Either Russia learns how to play nice and accepts their role in the empire or they will get nowhere and, if necessary, we will invade because the money has taken on a life of its own. Within twenty years commercial fishing will no longer be possible because there won't be enough wild fish in the oceans, within fifty every wild land animal larger than a dog will either be extinct or only exist in zoos. If you think sanity has anything to do with international politics and money think again. Russia is large enough it may survive what is coming, but the idea of them being able to do more than give the US a hard time in places like Syria is ludicrous. — wuliheron

Hahahaha! That's why Obama talks like a kitten to all world leaders and went on an apology tour. That's why Obama has been allowing the Russians to take Ukraine and install their support for the Assad regime. Remember the line in the sand? >:O

Putin is nothing more than a petty dictator with an overblown ego and any ambitions — wuliheron

Yes yes, like Hillary said that Trump's supporters are a basket of deplorables.... see what happened to her because of such cock-sureness and disrespect for her opponent?

He knows the minute he attempts to do so the US will throw all the money and resources it has towards opposing his efforts and the satellite states will fight him to the bitter end. — wuliheron

Why would the US throw all its money and resources towards opposing his efforts? The fucking US barely managed to handle Iraq. Give me a break. Look at your debt after going in Iraq. It's disgusting. You think the US will take the chance with Russia? The debt will go to 500 trillion then >:O Don't be silly. And if Putin takes over a few Baltic States what does the US stand to lose? Almost nothing. So let's see - nothing vs 500 trillion? Which one will you choose?

That's why the Soviet Union fell apart in the first place, is they could no longer control the territory they had conquered which is the history of Russia going back thousands of years. — wuliheron

Ehm not really - they didn't lose anything. They have actually gained by breaking up at that moment in time and opening to the outside world.

So? How is it of any help that you have such a large military when you have to cross the god-damn ocean? Nobody would bother to attack the US. That's not the question here. Russia would obviously not attack the US on US territories - that would be crazy. And the same holds true the other way around - the US wouldn't dare attack Russia on Russian territory - because they would cripple themselves.

The real danger is American non-intervention due to a compromise with Russia. As I said before, the US doesn't give a fuck about the rest of the world. You're on a different continent! You don't really care what happens - you never did to be honest. Nobody can threaten you over there. You're as safe as you can get. Why would you really care if Russia moves in with her tanks and annexes the whole of Ukraine? To be honest, you wouldn't give a damn. America's losses out of that are ZERO. You'd be upset just because they need to know you are there, and they shouldn't take actions without your permission. That's all. You want them to bow down and be under your control.

What evidence do you have that Putin wants to subjugate Europe? — tom

The simple reason that that's what anyone would do if they were in his place. Russia would be the boss, and Europe would be the second-class partner. And we would be second class partner because we have WEAK leadership. We need our own Putin.

As Putin said, "A nation that cannot protect its own children has no future." — tom

I agree.

Well I am not pro-Putin, but I do respect him as a leader - in comparison with, for example, Obama. Furthermore, it's a truth that there is a rich elite that are profited by globalism - that is no mystery. I am anti-globalism, I think that's a very dangerous ideology - in many regards it's the birthplace of moral relativisim, the sexual revolution, and everything that is degrading in modern Western culture - all fueled by greed. Moral relativism makes more money, and promotes consumerism much better than temperance and virtue ever would.

And while I am not for Putin - I can't be for globalism, sexual immorality, and cultural degradation either. I want a Europe (and I am European myself) which is strong, powerful and can stand up to Russia. Not a Europe ruled by Merkel - not a Europe which permits Ukraine to be handed over to the Russians. Not a Europe which is filled with vices - lust, greed, moral relativism, and so forth. Those are not European values - they never have been.

Now the reason why I can't be for Putin is that he wants to subjugate Europe. I want Europe to become a regional superpower. Europe must live up to its great heritage, Europe is much greater than Russia. But we have to break free from the globalist agenda and their lack of moral values. We have to return to those values that made Europe great in the first place: courage, dignity, integrity, perseverance, loyalty, and so forth. So yes Putin is a threat - he's a threat we should take very seriously, which means that we should stop electing weak Merkel as the leader of Europe - she can barely lead herself. And no - we shouldn't elect those right-wing lunatics that you show on the map - UKIP, Front Nationale, NPD, Viktor Orban's crooked party, and so forth. Those are just going to degrade Europe. We need new alternatives which are built around worker-friendly anti-globalist values - including morality, which is what's currently lacking. We need a leader like Putin, who can discipline member states of Europe and get them to comply with a single European policy so that we can build a united Europe, which doesn't have to be a slave to either Russia or the US. And definitely we have to free our politics from the money interests.

Man - I have to say that I'm out of words on that one.

