unacceptable to do as human beings. :p Flinging feces, rape, etc. for instance. But all of a sudden because animals fornicate like crazy, it's evidence that people 'have to?' It's inconsistent reasoning.

Of course once you have it in your head that people 'need' to smoke, everyone will be a smoker, even though it would feel true (ie. it's an addiction), it's obviously untrue...I think frequent sex is an example of this.

Because he's married? Big deal. Like the institution of marriage means anything anymore.

Side note 2: I agree entirely, but I find this to be a sad thing...those who believe marriage is a sacred thing (not necessarily in a religious way, but many say, atheists, also believe in the sanctity of monogamy and marriage...the ritualistic aspect being irrelevant in their case), they believe it with all their heart...and to see so many say, celebrities treating it as a triviality (ie. divorce rates, adultery) is a shame.

If he still took care of his wife, didn't give her STDs, put his kids through school, showed his wife affection, what's the problem?

I realize you're more cynical than I...in the sense that I value love, and I understand that it's more than simply companionship and pleasure: it's a connection.
------------

Bear with me here:

Consider the case of domestic abuse. A father comes home and beats his wife, while his daughter watches in horror...every Friday night, since that's his drinking night.

6 days out of the week, he's a model parent...he loves his daughter very much, and spends good quality time with her. He even says "I love you" every night as he tucks her in.

Now, even though he is not actually physically harming the child, is he hurting her? ... in this case, it's very obvious that his actions are mentally impacting the poor girl.

To hear "I love you" 9 times out a 10, and see a complete monster the other is a very damaging thing...you become unsure of whether to love or be mad at the person. It's much worse, far more damaging, than if he was a complete dick every day of the week.

-----------------

This is comparable to what Tiger did to his wife. For years he would show his affection for his wife, ie. 9 times out of 10 he'd say he loves her. Now she finds out he didn't love her in quite the way he was pitching...it's a very damaging thing, much like the domestic abuse case I mentioned, and I feel bad for her. (in this case, being in an 'open relationship' is analogous to the dad being a dick all the time)

Keeping this in mind...Tiger has failed to take care of his wife (the fundamental assumption). There could be some serious mental trauma (depending of course, on how his wife felt about him, etc).

Sex is just sex. Why should someone you like ****ing someone else affect you? Sex has 2 purposes: reproduction and pleasure. If you get pleasure while with someone, who cares what that person does on their own time.

If you've never experienced more, or can't fathom experiencing more, then God-willing, someday you do...(:

That's all I can say...I can't really convince you otherwise, but you can.

And no, I can't convince you that murder is morally wrong. I don't think it is. I'll argue to the death that if we didn't have the laws we have, (many more) people would be killing left, right, and center.

I blame it all on religion (XD), and it shocks me how so many religious values are still engrained in society.

Blame is a word with negative connotations...yes, you're right, we aren't running around killing each other, and religion is 'to blame' for this.

So where's the negative connotation coming in? How is society worse off? I think everyone (in this country at least), religious or not, should be thankful that they aren't being attacked left right and centre, not bitter.

(I'm not saying everything is better off because of religion, or that the religious haven't made mistakes/given into corruption at times...but in this particular case, it boggles my mind a little bit as to how you find this to be a problem o_O)

EDIT: And good luck on your final by the way. (:

What tiger did to his wife/children is wrong. While the institution of marriage may seem to mean less and less nowadays, personally, I believe that if you commit to marry someone you should be committed to be with them and only them (I'm sure his wife would agree). I completely disagree with the 'animal instincts' vision of this, as it was clearly a choice that he made knowing the implications to those around him. The fact that he brought kids into it makes it worse in my opinion. This has drastically changed his image as he was previously viewed as the stereotypical 'perfect' person. His image has allowed him to become a billionaire, mainly through endorsements and he will lose money because of it (Accenture just cut ties with him). That being said he is still the best golfer on the planet and that will not change anytime soon. His 'hiatus' from golf is most likely a sham. I see no way that he will miss the Masters this year and does not like to play that much anyway. This is probably a convenient way for him to get out of spring tournaments that he would rather skip. He will never lose his contract with Nike, he has single handedly built that company up (in the golf industry anyway) and they are paying him to represent them as a golfer and a symbol of the excellence of their product. Either way he has enough money for future generations of his family to live very comfortably. Either way he will return to golf and continue to dominate it. This is still a very unfortunate situation for all of his sponsors and the PGA tour who have used him as a poster boy for years to promote golf's image as a scandal free sport (minus John Daly). As proven by TV ratings interest in golf is mainly based on Tiger and if his hiatus is real then they will face some trouble. While it won't make any difference when he wins his next major by 8 strokes, it will definately represent a little asterisk beside his name and career. It is an unfortunate situation to see one of the most well known, 'hero' type figures in our society go through this. I realize some may disagree with that but he is one of the most well known figures in sport, if not the most well known. Anyway thats just my two cents worth, feel free to disagree. I shall return to studying stats.

One day I hope to be at a point in my life when someone will ask me what I think about the latest gossip about ___ person and I can genuinely reply with "Who?".