Curiously, only the ontological argument (which intends to prove the necessity of X) would escape this verdict :D. — Mariner

Stop talking when the holy dude answers your question about hell by cupping his hands together and saying that religion is about loving another person. — Mongrel

I mean, depictions of pregnant women are probably the oldest expressions of art in human history, but I'd rather consider a 5,000 year old mother goddesses carved from stone instead of tennis player. *shrug* — Heister Eggcart

Not as ugly as this: — Cavacava

Looks ugly to me, does that make me sexist and/or racist? — Heister Eggcart

Sorry, Agu, but cannibalism can be a natural desire — Heister Eggcart

You'll have to convince me of this assurance because at present you're failing to do so. — Heister Eggcart

Humankind is but a collection of particular human beings, not some amorphous blob. Furthermore, what is your criteria for those who must procreate? Who are they, and why do they have to procreate? — Heister Eggcart

Such as? If it's merely to prolong humankind as a race on Earth, why is that important and sufficient justification? — Heister Eggcart

And why is that? — Heister Eggcart

There are three parts to this. The suffering, the act of doing what brings about the suffering, and the "reward" once the act is suffered through. For instance, I play the play drums, so if I go to practice the drums there is, 1. the specific practicing of the drums, 2. the suffering that goes along with that (muscle fatigue, sweat, finger blisters, etc.), and 3. the end product of me being better at playing the drums (only attainable through practice.) Merely because I've become a better drummer post-practicing doesn't remove the prior state of suffering. — Heister Eggcart

If this is the case, then how exactly is procreation a natural desire if it isn't inherent in everyone? — Heister Eggcart

Williams photo was done by Annie Leibovitz, a very well known and well regarded photo artist. — Cavacava

You've been to Rome? — Cavacava

Frantic Freddie never had much luck with women. His sister in particular. Perhaps he was referring to self-flagellation. — Ciceronianus the White

Must... resist... the urge... — Sapientia

Could somebody explain why asking if all women are submissive is not demeaning but asking if a particular woman is...is? — Mongrel

I can tell you about AT&T. Everybody I worked with was male. The environment was consciously patterned after the US military (which, like Napoleon, adopted the Prussian military organizational scheme.)

This visual came to me one time. All the men were like giant grapes. Normally, they'd be plump, but occasionally big Meany would pass by and suck the juice out of everybody in his path leaving a trail of dried out raisins. I perceive that we do that a lot on this forum (some more than others.) When it happens, I think in the back of my mind that the sucker probably had all his grape juice sucked out by some other Big Meany... maybe his boss, maybe life in general?

A female dominated environment is a nursing home. I worked in one for a while. One huge difference is that there's no purpose to a nursing home the way there is to a business like AT&T. There's no goal. The job is finished when the patient is dead, but we're not trying to accomplish that.. you know? We're just doing the same things people have been doing since there have been people... wiping butts, feeding people who can't feed themselves, over and over.

One odd feature of that environment is a sort of emotional cloud that develops. Everybody contributes to the cloud and everybody partakes of it. Probably the fact that after a while everybody's menstrual cycle is happening at the same time is a factor. The "female ethics" is in that cloud. If you're feeling like a raisin, that cloud will support you... without much reasoning or goal to it. It's just what people have been doing since there have been people. Whatever is going on with you.. other people can feel it.

Does that make sense? If a really toxic person shows up, either environment has its own kind of immune system. But then... some people are so toxic that they're actually lethal. — Mongrel

You seem very focused on bull shit in this response, so I call bullshit again. You'll have to explain to me how a desire in nature doesn't have to be natural. — Heister Eggcart

Same response here as what I just gave above. Sex is sex. What you're trying to change, rather, is the love, not the sex. But I don't think you've figured that out yet, or at least you've not alluded to the affirmative. — Heister Eggcart

So procreation is an absolute essential for love? Brooooo, please stop contradicting yourself. — Heister Eggcart

I
I
I
V — Heister Eggcart

? — Heister Eggcart

Yes it is. Suffering is "bad" even if it brings about the good. — Heister Eggcart

