Writing an ironic post, and then pretending that it wasn't meant to be ironic will not save you Arkady. I have addressed what your post meant. You mockingly answered yes. So I have responded.

Augustino, you're right. I see now that women were historically the equals of men (and the fact that a few highborn Roman women were puppet masters behind the scenes proves their equal status). Historically women suffered no barriers to education in the Western world (or, really, anywhere) relative to their male peers. Conquering and warmongering is not only less egregious than libertine attitudes towards sex, but is actually a desirable trait (due the feminizing and "dumbing down" of maleness in the modern world). You've won me over. Enjoy your victory. — Arkady

This is a philosophy, not a political forum. I can care less about winning you over, all I care about is the merit of the arguments. I have presented three arguments regarding the sexual matter, you have addressed NONE of them. I have given you multiple historical examples illustrating why women did not hold political office, and why they shouldn't have held political office in such times, nor have been allowed to vote. You on the other hand, who believe something as ahistorical as female oppression, have the burden of proof on yourself, to show, if women were indeed oppressed through history, why is there so little evidence for it? Why aren't there records of women protesting against their oppression historically? We have, for example, for slavery during colonialism multiple sources which attest to their oppression and unjust suffering - hundreds upon hundreds of attempts at slave revolts. Why are there no such sources regarding women? Furthermore, you ignored my historical argument about sexual mores. If the sexual mores that I propose are indeed wrong, you have to tell us how come MOST of the greatest minds who have ever lived have believed and encouraged them, be they atheist, be they theist, be they white, asian, male, female, etc. How come, that people who have sprung up in different corners of the world, across different times, and different places, and different cultures have believed almost the same thing regarding this subject? You dismiss it saying that just because so many believed it doesn't NECESSARILY mean it is correct. I agree, and argumentum ad populum is not necessarily true. But it certainly begs for an explanation, even if it is indeed false. My explanation is the intuitive one: people believed like this, because they have perceived, from their experience and that of their fellow men, that such behavior leads to a fulfilled life. You will have to argue that people have been (1) stupidly retarded, or (2) oppressive and outright evil, seeking to promote values that oppress certain groups, and then explain how come people in the West have suddenly become enlightened and are no longer (1) or (2). And keep in mind that you will accuse virtually ALL of the geniuses in Western history of stupidity by making your argument.

I see now that women were historically the equals of men (and the fact that a few highborn Roman women were puppet masters behind the scenes proves their equal status). — Arkady

Low class MEN AND WOMEN lived harsh lives Arkady. There wasn't much difference between the suffering of one and the suffering of another. Low class people had lower status, be they male or women. The distinction wasn't between sexes, it was between social class.

The last Osman was encouraged by the Young Turks to spend as much time in his harem as possible. Why? To keep him busy and out of the way. When the time came he was relieved of the harem and hustled off to some other location. It wasn't the ladies in the harem that collapsed the Ottoman empire, it was done by the usual methods of bringing down deadwood elites. — Bitter Crank

Again, you're refusing to admit that sexual debauchery played a role, even though many historians seem to think it did.

Some people like diet no-caffeine Pepsi. It is clearly not good for people because it contains no nutrients (other than water). Carbonated water is harmful to teeth. Animals have no need for artificial sweeteners. Caramel coloring may be harmful (don't know). This product does not even have the salutary effect of offering a mild stimulant, yet it costs as much as full sugar caffeinated Pepsi. Clearly it is a fraud in a can (one of my favorites).

Drinking it is immoral?

Drinking excessive amounts of soda or pop or tonic, whatever one calls it, is probably unhealthy to some degree, the same way that eating excessive amounts of bacon is unhealthy.

Being unhealthy doesn't make it immoral, it makes it ill-advised.

Bungee jumping is ill-advised too (imho) but its ill-advisédness doesn't make it immoral. — Bitter Crank

Something that harms yourself is immoral, BC. Just like there is a moral imperative not to harm other people, there is also a moral imperative not to harm yourself. That's why things like gluttony are immoral.

Sex-for-nothing-but-fun or "treating your body like an amusement park" (as Mrs. Costanza accused George of doing [Seinfeld], is not harmful and won't be harmful if risk and harm are reduced to negligible levels. — Bitter Crank

I argued above and in other threads that sex for nothing but fun is psychologically harmful in-so-far as it involves objectify the other, not controlling one's sexual appetites, and renouncing the real potential that exists in sex.

If sexual debauchery didn't collapse the Roman Empire, what did?

