In fact BC - that is a frequent problem of religious people, beating yourself up, because of improper understanding of what is and what isn't in one's control. It's entirely natural for all sorts of desires to arise. Most of the time, they arise, and we just ignore them. It's people who have some underlying condition - obsessions, compulsions, anxiety, etc. who dwell on them - then they can become problematic, crippling, or may cause us to do something stupid.

That's just a failure to distinguish between theory (the ideal situation) and practice (the actual situation).

There is no contradiction my friend. We don't live in an ideal world. We have to play the cards we're given. Yes, ideally the President should set the highest moral standards. Practically, in this specific case, it's less important what Trump's personal behaviour is, and more important what policies and attitudes he sets forth - why? Because neither alternative is any better in terms of personal behaviour. — Agustino

I can largely agree with that. But social conservatives should use this as an opportunity to attack the liberal-progressive media for the hypocrisy they are engaged in. They aren't upset about this happening in our culture - only that someone running for President displays it. This is wrong.

I found that model to be, basically, crazy-making. — Bitter Crank

Crazy making only if you beat yourself up for example for wanting to have sex with another woman while married. There's nothing wrong with wanting it in itself - it's about acting that is wrong. If you do things in order to have it - that's wrong. If you tell folk that you wish you had it - that's also wrong (notice how the telling is an ACTION). But merely having that desire - sure - entertain it - why not? We shouldn't repress any desires. This doesn't mean we give into them - but that we entertain them. I don't think anyone reasonable could be against that. It's entirely conceivable that a desire arise in you over which you have no control - you have no control whether the desire to cheat on your wife is present. You just have control over what you do with it ... do you talk about it? Do you go ahead and cheat? etc. One can want many things - it doesn't mean one has to be the slave of that desire and give in to it...

That people wish they could have sex with a desired but unavailable partner is not THE problem. — Bitter Crank

No the fact that they wish this alone isn't the problem. The fact they would make this public as their wish that they are unashamed by - that is the problem. If they went to the priest and said I have this desire to have sex with another woman apart from my wife - that would be a good way to deal with it. If they actually did it, or worse they did it and/or proclaimed publicly they did/wanted to without being ashamed, but rather proudly proclaiming it - that is bad. Why? Because it means they have lost the moral standard from their vision. They no longer aspire to it, and have instead fallen into spiritual sloth.

I hold with actions — Bitter Crank

I hold with both. It's one thing to say "oh I have this desire to have sex with a woman other than my wife, but I wish I didn't have such a desire", and a completely different thing to say "I just wish I could have sex with a woman other than my wife". The former may be natural - the latter is evil.

This may be true - I don't have one at hand that I refer to, but 40-50% are numbers I have seen regarding the US in a few sources. But what you say may be true. Even if it's true - there is a very very big problem. And the big problem is that they WISH they had it - that's a problem. They desire something immoral - that's a sign of cultural degradation, that we need to do something about. In fact it's more significant that they wish they had it, than if they actually did. If they did, and still profess to desire a good standard, that is better - at least they are aware of what is good, despite their failings.

10 percent of married people — Bitter Crank

Up that to 40-50% by most surveys for today's world.

Again the key qualification here is it's not cool amongst 'average' lower or middle class folk. — Erik

Sure - but it is the case for those who set the culture of society. This isn't YET the case with average lower or middle class folk (and depends who you're referring to, let's not forget that approximately 70% of black children are born out of wedlock for example). But culture seeps through from those who set it to everyone else in time. The lower or middle class folk will no longer be as you know them if things continue.

And I would also distinguish between the words and behavior of a teenage boy and an older man, the latter of whom should have moved beyond the objectification of women and caving in to peer pressure by the time he's in his sixties (or fifties, or forties, or even thirties). Not sure about you, but I think about what I did in my late teens and early twenties and cringe. Who the hell was that stupid kid? It was me, sadly. So 'boys will be boys' seems to hold to a certain extent, independent of the social context. But I could be wrong about this and would like to hear your arguments to the contrary. — Erik

This depends on the culture of your society. Neither should teen boys objectify women - this is a failure of current society. Kids don't have role models. They're not educated about sex. They're not provided with the adequate moral examples, and the adequate literature. They don't look for example at the moral example set by John Wooden (the basketball coach) in regards to sexual morality - he, by his own words, only kissed one girl in his life. So it's not always that young men were so keenly interested in sex. It's only a hypersexualised culture, which puts sex on a pedestal, and tells men they have no worth if they don't engage in it that creates such situations.

