Yes what?
Animals that reproduce through sex are immoral?

So how could sex be necessarily immoral?
For example if animals have sex are they being immoral?

What makes something immoral?

Why not?

Sex is not necessarily immoral.

Yes that is the point.
Sex is not necessarily immoral.

But sex is not immoral.

So it really has nothing to do with sex, virtue.
It has to do with resisting opportunity.

virtue has everything to do with how badly one has failed to refrain from having sex. — Heister Eggcart

What about some one that does not have sex because they do not have opportunity, are they virtuous?

For some reason I doubt this is true.

Eh...this seems to assume tabula rasa too much.
Some stuff is hard wired and ain't changing no time soon, no matter how well informed we are about it.

When I asked you what is the point I am asking rather that you should not derail the topic of the thread.

You should clearly indicate how your distinction between mental-only and external is related to the topic of *possible worlds.

Sorry I am confused about what is your point.
How does this mental-only and external distinction you have made apply to possible worlds?

Before the invention of computers computation was only an abstraction.
If that abstraction did not actually apply to reality then computers would not exist and would not even be possible.

Again either abstractions are a real possibility and thus exist, or abstractions are not a real possibility and do not exist.

If you agree that abstractions exist then in some sense you are acknowledging that abstractions are real.
It is really that simple.




.

Sure. So how does that help the idea that computers somehow have real abstracts in them? — Terrapin Station

What else could it be?
An unreal abstraction?

That idea does not even make sense.
At least not to me.

What does it mean to say abstractions are not real?

Either abstractions are a possible reality or abstractions are not a possible reality.
If abstractions are not a possible reality then abstractions do not, by definition, actually exist.
If abstractions are a possible reality, then when abstractions exist, they are real.

lol

If Genghis Khan was this busy having sex how did he have time to do anything else?

Whatever that effect is, it's nothing like the effects that exist from sex. — Agustino

Again I believe you, but if you could just explain this to women.

The analogy fails because sex is in no way like eating. There is no psychological effect from eating - at least in the general sense, as there is from se — Agustino

Would you explain this to women when it comes to chocolate.

lol

both lines were poetic in equal measure

ah
I did not realize there was such a thing as normative moral relativism, forgive my mistake.

poetic

Moral relativism is descriptive.
It says nothing about what people ought to do to be moral.
Instead it is an attempt to describe why people believe that this or that is the moral thing to do.

Well I maybe made the mistake of putting shit in my mouth, but once I realized what it was I spit it out.
I think perhaps more disturbing thing is when people refuse to acknowledge that they have put shit in their mouth, and then try to chew their way out of that situation.

ps
Sorry if I got shit on anyone

They make movies all the time where two people fall and love and live happily ever after.

because a one-night stand doesn't intend to be a permanent bond from the beginning — Agustino

This is not necessarily so, often the parties involved don't agree before hand that this sexual encounter shall only happen once and shall not lead to any bonding.

Monogamy isn't culturally celebrated anymore. It's always promiscuity that's seen as "the cool thing" to do. When you're in school for example, it's not cool to be in a long-term relationship, it's much cooler to fuck a lot of girls. Why? That's a culture. — Agustino

Utter nonsense.
They celibate monogamy all the time in the US.
Talk shows with experts on happy monogamy, fairy tales with happy ever after romance, magazines and websites on how to make your relationship last.
It is a big industry in media.

Not true again. Their conception isn't very clear - they don't have very clear reasons why promiscuity is wrong apart from saying that people must get married, or that God ordered it to be so. In either case, what I said before is true. I couldn't have arrived at my view by following any Church - whether it's the Church of atheism or the Church of theism. — Agustino

I don't agree that your views are very clear either (well perhaps to you they are).
But I concede your point.
You are not religiously opposed to promiscuity.
Fine.

Not true. I don't view sex between people who don't get married as immoral so long as they are life-long devoted to each other, faithful and live monogamous lives together. The religious do view that as problematic. — Agustino

I am not sure how common this view is among the religious, I have not made a habit of asking about this specifically.

But this may be the only difference between your views and that of those that claim promiscuity is immoral.

Certainly it is not an uncommon view in the US that monogamy should be preferable to promiscuity.
Monogamy is celebrated in modern mediums within the US as much if not more than promiscuity.

I definitely don't agree that you get to claim you are surrounded by an unsympathetic culture.

Yeah, pity that I arrived at this "ideology" independently through my own thinking — Agustino

Except it is a common theme in western culture.

an ideology which is opposed by my Western culture — Agustino

Your views are actually fairly common in western culture in my experience, especially among the religious.

That is just what your ideology is telling you.

No, that is what my body tells me.

That is silly.
Culture is not what compels people to have sex, biology does.

You are so very melodramatic.
You don't have to worship sex to have your first experience be an awkward disappointment.

Well maybe it wasn't special for you because you wasted it. But for me, when I had sex with my first girlfriend, it was certainly a very special moment. — Agustino

Well for a lot of people it is not nearly as special as thought it was going to be.

They're a dangerous element for the rest of society that has to be controlled - simple. — Agustino

Utter nonsense.

Far worse for who?

What about people that don't want long term relationships but still want to have sex?

Provided they are consenting adults that does not hurt anybody.

Being married does not automatically make sex more special either.

Also people that are not saving themselves for sex can be virgins too.

Being a virgin does not automatically make sex special.
In fact quite the opposite is often true, people have idealistic views about sex as virgins and are often disappointed by there first experience with it.

I think what you are trying to communicate is the idea that when you are deeply in love with a person the sex is special.
I would not argue with that.
But you don't have to be married or a virgin to fall deeply in love with someone and experience something special with them.

No it doesn't.
The definition of a virgin is a person that has not had sex before.
Not a person who it is more special to have sex with.

Neither does being a virgin.