But one must identify, and argue, from which half of man's being the desire to procreate comes. I also contest that the will to procreate is inherent and that everyone longs to have a child. — Heister Eggcart

Humor me and watch it. At the very least you'll enjoy it more than dropping a pizza on the tile. — Heister Eggcart

I don't think many would bother to contest the Son of God claim, since that claim needn't be blasphemous or controversial. When I was a young RC, we used to sing a modern hymn called 'Sons of God', about how we are just that. — andrewk

A sure warrant for looking forward with hope to deification of human nature is provided by the Incarnation of God, which makes man God to the same degree as God Himself became man ... . Let us become the image of the one whole God, bearing nothing earthly in ourselves, so that we may consort with God and become gods, receiving from God our existence as gods. For it is clear that He Who became man without sin (cf. Heb. 4:15) will divinize human nature without changing it into the Divine Nature, and will raise it up for His Own sake to the same degree as He lowered Himself for man's sake. This is what St[.] Paul teaches mystically when he says, '[]that in the ages to come he might display the overflowing richness of His grace' (Eph. 2:7) — St. Maximus the Confessor

I really do not think that Jesus ever claimed to be Son of God. To my knowledge, he referred to himself as Son of Man. There are two distinct claims involved here, that Jesus claimed to be Son of God, and that Jesus is Son of God. These two are part of a very complex issue surrounding his life, sacrifice, resurrection, and Christianity itself. It may well be a major flaw in Christianity, but Christianity was created by human beings, and this is just a reflection of the imperfection of human existence. — Metaphysician Undercover

Because one's desires need not be fulfilled. — Heister Eggcart

Merely because one has a desire does not mean that they must carry out that desire, otherwise hellfire and damnation upon them. — Heister Eggcart

I'm sure a psychopath will say that them hacking up someone to bits is an expression of their feeling free. But does this mean that whatever expression they think their act is refutes the base nature of the act itself? Surely not. — Heister Eggcart

This is merely attaching things to sex in order for you to think about it in a better light. Like coating a turd in gold leaf. — Heister Eggcart

This doesn't make it good. And if it isn't good, one has no good reason, therefore, to do it. — Heister Eggcart

All you've done here is replace the rawness of having sex with the rawness of kissing someone, looking into their eyes. Love is not a sentiment, and your categorization of sex is just that, a petty sentiment. — Heister Eggcart

Procreation is an absolute essential of what? Love? — Heister Eggcart

Agreed. So marriage and having "righteous sex" and having children are but shams. — Heister Eggcart

If having a child is neither right nor wrong in your thinking, then there is, as I've said several times now, no good reason to procreate. — Heister Eggcart

Procreating a child into existence does, which is why playing dumb, or flicking the amoral card on the table just isn't going to cut it. — Heister Eggcart

So what? — Heister Eggcart

Have you watched the recent Noah movie with Russell Crowe? — Heister Eggcart

At the very least, you cannot say that the command is categorical, but only meant for certain people called to marriage and family life. — Thorongil

I agree that the literal meaning of the command implies procreation, but as I believe Heister pointed out, it is given prior to the Fall. — Thorongil

I don't think anyone would object to procreation if it took place in paradise by immaculate human beings! — Thorongil

Of these, I waver the most with respect to the first, as lately I've been attracted to classical theism and Platonism. — Thorongil

Your judgement not to procreate? The baseline is doing nothing, not having the child. — Heister Eggcart

You love the person, not the sex. — Heister Eggcart

Sex is sex, regardless of what you're having sex with. — Heister Eggcart

And you don't need to have sex in order to love someone more fully. — Heister Eggcart

procreation is never good. — Heister Eggcart

Yes, I'm sure that you love someone so much more if you spiritually slide your cock back and forth inside her! :D — Heister Eggcart

All I'll say is that "be fruitful and multiply" doesn't necessarily infer human reproduction. Seeing as God is classically understood as love, to be fruitful is to multiply love. — Heister Eggcart

Highly misleading. This passage has been read allegorically since the early church as I recall. It can refer to the fruitfulness and multiplication of virtue and as a call to evangelize (multiply the numbers of Christians by conversion). — Thorongil