And what's that on the bottom right then? A tattoo? >:O

>:O And what do you want me to do about that? Stitch it back for him??

On the political spectrum there is a certain class I dislike more than the progressives. They are called Libertarians, and I think you might be one of them >:O :D


Here's the guy who wants small government, loves smoking pot and doing whatever one wants, and believes in freedom! Does that sound like you John? ;)

Did anyone invite you here? :P

- talking about hypocrisy

Funny. Did you make that up just now? — Bitter Crank

>:O

Back when there were actual hard-core leftist parties--various Communist and Socialist organizations--I think you would have found them a rather conventional, hard-working, abstemious, responsible class of people. You might have agreed with NONE of their politics, but they weren't pot-smoking air heads or libertines. They were as responsible and hard nosed as Republican bankers were. — Bitter Crank

Yes, yes I know. Remember that time in Soviet Russia when a woman said at the Commie party: "sex is like drinking - when you're thirsty you go drink" and comrade Lenin replied: "yes, but not from a dirty glass"?

I think my politics and economics may in some ways be closer to yours (communists) than you think. I'm against Wall-Street speculators, and against bankers. If I was in charge, I'd close both of them down. The (main) difference between me and you, I suppose, would be that I am very much pro entrepreneurship - finding and doing work on your own, rather than through a company. I suppose you'd replace the company with an entity owned by the workers themselves - I'd be against this. My ideal society and economy has a large percentage of people being self-employed.

In fact - even socially I'm close to Communism. I believe that husband and wife should own their bodies in common - but these greedy individualistic capitalists want it all for themselves! >:O

Quite seriously now I've been drumming up a hypothesis that the Old Left (which was in large share socially conservative) was hijacked by the Capitalist Right and turned in the New Left, which while seemingly opposed to them, helps make the mass consumption society possible/bearable through their socially liberal views - it gives the big $$$ a human face. So now folks like me have no choice but to be on the Right (because those on the Old Left have mostly sold out to the carrot and bought into the New Left), even though some of the leading figures on the Right have no interest in social policies - their major beef has always been an economical one.

See - the real problem is that they cannot understand responsibility, the progressive mind just doesn't work that way, it operates a different OS. It's like Macintosh vs Windows.

On the Right you understand responsibility - why? Because you look at life and think there's a good way to be and a bad way to be, which is objective, and out there. You're being responsible when you get closer to that good way of being, and irresponsible when you get farther from it. Your job is to change yourself to be in accordance to that standard. So being responsible is taking ownership of your actions and their consequences - recognizing that such consequences ought to follow from such actions. For example if someone smokes weed all day, they're irresponsible with both their health and the fact that they're not doing anything useful to provide for themselves. Why so? Because they ought to work, and they ought to take care of their health - that's what being a good human being amounts to.

On the Left on the other hand, their brain doesn't function like this. Life isn't about becoming better - it's about being who you are and enjoying yourself. So if enjoying yourself is smoking weed the whole day, it's all about getting yourself in an arrangement where you can do precisely that all day. If something goes wrong - say you run out of money - then that's something that shouldn't happen because it gets in the way of you living your life as you want. That's evil then. That's why the Left has no notion of shame - nothing is shameful for them, simply because there is no responsibility. So if you're a bum smoking weed the whole day in your house and never getting your head out of there nor doing anything useful or productive - then that's nothing to be ashamed of. If you're a girl who is the town bicycle and everyone gets a ride - nothing to be ashamed of. They just don't have the notion of shame or responsibility, because they don't view life as being about becoming better, or about being a good human being.

Nothing that can be done. I'm starting to think that the Right and the Left will never get along. We should separate the world, give half of it to them, and take half of it ourselves. In 100 years they'll be living in the jungle, so we'll take it back easily, not to worry >:O

Regarding the rest of your post. Yes, that is called responsibility. The government should enforce responsibility, but is not responsible as a caretaker. Again, I am not religious and socially a bit more progressive than I present myself, but there is some wisdom from the religious right to hammer out irresponsible sex. — Emptyheady

I have a good right-wing acquaintance, and he told me that liberals and progressives just wanna smoke weed and fuck all day... I think he wasn't far off >:O

Have any of you ever read Henry Ford's autobiography, My Life and Work? I'm asking because - aside from his anti-semitism which is injurious - he does bring an entirely different vision with regards to economics - a vision which, while on the right, is distinct from the general right-view or the general left-view. I read it when I was very young, but re-reading it now surprises me at how much of his economic ideas I've adopted without even knowing. His vision is centred around the following:

1. Disapproval of the making of money for money's sake out of non-productive enterprises - ie banking, speculation, etc. Basically out of anything that does not provide value to others. This part is left-leaning, and I too share it. I find it disgusting that some folks are making money pressing buttons in front of a computer, buying and selling stocks - and not only are they making money, some of them are making HUGE money.
2. That whether rich or poor, people are really more alike than different in that both have the same human needs - human needs which cannot be fulfilled by mere money, but require actual goods and services and hence work to be fulfilled -> thus the world is really separated in people who want to work and love to work for others - and people who don't like to work - whether they be rich or poor.
3. That business should exist not for profit - but for service, and like in other fields of work, in business too there should be ethics governing what should be done and how.
4. That business shouldn't be organised with the ideal of infinite growth (and hence infinite consumption) in mind - but rather with the ideal of fulfilling necessities, and if all the necessities are met, then that is enough. This entails quite a bit of a different economy than what we have today, an economy which doesn't demand infinite growth.
5. Opposition to speculative interests that seek purposefully to earn out of war, conflict and suffering.
6. That it is natural for men and women to work.

Here are some interesting statements from his work:

"Between the rich and the poor is the great mass of the people who are neither rich nor poor. A society made up exclusively of millionaires would not be different from our present society; some of the millionaires would have to raise wheat and bake bread and make machinery and run trains—else they would all starve to death. Someone must do the work. Really we have no fixed classes. We have men who will work and men who will not. Most of the "classes" that one reads about are purely fictional.

Take certain capitalist papers. You will be amazed by some of the statements about the labouring class. We who have been and still are a part of the labouring class know that the statements are untrue. Take certain of the labour papers. You are equally amazed by some of the statements they make about "capitalists." And yet on both sides there is a grain of truth. The man who is a capitalist and nothing else, who gambles with the fruits of other men's labours, deserves all that is said against him. He is in precisely the same class as the cheap gambler who cheats workingmen out of their wages. The statements we read about the labouring class in the capitalistic press are seldom written by managers of great industries, but by a class of writers who are writing what they think will please their employers. They write what they imagine will please. Examine the labour press and you will find another class of writers who similarly seek to tickle the prejudices which they conceive the labouring man to have. Both kinds of writers are mere propagandists. And propaganda that does not spread facts is self-destructive. And it should be. You cannot preach patriotism to men for the purpose of getting them to stand still while you rob them—and get away with that kind of preaching very long. You cannot preach the duty of working hard and producing plentifully, and make that a screen for an additional profit to yourself. And neither can the worker conceal the lack of a day's work by a phrase"

"It takes only a moment's thought to see that as far as individual personal advantage is concerned, vast accumulations of money mean nothing. A human being is a human being and is nourished by the same amount and quality of food, is warmed by the same weight of clothing, whether he be rich or poor. And no one can inhabit more than one room at a time.

But if one has visions of service, if one has vast plans which no ordinary resources could possibly realize, if one has a life ambition to make the industrial desert bloom like the rose, and the work-a-day life suddenly blossom into fresh and enthusiastic human motives of higher character and efficiency, then one sees in large sums of money what the farmer sees in his seed corn—the beginning of new and richer harvests whose benefits can no more be selfishly confined than can the sun's rays.

There are two fools in this world. One is the millionaire who thinks that by hoarding money he can somehow accumulate real power, and the other is the penniless reformer who thinks that if only he can take the money from one class and give it to another, all the world's ills will be cured. They are both on the wrong track. They might as well try to corner all the checkers or all the dominoes of the world under the delusion that they are thereby cornering great quantities of skill. Some of the most successful money-makers of our times have never added one pennyworth to the wealth of men. Does a card player add to the wealth of the world?

If we all created wealth up to the limits, the easy limits, of our creative capacity, then it would simply be a case of there being enough for everybody, and everybody getting enough. Any real scarcity of the necessaries of life in the world—not a fictitious scarcity caused by the lack of clinking metallic disks in one's purse—is due only to lack of production. And lack of production is due only too often to lack of knowledge of how and what to produce"

"This much we must believe as a starting point:

That the earth produces, or is capable of producing, enough to give decent sustenance to everyone—not of food alone, but of everything else we need. For everything is produced from the earth.

That it is possible for labour, production, distribution, and reward to be so organized as to make certain that those who contribute shall receive shares determined by an exact justice.

That regardless of the frailties of human nature, our economic system can be so adjusted that selfishness, although perhaps not abolished, can be robbed of power to work serious economic injustice."

"We must have production, but it is the spirit behind it that counts most. That kind of production which is a service inevitably follows a real desire to be of service. The various wholly artificial rules set up for finance and industry and which pass as "laws" break down with such frequency as to prove that they are not even good guesses. The basis of all economic reasoning is the earth and its products. To make the yield of the earth, in all its forms, large enough and dependable enough to serve as the basis for real life—the life which is more than eating and sleeping—is the highest service. That is the real foundation for an economic system. We can make things—the problem of production has been solved brilliantly. We can make any number of different sort of things by the millions. The material mode of our life is splendidly provided for. There are enough processes and improvements now pigeonholed and awaiting application to bring the physical side of life to almost millennial completeness. But we are too wrapped up in the things we are doing—we are not enough concerned with the reasons why we do them. Our whole competitive system, our whole creative expression, all the play of our faculties seem to be centred around material production and its by-products of success and wealth.