There is no contradiction my friend. We don't live in an ideal world. We have to play the cards we're given. Yes, ideally the President should set the highest moral standards. Practically, in this specific case, it's less important what Trump's personal behaviour is, and more important what policies and attitudes he sets forth - why? Because neither alternative is any better in terms of personal behaviour.

Moral charlatans like Ben Carson and his ilk will happily vote for Trump no matter how much he apparently contradicts their moral values for a very simple reason. There is nothing of substance to contradict. Power trumps morality. — Baden

Yeah for a very simple reason that he says he will appoint conservative Judges, he will put tougher restrictions on abortion, he will end illegal immigration, etc. What does Crooked say on the other hand? That she will appoint progressive Judges. She will license partial birth abortion. That's the problem. It's not about the single person, but also about who surrounds them. Social conservatives have a degree of control over Trump that they don't over Clinton. I don't really care if Trump himself will be immoral so long as he will be a useful tool for the social conservative agenda. It's a calculated sacrifice - lose a pawn, in order to win the game.

I personally didn't like Trump's boasting about going after a married woman. And wasn't he married at the time? I guess I'm a bit old-fashioned on this matter. The other stuff was pathetic IMO for a 60-something-year-old man, but yeah that kind of bravado is common amongst men, especially teenagers and young adults. Just as seeing an older man get drunk is sad, so is hearing him brag about his sex life like he's in high school. — Erik

Yes he was indeed married. Of course, it's something that must be condemned. But if we are to condemn it, we have to condemn it everywhere. Trump is just a small case - seeing the high school kid brag about his sex life is just as bad. Seeing Hollywood actors shag each with everyone, divorcing 5 hundred times, etc. these are also disgusting displays of lack of morality, which need to be sanctioned. But apparently some folk think that we should only sanction Trump - which is precisely the problem. The fact that we live in a culture where this behaviour is not only acceptable, but is cool - that is the problem. Why was Trump acting that way? Because he knows that's how a "cool" person acts. And everyone knows that that's what being perceived as cool is - because we have a rotten culture. So the problem is with the media and Hollywood - who have created this culture - not with Trump who is merely an instantiation and end result of their work. Trump is a very useful tool - he exposes their hypocrisy.

Those who want to overturn moral traditions :)

If only this Crooked Media would be as outraged about Clinton's rape accusations as they are about Trump's comments...

Oh so then it becomes a problem to mistreat women, and to be immoral if you're President, but if you're the average Joe it's okay right? We should tolerate it then? Really the corrupt and lying mass media knew about this for a very very long time! They should've made a fuss about it when it happened - not now. They are much worse than Trump - in fact they are Trump's teachers - just as they are the teachers of millions of young people nowadays.

And really I don't understand why these corrupt folks in the media are so outraged about what Trump said - many in Hollywood and the media are equally promiscuous, and think equally bad about women - in fact they treat women no differently than Trump. So why are they making a big fuss? Only because Trump speaks it, while they only think it and never say it? This is outrageous. They are just as bad as Trump - they should indict themselves as well. That guy Billy Bush - why is no one picking on him? Are his views on women decent? What about everyone else around Trump when he said it? They too have decent views on women?

Do you disagree with the psychological fact that people emulate those who are perceived as leaders? Really this is a silly game - what do you expect me to do? Quote to you research studies about this finding? If you just open your eyes and look around you, you will see that people do seek to emulate those who are perceived to be leaders - there would be no need for a study. But because you insist here you go:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1013826126058
The Alure of Toxic Leaders

Now let's see if this changes anything - of course it doesn't - because what's happening with you is that you don't want to believe it in the first place, as it is ruinous to your political beliefs.

I think "affect" is a wider term than "encourage" -- I don't think that just because someone in power does something that "the masses" will then be more prone to follow suit. — Moliere

Okay, I disagree with that. It is well known that most people follow their leaders at least to a certain extent and seek to emulate them.

People like having sex regardless of what the person in power does. — Moliere

This is besides the point. The question was precisely in what circumstances they do it, not whether or not they like having sex...

So do you believe that what the President does then doesn't affect the beliefs of the masses? ( NO - not your beliefs - the beliefs of the masses).

The highest moral standards, since they set the tone for everyone else. If the President cheats on his wife/husband, it will encourage little Joe and Jenny to do the same - that's terrible - regardless of how discrete it is - in fact the more discrete, the worse. It's preferable that he be not discrete if he does it at all, so that the public can take attitude against it.