Obviously being celibate can be wrong. I assumed you would think of pedophilic priests who are supposed to be celibates but fail at it. I would argue that they fail at it because they're not satisfying their sexual desires. Not doing that ends up with worse consequences (child abuse). — Heister Eggcart

Merely because having sex and procreating children is natural doesn't make it right or necessary to do so. — Heister Eggcart

Procreation gets added to the list of corrupted, natural processes. — Heister Eggcart

Even so, if a couple wants to have a child so that they might father and mother it and love it, then there are millions of little shits out there that can keep them up at night and are needing to be adopted. — Heister Eggcart

No. — Heister Eggcart

Then you have no good reason to have a child. So, why are you in favor of having children if there's no good reason or necessity that demands their procreation? — Heister Eggcart

You are using someone when you're having sex with them. — Heister Eggcart

What difference does this make? You have responsibility over the child just as you do over the cake you baked with your wife. — Heister Eggcart

No, only that it isn't necessary with regard to procreation. — Heister Eggcart

A dick in the hole is a dick in the hole. — Heister Eggcart

Also, I think it's worth noting that sex as a function came about after the fall of Man, so to equate sex to God's first creative emanations before sin's entrance into the world would be an entirely obtuse characterization. Sex is not sacred and pure as love is in itself, or justice, or any other virtue. — Heister Eggcart

God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Nothing wrong? Think about what you're saying here for a second, and I think you'll take that back. — Heister Eggcart

only that I cannot divine up an instance wherein procreation is necessary. — Heister Eggcart

Some don't need to have sex, and so celibacy is a properly moral option. Others, however, do need to satiate their sexual appetite, thereby curbing future ruin by not doing what is necessary. — Heister Eggcart

Well it's with her mouth open and full that the male becomes vulnerable.

Teeth? — Mongrel

But if you have faith that having a child is the right thing to do, then you're assuming that this child once born will agree with you. — Heister Eggcart

So play God? — Heister Eggcart

God creating the world isn't the same as you fucking a woman and creating a fallen human being. — Heister Eggcart

While it's true for 1% of people they, do not have to worry about economic obligations in the same way others do, there are other harms- some of them are structural. — schopenhauer1

Deep, deep, down, down, in the bottom of my heart I feel gender and sex are more or less the same thing. BUT it is, nevertheless, the case that some roles which males and females carry out deviate from what is usually thought of as their normal role. For instance, some women drive trucks and some men take care of babies. — Bitter Crank

So rich people have no economic obligations? They have their own obligations not to mention being on top of the very economic system where the economic obligations take place. — schopenhauer1

But based on my premise, it is valid. — schopenhauer1

Yes, I agree with this, but I do not believe I was NOT saying this. AFTER the child is born it is forced into obligations. Obligations are harmful and inevitable. Procreation creates this condition. Ergo, procreating children is wrong as it leads to exposing a new person to inevitable and harmful ongoing, inescapable obligations. — schopenhauer1

The harm we may experience after we exist has identifiable causes for the most part. People, animals, nature may cause harm to us once we live. We may ascribe fault to them for doing so. We're not harmed by coming into existence, but are subject to harm when we do. — Ciceronianus the White

So, I think one can intelligibly maintain that we shouldn't have children because they'll become subject to harm if we do. — Ciceronianus the White

"Gender" is a social construct while "Sex" is a biological trait. — TimeLine

Trump is notoriously uninformed. — Wayfarer

'The day I realized it can be smart to be shallow was, for me, a deep experience.' — Wayfarer

The only way State Department can get him to read anything is to salt the papers they give him with references to him. — Wayfarer

He changes his mind continually and often shows no grasp of facts, principles or policies. — Wayfarer

It doesn't take intelligence to be lucky enough to afford multi-million dollar financial losses. — creativesoul

It doesn't take intelligence to be lucky enough to be able to afford to hire the right people. — creativesoul

Good business men keep their word. — creativesoul

Of course he is. He verges on imbecilic. — Wayfarer