There is, for instance, a feeling that personal or group benefit can be had at the expense of other persons or groups. There is nothing to be gained by crushing any one. If the farmer's bloc should crush the manufacturers would the farmers be better off? If the manufacturer's bloc should crush the farmers, would the manufacturers be better off? Could Capital gain by crushing Labour? Or Labour by crushing Capital? Or does a man in business gain by crushing a competitor? No, destructive competition benefits no one. The kind of competition which results in the defeat of the many and the overlordship of the ruthless few must go. Destructive competition lacks the qualities out of which progress comes. Progress comes from a generous form of rivalry. Bad competition is personal. It works for the aggrandizement of some individual or group. It is a sort of warfare. It is inspired by a desire to "get" someone. It is wholly selfish. That is to say, its motive is not pride in the product, nor a desire to excel in service, nor yet a wholesome ambition to approach to scientific methods of production. It is moved simply by the desire to crowd out others and monopolize the market for the sake of the money returns. That being accomplished, it always substitutes a product of inferior quality."

"The business of life is easy or hard according to the skill or the lack of skill displayed in production and distribution. It has been thought that business existed for profit. That is wrong. Business exists for service. It is a profession, and must have recognized professional ethics, to violate which declasses a man. Business needs more of the professional spirit. The professional spirit seeks professional integrity, from pride, not from compulsion. The professional spirit detects its own violations and penalizes them. Business will some day become clean. A machine that stops every little while is an imperfect machine, and its imperfection is within itself. A body that falls sick every little while is a diseased body, and its disease is within itself. So with business. Its faults, many of them purely the faults of the moral constitution of business, clog its progress and make it sick every little while. Some day the ethics of business will be universally recognized, and in that day business will be seen to be the oldest and most useful of all the professions."

"The natural thing to do is to work—to recognize that prosperity and happiness can be obtained only through honest effort. Human ills flow largely from attempting to escape from this natural course. I have no suggestion which goes beyond accepting in its fullest this principle of nature. I take it for granted that we must work. All that we have done comes as the result of a certain insistence that since we must work it is better to work intelligently and forehandedly; that the better we do our work the better off we shall be. All of which I conceive to be merely elemental common sense."

Man, you go from 0 to 100 with the religious lingo, I tell ya. I also never said Christianity is against Jewish values. I actually said the opposite, but, you know, English is hard. — Heister Eggcart

Paul wasn't a dummy, he realized that most people are sexually obsessed lunatics, so he wrought the idea of marriage chastity in with both the Jewish and Roman traditions that also stressed a similar value for family and marital vows. — Heister Eggcart

So St. Paul put together the idea of chastity with the idea of marriage because folks are sexually obsessed lunatics. And yet, the idea of marriage and chastity existed already in Jewish culture. Marriage was an institution ordained by God, including the idea of chastity before but not IN marriage. Why then is sex in marriage always evil?

God is love, ergo, to love is to know God.
Sex is a form of love.
Therefore sex allows one to know God. — Thorongil

I disagree with the second premise. Sex is a part of a form of love. The form of love - which includes but is not limited to, nor necessarily must include sex - allows an imperfect, or better said incomplete knowledge of God, for it still remains within the realm of the created. The love of Adam and Eve for example doesn't just include sex - that's not all that exists in the love among them. Sex, however, can also be one of the components. When it is, the act represents a smaller completion of the human being. Adam gets back Eve, which is really a part of him - they are of one body - even literarily in the story. But there is a greater completion, and that occurs when the two are submerged into God.

In other words the human being is completed sub specie durationis through love between a man and a woman (which again doesn't necessarily include sex), and sub specie aeternitatis through communion and union with the divine. And love between a man and a woman is the completion of love of neighbour - for it presupposes and builds on it. One is first of all my neighbour, and only secondly my wife.

The monks sacrifice the good sub specie durationis, for the greater good sub specie aeternitatis. In that hierarchical relationship it makes sense to sacrifice one good for another greater good.

One should also add that no stool ever sits on two legs. Three are needed to stand. Think of the similarity with the Trinity - the community of 3. Man, wife, and God. They (the man and wife) are glued together by a common purpose and desire, which binds better than any other glue - God. Because they submit first to God, they have each other for eternity. As Kierkegaard says, the lovers have to swear by the eternal - by the uncreated, for they cannot swear their love by each other - that's perishable. The divorce rate is 50%+ because each submits himself or herself only to their own self in the modern world. They each have separate, and different purposes and desires. And thus their arrangements are inherently unstable. It's called built to fail really.