What I took you to be saying, was that efforts to legislate how one should behave with regards to others, will fail to affect what you really think about them. But the attempt by the polity to legislate what one ought or ought not to think is the origin of 'political correctness'. Political correctness is, after all, the expression of opinions which it is assumed that no right-thinking person ought to hold. So it kind of an assumed consensus. — Wayfarer

A law can be questioned - that's why ultimately there is nothing wrong with it. Political correctness is self-righteous and self-justifying - it cannot be questioned, hence why there is something wrong with it.

Societies differ not only across nations but over time in terms of people's attitudes. Not only is that self-evident, it has been empirically demonstrated. What you seem to be doing here is taking the obvious truth that some people cannot be made to change their attitudes over short periods of time, and trying to derive the obvious falsity that there is no possibility of development in social attitudes. — Baden

And what you seem to neglect is that there is a difference between people's attitudes changing over time, and us or anyone else engineering such a change over time. My claim in this case is that we cannot engineer it. Now, the more important point is that while some attitudes do change, the core of people's morality remains the same - regardless of geographical position or time period. Take sexual morality - pretty much identical in Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism, even though these religions arose in vastly different places, in vastly different circumstances. All condemn adultery, promiscuity, homosexuality, etc. You ignore the fact that some attitudes are perennial - nothing you will do will ever change this.

I'm not claiming political correctness will rid us of the power hungry. — Baden

Good so then you think it's good that we institute a mechanism which will only aid the power hungry?

Well, if it causes you not to insult and belittle others because of your beliefs, that is all that can be expected from a civil code, and at least it will mean that outwardly, you are at least civil. — Wayfarer

Yes that's a civil code - I was talking about political correctness. The two are different. The civil code should be there - political correctness shouldn't be a means of artificially legislating something.


The same old progressive tropes in this thread: "stay home, don't vote, while we take your country away, and impose our values on you". Look Ben Carson was right - these progressives don't care - all they want to do really is impose their values on society, they can care less about the religious folks, or tolerance, or anything of this sort. They don't only want to live a certain way - they want all the rest of us to worship and approve of their way of life. And the only reason why they're winning is because they have learned to play the morality card against religious believers. This has got to stop - we have to get smart.

Which is what you argue God does to evil doers, and is thus the most just way to handle them, wouldn't you then be saying by implication? It's their fault after all. You're really good at it being different when it's you. — Wosret

Yes do you think we should go around playing God huh?

"There is no single morality" is just a prevalent attitude, what inclines you to think that it's also true? You talked about "natural law" - that is a single morality.

Okay - so what's your point? The fact that people can't agree what morality is, is part of the problem that we need to overcome to bring morality back. It's not an argument to say morality shouldn't be brought back.

You're wrong, no zoo can still make money if their animals are unhealthy and fighting all the time — wuliheron

Hah! Circus always attracts people. Why do you think the Romans put slaves to fight inside the Colosseum while they watched?

Money can only do all the driving for any real length of time if it happens to agree with natural law. — wuliheron

I agree with this, but this has to do precisely with the fact that we need to bring morality and virtue back.

Any animal in a zoo would do the same if their living conditions were inhumane trashing the whole place because they really couldn't care less anymore if it just makes it even worse. — wuliheron

But I really don't understand this. It's not like your pain is any lessened if you trash the place and can't give a shit about it. It's like telling me that just because you can't get your hands on a good thing, you should take revenge on yourself and the world and drink poison. That is absurd. Why would any rational creature act like that?

I'm not arguing that money and guns shouldn't be doing the driving, merely that political correctness is one of the few ways of preventing them from escalating into total chaos. — wuliheron

Yes political correctness is there because we have removed the morality.

When money is doing all the driving the gun tends to do all the real talking making political correctness one of the few peaceful ways people have left to defend themselves. — wuliheron

Something needs to drive no? When you remove morality and virtue from its place, it will definitely be replaced by something. Money and guns are quite possibly the only contenders once virtue is removed.

So, at risk of being extremely non-PC, here is how that pans out in respect of gay rights - that gay advocacy has appropriated the language of human rights, by equating 'being gay' with other cultural identities such as 'being black' or 'being Jewish'. So this enables gay advocacy to turn the opprobrium which used to be heaped on gays back against their critics, who are now portrayed as, and widely accepted to be, the enemies of human rights and natural justice, just like those who used to oppose racial integration. — Wayfarer

Exactly - now the religious people are oppressed because of the values they hold! What a sham! These politically correct, identity politics cronies, keep forcing down everyone's throats their lack of values - as if all of us should share in their mediocrity. Nietzsche's cry was right: be wary of the Last Men. Screw what they think of you - Saul Alinsky and his radicals never cared they were thought to be rude. They never cared they disturbed others. That's why they've won. We - religious people - have to do the same. Otherwise we cannot win in politics - not against these vulgar folks of no principles.