1. effective military resistance and offensives by various peoples on the borders of the empire
2. reliance on slave labor and a slowing down of economic growth (linked to decline in geographical expansion)
3. splitting the empire between Rome and Byzantium
4. paradoxically, both the end of the empire's expansion and earlier unsustainable expansion
5. corruption
6. adapting Christianity as the state religion destabilized the previous sustaining value system
7. the infiltration of "barbarians"--less of an invasion and more a migrant movement — Bitter Crank

Yes, sexual debauchery definitely was also in the list. I highly advise you to start by reading this article: http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

Many proeminent historians agree that moral collapse was one of the leading causes of the Empire's collapse.

equal property rights — Arkady

As if property rights were a big thing in the old days. It was mostly families who controlled property, typically the elders anyways. People were not as independent as they are now - one couldn't do what the fuck they wanted with their property, there were a lot of socially mediated restrictions, from the family as well as from society.

equal voting rights, — Arkady

As women did not go to war, and did not understand the art of war, it was a peril to allow them to vote. Because they did not understand matters of war practically, they were likely to simply vote for the wrong candidate, and it was a pragmatic matter not to allow women to vote. This was perfectly normal given the circumstances of the world at the time. And by the way, you should be aware that women in ruling classes typically played major roles behind the scenes in politics. Livia, wife of emperor Augustus was very influential. Faustina the Younger (likely to have committed adultery) was treated extremely well by her husband, emperor Marcus Aurelius, despite her moral failings. There simply is not evidence that women were mis-treated historically. There are no documents, no writtings to justify such a view. In all of history, until the 19th century, no one complained about the role of women. And the first to complain, were MEN, who were annoyed that they couldn't fuck around (because adultery was punished socially at the time), and so wanted to free themselves, and thereby were interested to change the role of women in society. Charles Fourier is one, and so is K. Marx.

ability to get an education — Arkady

Again, you're under the illusion that most average people had the ability to get an education. This is false, education was largely a privilige of the rich, and even rich women got an education, although a different one than men. Men would be trained in the art of fighting, the art of war, horse-riding, politics, philosophy, while women would be trained in cultural and social matters. If you read about the role of women among the elite, for example in the Roman Empire, you'll be surprised by how influential women actually were, even in politics. In some parts of the world, like in the Korean Peninsula, there were women leaders: for example, Queen Seondeok of Silla and her main political enemy at the time was also a woman leader, Lady Mishil of Silla. But of course your retarded modern feminism knows nothing of this. Just open a book of history. Please, before you open your mouth again. Just don't embarrass yourself anymore. You've already shown you know and understand nothing about historical matters.

Then perhaps you'd be kind enough to explain? (You do realize the difference between a valid and sound argument? No doubt you do, but I ask only because you've shown no such familiarity here.) — Arkady

Explain what, that you purposefully and willfully refuse to understand the meaning of my words, and keep fighting against all sorts of strawman and derailing my message? Really, all your posts have had 0 intellectual content and purely rhetorical one.

Wow. You are just trolling at this point, right? I hope for your sake that you are. Otherwise, you are truly a moral lunatic. — Arkady

No. Being capable to fight, being capable to conquer, etc. are virtues. The fact that modern Western society no longer accepts traditional male virtues, has rendered modern men to be alike women - weak and frail. There is a growing alienation amongst men, especially in the working classes, as they no longer have any ideals to live up towards. Their natural propensities are given no means of expression, nor are they given the opportunities to engage in the activities men generally engaged in. Instead, they are told to go to clubs, drink, and have sex. That's what the modern message is towards men. It has dumbed man down.

I see. So, you present no arguments, only warmed-over Kant and bullshit social conservative bromides, and then accuse me of sophistry. And I want to "disprove you a priori." I'm also uninterested in the "truth" which you assert you've presented, but for which you've presented no argument. I stand duly chastened. — Arkady

I asked you what you found wrong with the Kantian argument, and for about 4-5 posts you have been stomping your feet like a baby and diverting attention from the argument. Here's my position stated in another thread, if you would actually be interested to learn rather than rebut me, you could profit more from this discussion. But your hatred of sexual morality just blinds you.

No, what you're talking about is not sexual morality. Everything that involves another person should have the other's consent before going through. If I want to have dinner with you, I should get your consent before having dinner, and not force you. But I don't call that dinner morality - that would be stupid. So really, if consent is the only matter that you think is important for sexual morality, then in truth you are arguing for NO sexual morality whatsoever, and merely masking this.

As for sexual morality. Sex has two purposes; one physical (reproduction) and the other psychological (intimacy). Failure to meet at least one of those purposes is wrong, end of story. Promiscuous sex does not facilitate intimacy, and a growing together in love, and is therefore a failure to actualise the potential that exists in sex. Because one who engages in this 1. fails to fulfill the potential of sex, and 2. damages their mind by training it to become blind to the real potential of sex and 3. harms the other partner in the same way s/he harms himself, and 4. harms their own future committed partner and/or the future committed partner of the other person. Fact remains, that no rational person would sacrifice intimacy + pleasure for pleasure. Only an irrational, or at least a rational but ignorant person would do so.

Take a small child, and watch his development, to the age when he learns about sex. You will see, that a child finds it morally horrendous to think about having sex with someone if they don't love them, and are committed to them. Why? Because this is natural for human beings. The one who is seeking to impose extremist values on others is not me, but you. You should be aware that literarily 80%+ of thinkers, including atheists, have thought as I say about sex. Check out Epicurus for example. They don't make atheists like that anymore, do they? The man realised that consent isn't the only important matter when it comes to sex. The effect it has on your mind is more important - that's why Epicurus encouraged non-sexual relationships between people, because he understood the dangers of non-commitment.