If God is love and if sex is a form of love then sex is a form of God. — Michael

Actually, that's not exactly what Comrade Lenin told me... >:O

If sex were okay then monks wouldn't fear it like the plague — Heister Eggcart

The monks fear it like plague because sex outside of marriage is a grave sin - obviously. Also being a monk is incompatible with being married - thus for them, in all circumstances sex is a grave sin.

Paul wasn't a dummy, he realized that most people are sexually obsessed lunatics, so he wrought the idea of marriage chastity in with both the Jewish and Roman traditions that also stressed a similar value for family and marital vows. — Heister Eggcart

And? Christianity isn't also Jewish? How can Christianity be against Judaism and its values? The Jews are God's Chosen people. Jesus came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it. Remember that.

I actually agree with that >:O

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, :’( — Heister Eggcart

>:O

Tell me, Agustino, why is sexual chastity a virtue in Christianity? — Heister Eggcart

Correction: sexual chastity OUTSIDE of marriage is a virtue in Christianity. Sexual chastity while married is NOT a virtue, that's precisely why St. Paul told married people in Corinthians not to deprive each other - even as they were expecting great tribulations and needed to fortify themselves (for which chastity was better). For those who are devoted entirely to God - the monks - chastity exists. But for example for priests - in Eastern Orthodox Christianity of which I am a part - chastity isn't required. Priests can be married, if they are married, then being chaste is not a requirement.

As for why sexual chastity is a virtue outside of marriage? Because (1) to be a slave to lust is harmful to yourself and others, (2) sex was designed for procreation (includes child rearing) and for unitive purposes which can both be unachievable outside of marriage and with multiple partners. God created one Eve for Adam, which complemented him - was, even literarily, part of him.

You seem be, as there's no reason for you to continually say that there is physical unity between two people during sex when there is not. Period. — Heister Eggcart

Why don't you tell us why you think sex is always evil then? Why don't you think spiritual and physical union through sex can be achieved?

Well, there are things called orphanages, which have existed for a very long time and still do. Are they as ideal as having a mother and a father? No. But they serve their purpose adequately enough, if they are properly supported. — Thorongil

Perhaps.

Inked words on a page are only meaningful when we understand what they mean. Sex may be the same way, but you've yet to explain your way out of intentions and why sex means anything beyond its physical context. — Heister Eggcart

But I already told you what sex means. It means becoming one, spiritually and physically, with the beloved. It's a symbol of unity. The way theosis is symbolised by Heaven and Earth uniting at the end-times for example.

You've argued that sex brings about a oneness, a kind of love. If you think that, then sex is then a means toward communing more closely with God, which would be a highly dubious claim.

Going back to my first response here, if sex does not bring someone closer to "God", then there really is no good reason for you to have sex in the first place. — Heister Eggcart

That oneness that sex (can) bring about is only an imperfect image of the oneness that can be achieved between man and God through theosis after death.

This is metaphysical gibberish which does not escape the fact that a couple's bodies are NOT one when having sex. — Heister Eggcart

Do you read your Bible literarily? :P Or is it only sex that you like to read literarily?

The child need not be raised by her, but it ought not to be prevented from being born. — Thorongil

Sure then I would have no qualms with it, apart of course from worrying what will happen to the child?

If we were both in the US, I'd tell you that I agree with Hanover that the SCOTUS overstepped its authority with Roe V Wade. But the ultimate effect is that abortion is now normalized in the US. When the vote comes to amend the constitution (and I could see that happening in the next 50 years or so), most Americans will agree that abortion is a right because they're used to it. — Mongrel

So you're basically telling me that you agree they did the wrong thing, but you don't want to remedy it because you like it and folks are used to it. So I guess then if someone does something wrong, but it's good for us, then we shouldn't seek to remedy it. Nice principle to have that, no? :P

I gather from what you've said that your main concern is not that abortion is murder, but that it seems to you to have something to do with sexual freedom. By and large, this isn't an American attitude. It exists here, but it's lunatic fringe. — Mongrel

I don't care what is "American" or not. I care what is right and just. And no - my problem with abortion is that it's a MURDER which is used to justify sexual immorality - which is even worse than it just being murder. Killing a thief who attacks you is also murder, and yet that's in self-defense and clearly not a moral tragedy. So the fact that it's murder alone is not sufficient.

Want does not follow need. — Heister Eggcart

Sure, it doesn't NECESSARILY follow it. But I never claimed it did.

Perhaps you don't need to be in a relationship, that is true. But one does still require love, which does not depend on sex. — Heister Eggcart

I don't think one NEEDS love. Rather one wants love, because they feel, know and understand that it is good.