On your profile page you quote a staunch theist, and two atheists - I'm not sure what to believe!

"Philosophy is to the real world as masturbation is to sex" -Karl Marx

Alas, poor Marx - he always thought philosophy is better than the real world!

I understand your point, but trust me (or believe me! as Donald J. says) - it won't change anything. I'm from an ex-Communist country, these "increased social capital" memes are bullshit. It is virtually impossible to change the inner attitudes people have towards one another on a mass scale. Even with a very limited group it's very difficult. All that will happen is that you get people to be educated to no longer display an inner attitude outwards - but you can never regulate that fully. If for example you're someone who hates black people - then I can take you and enforce all the regulations I want on you. You will not be able to curse black people, you will have to talk politely and respectfully to them, etc. but in your mind, you'd still think the same way about them. Nothing will have changed, except that you will have learned that success in your society depends on wearing a mask - just like your avatar in fact. That's really what political correctness is all about. A useless meme, there just for the show.

But on the contrary - you will create a new class of power hungry totalitarians who will use the new rules to dominate the world around them, the very same way it had been dominated before. It really doesn't matter - those who seek to be powerful, will use whatever tools exist to make that possible. They will not care what it takes to be powerful - they will not care if they have to curse the "white man" or the "black man" to be powerful - they will do whatever it takes.

If it is indeed limited, then there is no way to grant it to those who lack it. If person X thinks of me as inferior, and I know they think of me as inferior, it is useless to get them to call me great, be respectful towards me, etc. - I still know that deep inside this is just show, and it's not what they're thinking. And nothing will change this, because deep inside they can't be made to suddenly respect me if they don't already.

The psychological explanation for PC is as simple as the recognition of the desire for self esteem among those who would be denied it due to their position in society, and the willingness to help provide it by those who see it as a gift without a price. — Baden

It's impossible though. Self-esteem is something internal, not external. The fact they are seeking self-esteem outside of themselves is the problem, not the solution.

So what the argument appears to be, is that any debate all is damaging, because, if there is something to be debated, then it must imply that there is some grounds for questioning marriage equality. And the marriage equality movement equates opposition with bigotry - so discussing, debating, or voting on the question, amounts to 'letting the bigots have their say'. The Greens are now saying the only appropriate course of action is to amend the marriage act by an act of Parliament; the implication being, those opposed to it are bigots, as there can be no rational reason to oppose it. — Wayfarer

Nothing than the old scheme of oppression that the New Left has always been peddling. "Don't force us to live the way you want, we'll force you to live the way we want"

This seems to be true for most - but it is indeed possible for reason to rise above these otherwise personal limitations. I've been quite a risk taker generally I'd say - but today at least, I wouldn't even think of having a sexual adventure. But on the other hand, I did think, and I am in fact now working for myself - leaving your job and going out on your own is quite a significant risk. So it's not certainly true that one who feels excitement out of taking risks will think sexual adventures are moral. It's one thing to take risks, and another to undermine yourself. Sexual adventures are forms of undermining yourself - not taking risks. There has to be a potential reward which outweighs the costs for there to be a question of risks.

So it is very possible for someone to be a risk taker - even a big risk taker, and at the same time for example be very sexually conservative. This is just because what makes the judgement between what is a risk and what isn't a risk aren't the emotions, but reason. I judge that there is no reward in promiscuous sex, while I judge that there is a potential reward if you succeed in independent work. And I might add that this has nothing to do with feeling fear or not. I could feel a lot of fear about something and still do it - so long as I rationally perceive this to be warranted.

But I agree with you that most people function on auto-pilot. If they feel fear, they will not do it. If they feel positive emotions, they will do it. But that's not the only level possible. But it is precisely because they, the masses, behave in such a manner that the whip and the carrot are the instruments of successful government.

Earnings seem very high there, you probably have high costs of living as well. In Eastern Europe where I live, there are much less than 0.001% of people making 500-600$/day working any job (and they are stuff like Central Bank Directors, etc.). Here making 1500 net USD/month already puts you well into top 5% by earnings. But then costs of living are much smaller - that's why I'm having such an easy time not working a lot here at the moment. It's really an entirely different world the developed countries vs the developing ones. There's definitely more opportunities in developing countries though - easier to access all things considered. And funnily enough, everything we see written online, or in many books - it's all geared towards the developed countries - although the real opportunities aren't really there, and what it takes to succeed in a developing country is very different from what it takes in a developed one.

How much would you be willing to pay?