What? Have you not read anything that I've written so far? You've said the complete opposite of what I've argued this whole time... — Heister Eggcart

No I have, I'm saying that your sex is a necessary evil argument, simply entails that logic that I've outlined there. it's a reaction to that logic.

No, sorry, this is pure mumbo-jumbo, Agustino. You are NOT one in body with the other when having sex. All that has happened is one genitalia fitting into another. That's it. That's all. Nothing more. Now, you can believe that some spiritual event has taken place because sausage meets bun, but this does not uproot what very simply, and physically, happens during sex. — Heister Eggcart

No, sorry, this is pure ignorance, Heister. You are NOT just having a physical experience when having sex, just like the words in a book aren't just ink on a page. Things have meaning - sex does too.

I'll wait while you find me the time when Jesus had sex in order to more closely commune with his Father. — Heister Eggcart

And did I say that you have to have sex in order to be in closer communion with God? Of course not. But remember the metaphors used in the Bible. Christ and his Church are like the bride and groom. Man and wife. Sex as a unitive practice applies only between man and wife, but it symbolises the theosis that can be achieved between man and God, on a different level of course. That's why the Bible says the married people become ONE flesh - not two, not three, not five hundred. That's also why sex outside of marriage was considered an evil - it prevents the goal of ONE flesh.

It doesn't mean precisely that. — Michael

>:O yeaaaaaah

It could also mean being able to spend the evening at the pub or being able to go spelunking at a moment's notice. And both the celibate and the monogamous can be in control of their lives. — Michael

Sure but in this case it certainly includes fucking around as you call it.

casual sex doesn't "do violence" to one's soul. — Michael

I don't think they can think that if they understand their souls. There cannot be two women in your life, just the same way there can't be two suns in the sky - or two pieces of a puzzle which can go in the same place.

If you don't then your opponent is free to reject this claim, and so the rest of your argument doesn't even need to be considered. — Michael

My point isn't to convince you - it's to lay out an argument. You have to judge an argument on its terms. You cannot swap terms and plug in your conceptions. My argument is valid.

Government has no role to play in it. — Mongrel

Ehmm nope, I don't think that follows at all :D

Puritanism comes and goes. — Mongrel

I'm not a Puritanist. Heister Eggcart is more Puritanical in his views, ie sex is always evil - than I am. I actually think sex has the potential to be exceedingly good - only that all the misuse of it prevents most people from ever climbing a little above their animal nature.

The sexual revolution was one of many where we realized... oh yea, we're animals — Mongrel

The sexual revolution was the time when we forgot that we are also spirit, and all that was left to identify with was our animal nature.

It does require some fortitude from men to accept a world where feminine power is not veiled — Mongrel

What does this have to do with anything? Abuse of power - whether it's coming from men or from women is wrong. So yes, a world where women abuse their bodies in order to gain advantages over men is a crooked world. A world where promiscuous sex - in other words USING others as means to an end which is your own pleasure - isn't only wrong, it's petty. Being a servant to your lust, such that when your lust orders you to go have sex, you go do it - that's unworthy of the dignity of mankind. The fact that people are willing to humiliate themselves, and go to great lengths just to have sex, that is a real tragedy - and the fact that it's getting normalised, that's shameful. Even Lenin knew - when at the Communist Party a woman said sex is like drinking, when you're thirsty you go drink, when you feel lust, you go have sex - Lenin responded: "yes, but not from a dirty glass"

I am also reminded of a story of Alexander the Great I heard. Alexander had just finished conquering Persia. One of his generals brought the best prostitutes in the city to him, and said "Here are the best the Persians have!", and Alexander, angrily replied "How dare you come to me with such trifles, when I had just conquered the largest empire in history? Be gone before I have you killed!" Even Alexander knew - no wonder, he had Aristotle teaching him ;)

Men who have psychological problems about women will be afflicted. — Mongrel

>:O No I actually think that all honorable men and women will be affected to see the humiliation that some women and men go through for a piece of meat. Isn't it hilarious? The lust says go left - you go left >:O Really, sometimes I get angry, sometimes I feel sorry for them, but sometimes I just laugh like crazy seeing what some do ... how they can go on living in shame is beyond me, but I'll give you that it's hilarious.

Yep. — Heister Eggcart

Good, so therefore it is possible to want the beloved, there is no immorality in that, just as there is no immorality in wanting God.

If you don't need to have sex, there is, therefore, no reason for you to have it. — Heister Eggcart

Sure, but following that logic, I don't need to even be in a relationship. Probably all I need is air to breathe, food to eat, and water to drink. So the truth is that just because I don't NEED it, doesn't mean that there is no reason to do it. I don't need to read a book, and yet I do have a reason to do it - I want to know and learn more. But that's not a NEED.