You're a writer you say. Why don't you work as a freelance writer then? You can specialise on whatever you want. I worked as a writer on my own part-time while I was in University before I started my own magazine business (along with a partner, a business which I no longer own I should add). I could earn up to 1100 USD / month at it working part-time, not even full time cause I also had to study - and consider also that I literarily had no experience when I was doing it. I literarily had nothing - I literarily one day woke up, got out of bed, and said I'm gonna make money doing some writing, and I advertised for myself like hell. I'm currently working as a web developer after having been employed as an engineer - also on my own now, and will probably turn it into a business sometime in a year or two (for some reason I feel less willing to call people, struggle with it, etc. than I was when I was younger), but I'm still getting fully in touch with it, cause I'm currently doing small projects only. But even so I earn about double what I earned from writing back in university, and I don't work that much at all at the moment, cause I'm not really challenging myself (as I said I work on easy things). I've actually flirted going back to writing as a freelancer for awhile, but I think investing myself in web development has more potential.

So yeah - set up store as a freelancer - work from home. Never have a boss again, especially since you're old, you have so much experience. I wish I had your experience when I first did it - and I still could make money even without it, although getting the first jobs was a hassle for me - I remember having spent one week to get my first job lol.

That's what happens when the owners are incapable and stupid.

To be fair, I'm not all that young anymore (26). — Question

My apologies!

But, I want to go back to college; but, I guess it's my low self-esteem telling you otherwise in the above post and such. I don't feel depressed as others might tell you I am. — Question

Yes, these are issues a psychologist, especially a good one, could be very helpful with! This is most important to deal with in order to get your life back and feel great once again! (Y)

Yes, I'm on some pretty heavy drugs (not street drugs) that have helped me in the past; but, as you say am seriously considering getting off them to get in touch with my emotions again. — Question

Good! This is what I like to see! Take ownership of who you are and of your situation! I'm sure if you develop this confidence in yourself, and your self-esteem, you will be able to achieve great things! You will most certainly surprise yourself by what you can do, and how good you can feel! :)

Thanks for the advice Agustino. A while ago Wittgenstein inspired me to become an engineer; but, learning as I'm not all that great at math (I'm pretty good; but, like I said not great). I'll focus more on thinking less about my emotions and trying to fulfill my dreams of being a professional philosopher. — Question

I've done very little math as an engineer actually in university from what I remember - i was surprised compared to my expectations haha :)

What should I do? Where is this desire originating from? Fuck, life seems pointless and with no purpose. I've read all the self-help books I can and there really isn't an inkling of desire to want to go back to them. — Question

Quit the medication. Find a PSYCHOLOGIST on the side. He will be helpful in battling the psychiatrist, and teaching you how to cope without medication. Screw self-help - what you need much more is to actually experience the emotions of the real you - who is currently suppressed by all these drugs. These emotions will give you a desire to live and to do great things.

And the other advice is listen to BitterCrank and don't listen to anyone else but him in this thread - they've given you some shit advice, which is the politically correct "oh seek professional help" - that's their way of saying "I don't wanna feel responsible, I don't wanna help". And there's also one who recommended reading the mystics - as if that does anything in such a situation. :s

I don't feel as though my life is meaningless. I live and try and help my mother however I can. From a biological standpoint, I see no reason to interact with people anymore. Neither do I want any women in my life? Philosophy seems to help me; but, it's like I've reached all the answers I was searching for in my life and am content with everything — Question

Yes this is the effect of the SSRIs. I've been on them and they do more harm than good - they make one like a vegetable, without any desires. I would advise meeting with your psychiatrist, and making a plan together with them to go off the SSRIs. It can be a long term plan. Say you will go off off them in two years. But still, you gotta make a plan and then work it out. You offer the long-term possibility to let your psychiatrist feel that they have control - you need to be a little bit tricky with them. If you say you wanna just quit them, then they'll be like "No no no, that is impossible, yadda yadda". So that's why you say that over quite some time you would like to make a plan to go off them. Then they will agree.

All they want me to do is find some new behavioral patterns and immerse myself in some activities. — Question

Yeah what idiots psychiatrists are. When they give you chemicals which make you feel good sitting in a chair, why the hell would you go out there and immerse yourself in some activities? You're already feeling good sitting in the chair

I'm just wary of life and want something certain in my life that is less trivial than the day to day mundane/repetitive/boring — Question

This is just the effect of the medication. As you're no longer experiencing the negative emotions you would otherwise experience, you are experiencing boredom. The negative emotions were trying to tell you something. Now that has been removed, but the underlying problem has not been solved. So another manifestation of it has come up - boredom.