Sex is an ugly act that is best performed as quickly as one can and only when one must. You seem to be idealizing sex like some glorify war, and I'm not buying it. — Heister Eggcart

Doing it "quickly" just makes it shameful and ugly indeed. What you're basically saying is this: use someone as a means to your own pleasure (obviously driven by your lust), and all you have to do is know that this is your lust driving you, and you can't do anything about it, so just give in to it, but get it over quickly. That's weakness to me, not strength.

I'm not idealising sex, I'm saying that the sexual act doesn't have to follow that logic that you have illustrated above. Instead the logic can very well be for unitive purposes. This doesn't seem to get to you, but as you can see there are some of us for whom sex isn't used to get pleasure from the other when our lust compels us to. Instead we feel a desire to be one with the other, in body and in spirit, and that's what CAN - doesn't have to - lead to the act. What motivates such a desire? Because the other feels more ourselves than we are - like a piece of puzzle which is completed by another. Then it is done out of love, and it is holy. I could just as well have added - since you claim to be a believer - that God wouldn't have created something if it was purely evil. The mere fact that sex is possible indicates that it has a rightful use, when it is good.

You don't want after God. You need him. — Heister Eggcart

Okay so if I need Him, I can then either want Him, or not - that is still open to me.

Great, so we agree that you don't need to have sex! — Heister Eggcart

Of course we agree that you don't NEED to have sex to be in a relationship or love someone. However this has nothing to do with whether you will have it or should have it or not.

Why is it morally necessary to satisfy our sexual instincts? — Heister Eggcart

I didn't say it is.

And no, I don't deny that there is natural desire, only that one should fight against it and not be in bed with it — Heister Eggcart

Well I am fighting against that desire that you're speaking of. But I'm speaking of another desire, of which you don't seem to be aware of. Instead you're merely confusing one for the other.

And 'women shouldn't be promiscuous' isn't controversial? Move to Saudi if you feel that way, dude. — Mongrel

Well it is less controversial for sure I tend to think. For one, promiscuity is known in our Western heritage as a vice. Pretty much until the Sexual Revolution it was known in the modern world as a vice as well.

The vast majority of people have sex because of their lust, are you kidding? — Heister Eggcart

Yes, the vast majority is not all of them.

Uh, no. Your couple's already failed in their intentions if they're fumbling after desire. — Heister Eggcart

And loving something (or someone) doesn't include desiring it (or them)? If I love God, then don't I desire God?

And sorry, love does not require me sliding my penis into a woman's vagina. — Heister Eggcart

Yes it doesn't require that.

It seems to me that your vague appeal to some kind of transcendent "oneness" is a pretty bad excuse for you to fuck somebody. — Heister Eggcart

Yes except that "fucking somebody" wouldn't satisfy the natural desire for unity with the beloved in this case - in fact it would frustrate it. You deny there is any such natural desire. I don't - that's the difference between us two.

If you can only love someone through having sex with them, then I hate to break it to you, but you're doing it wrong. — Heister Eggcart

I agree - if you can only love someone by having sex with them, you're doing it wrong.

But the basics are precisely what is controversial. Look at Michael for example. He disagrees because he doesn't agree there is any such thing as soul/spirit/psyche. That is more basic than abortion. The root of everything - in this case God - is even more controversial.

Sex ought only to be a means toward alleviating sexual appetite. If a couple's intent is to diminish their lust through the means of sex, then so be it. But if that couple intends only to satisfy each other's sexual desire as the end in itself, then they've not intended to do what is compassionate, which is the repairing of the other's sexual weakness that they themselves cannot solve alone. — Heister Eggcart

That is true - but a very limited view of things. Not all people who have sex do it as a means of alleviating sexual appetite. Not all people who have sex do it motivated by the desire to alleviate sexual appetite. Not all people do it out of lust in other words. The couple I was talking about for example does not attempt to satisfy their sexual desire as end in itself. Rather they attempt to satisfy their desire for oneness as end in itself - otherwise known as love.

Well, no. There's more to being in control of your own life than just being able to sleep around. — Michael

Yes but what does this "being in control of their lives" concretely mean for them? It means precisely being able to sleep around. If they have the control, that's how they'll use it.

Right. So given that I consider the notion of the spirit and the soul to be nonsense, I can dismiss your criticism of abortion as resting on nonsense premises. — Michael

Granting that you don't consider the notion of soul, spirit, psyche etc. as meaningful, you can conclude that someone who would consider these notions meaningful would agree with me with regards to abortion.

So you don't want to defend your anti-abortion views? You're just saying that you have them? — Michael

No I did defend them. I defended them for folks who do understand what their soul, spirit, psyche, etc. is or refers to. You don't understand that. That's fine. My plan isn't to convince you of my whole worldview in a thread that is about abortion, that would be silly no? To make the argument air-tight I'd have to convince you of the whole world-view that supports it - of course I'm not going to do that, simply because it's impractical.

You have a different conception of intimacy. Intimacy for you is probably a similar feeling to feeling close and open to, for example a friend. That kind of feeling you have when you feel you can share anything with someone. For you folks who like casual sex have a lower threshold for intimacy, they can feel intimate more easily than others. Those who like strict monogamous sex have a much higher intimacy threshold - it takes a lot more for them to feel intimate. But this is NOT what I'm referring to as intimacy in my post. This is a whole different conception. This conception is true (meaning such a thing as what you describe does exist) - but simply fails to notice the REALITY of what I am pointing to by intimacy in my own conception, which is different than the reality you have (so far) observed.

No. I'm sure you're very sincere. But your explanation of a rightist attitude toward abortion doesn't strike me as having anything to do with the religious right nor mainstream rightism. Do what you will with that information. Peace :). — Mongrel

lol of course not. If all I did was parrot the same explanations that we've heard before, nothing would change. I need to make new ones, find new ways to conceive the same issue, that's the only way to convince people who aren't already convinced. Arguments are merely ways of pointing to a truth that is beyond them. I need to find better ways to point to the truth that is beyond the general rightist arguments.

They aren't usually flippant about evil when addressing something as serious as murder (which is how they deem abortion.) — Mongrel

Does that imply that I am?

Well that's wrong. Women don't get an abortion just so that they can continue being promiscuous. Rather they get an abortion because they don't want to to have a child. — Michael

Yes, and they don't want to have a child because that's blocking their right to be in control of their lives - which is codename for being promiscuous >:O

Casual sex can be intimate. That you wouldn't feel any intimacy isn't that those who engage in it don't. Have you ever considered that the thing that distinguishes those open to casual sex from those that aren't is their respective threshold for intimacy? — Michael

>:O It's impossible per the definitions I'm using of intimacy. In the conception used there, sex - which always has a spiritual element to it - will always be harmful with multiple partners, simply because every partner change involves a rupturing (psychologically) of what was previously united through the act, and thus does violence to the soul.

Then a case needs to be made for sexual promiscuity being infantile and immoral. — Michael

Sure - I did that in the past, but that's not what this thread is about.

I'm a little wary of classifying evil in degrees. If something is evil, then it's evil, and that's that. — Thorongil

Yes but certain actions involve multiple evils, which is what I mean when I say less evil. For example promiscuity -> pregnancy -> abortion. That's two evils over there, with the latter evil being used as a way to escape the consequences of the former - which is what is outrageous. It's doubly immoral. Whereas rape -> pregnancy -> abortion => only one evil that is caused by the woman herself (the abortion). I believe in that case it's a decision she herself must take. The state shouldn't choose between the two evils. The woman, depending on her character, will either choose to save the life of the child even though it may be very difficult for her, or will choose that it's not right for her to have to raise the child of a rapist, or she simply can't do it for whatever reasons, and therefore choose abortion. She will be responsible for that choice, whatever it is. However, the state shouldn't enforce that kind of thing on the woman.

I don't see this as punishing the woman. — Thorongil

So you don't see having to carry and raise the child of a man who raped you as an evil?

But I'm not denying them anything. They are free to engage in certain actions that might lead to certain consequences. — Thorongil

I agree.

I'm highly skeptical that the latter can be achieved by the former. — Thorongil

Why?

That doesn't explain how she uses the foetus to justify her sexual promiscuity. — Michael

Okay boss.

Furthermore, what do you mean by refusing the natural consequences? She certainly understands that her being pregnant is a consequence of having sex. — Michael

Yes, she understands that, and therefore she gets rid of the fetus in order to get rid of the pregnancy which was the natural consequence of it. And she does that because she doesn't want to be pregnant. Why? Because she wants to continue being promiscuous.

And it's unclear why this doesn't apply to the monogamous woman who accidentally becomes pregnant by her boyfriend, despite their best efforts. It's not like having (protected) sex with a hundred different people is more likely to lead to pregnancy than having (protected) sex with a single person a hundred times. — Michael

Assuming those two are engaged, having sex for them is a means of achieving intimacy. Having promiscuous sex on the other hand is damaging towards intimacy, and it's more like using the other in order to get something for yourself, and the other using you in order to get something for themselves. Doing that, and then killing a life in order to avoid the consequences, now that's shameful and low - in fact it's doubly shameful and low.

Your condemnation of abortion stems from it being used to enable sexual promiscuity. But given that sexual promiscuity doesn't require ever having an abortion, this proposed enabling relationship falls apart. — Michael

No, my condemnation for it stems from the fact that a life is destroyed for infantile and immoral reasons.

Debatable — Michael

Sure.