Edit: I might add the Kantian argument here which is also valid:

1. It is wrong to use another person solely as a means for personal satisfaction - this objectifies them, and treats them as an object and not a person.
2. Promiscuous sex involves using another person for personal satisfaction, treating them effectively as a temporary object to help one gain something (pleasure) for themselves.
THUS: promiscuous sex is wrong, as it objectifies the other person, and does not lead to the spiritual/psychological betterment of the other, as sex in a committed relationship would.

The facile objection that having sex involves giving the other person pleasure as well won't cut it. Why? Because the intention is to use the other to get pleasure for yourself, the fact that the other may also enjoy it is only of secondary concern to you, and ultimately accidental if it happens. Committed sex on the other hand treats the person not as a means to an end, but rather as an end in itself - through having sex you seek unity with that person. — Agustino

o, these morally equal creatures were apparently nonetheless unworthy of equal property rights, equal voting rights, ability to get an education, etc. — Arkady

I think if (1) women did not go to war, (2) war could break out at any moment, you too would make sure your society doesn't allow women in politics. It was just a pragmatic issue and had nothing to do with equality.

Yes, just as I thought: more social conservative magic-talk. If one desires sex with one's partner primarily to gratify oneself, then one is "using" another person, regardless of whether it takes place in a loving relationship, or is part of a one-night stand. — Arkady

Yes I agree. One shouldn't desire sex with one's partner primarily to gratify themselves, but rather to gratify their partner :) .

Valid argument? Perhaps: you'll have to lay it out with clearly-defined premises and show that the conclusion follows in order for it to be literally "valid." In any event, I can likewise construct a valid argument:

(P1) Sex, anytime, for any reason, is morally acceptable.
(P2) Mary and Bob had extra-marital sex.
(C) Mary and Bob's actions were not immoral.

See? Perfectly valid. — Arkady

Yeah, you missed the point, I can see...

None of this says that "pace" implies agreement. — Arkady

In-so-far as it means "with deference to" I use it to express intellectual gratitude for the idea, not necessarily agreement.

Right, because no one was killed in these campaigns of conquest. — Arkady

Killing was not the intention of conquest, it's merely a side effect.

mass killing — Arkady

Mass killing for no reason is different than conquest. It's sad you cannot see that. I see nothing wrong with conquest. Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, etc. were impressive people. Certainly more impressive than Bill "BangYourWife" Clinton ;)

You continually point out how lacking my historical knowledge is, but you don't realize that even if you were historically correct about views on sexual morality, it does nothing to prove your claims. — Arkady

It does go to show that you can't assume the moral standpoint and bang your feet like a child. I refuse to engage with you in any more detailed dialogue because you are a sophist. A priori you want to disprove me, you're not interested in the truth. So I don't bother much except to show you how silly you are.

Pace

preposition pa·ce \ˈpā-(ˌ)sē; ˈpä-(ˌ)chā, -(ˌ)kā\
Definition of pace

: contrary to the opinion of —usually used as an expression of deference to someone's contrary opinion —usually ital. <easiness is a virtue in grammar, pace old-fashioned grammarians — Philip Howard>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pace — Arkady

The word pace is a Latin word, not an English word with a Latin root. For this reason, it’s usually written in italics when it occurs in an English sentence. It’s a form of pax, which is Latin for “peace”. Pace means “if so-and-so will permit” or “with deference to”, literally “with peace”.

(Of course, I can reply that married couples can also use each others' bodies as means to an end, but then you'll invoke some social conservative magic-talk about marriage being a "complete sharing" of oneself with another, so that one married partner is not really "using" the other, etc. See, I've seen all of this before.) — Arkady

If married people do this, it is also wrong. When love comes first, and sex comes second, merely as a shadow, that is when it is not an experience of using someone for your own pleasure, but a completely different kind of experience.

More argument by assertion. I suspect we just have clashing intuitions on this matter. I am prepared to be bowled over by the force of your reason, but all you offer is warmed-over Kant. So, why should I be prepared to accept your view of sexual morality? — Arkady

Yes Kant has stated this. It's a valid argument. Do you have any objections to this argument? We're not here to discuss whether you should accept my view or not, we're here to discuss the merits of the arguments themselves.

You do realize that "pace" means you're expressing a contrary viewpoint? — Arkady

Where did you get this from? Pace means with deference to - it means acknowledging someone has said it before you.

One can no more be in error that one is in pleasure than one can be in error that one is, say, in pain. — Arkady

Pleasure has both an objective and a subjective component, and lack of either one is an imperfect, illusory pleasure.

mass murder and subjugation of entire populations — Arkady

This is genocide - not conquest. Conquest doesn't aim at killing, but rather at expanding empires. So again, I wasn't talking about genocide. But yes, sexual immorality is worse than most other moral sins, apart from things like murdering out of pleasure, torture, etc.

This would seem to be an argumentum ad populum. The vast majority of people who ever lived would probably also have been appalled by equal rights for women: that doesn't make it wrong. — Arkady

Nope. You are wrong. The vast majority of people who have ever lived believed women to be MORALLY equal to men. And I don't agree with any other equality between the sexes other than moral equality. Again, proof that your understanding of history is very shallow, and comes only through the lens of the moderns.

Are you serious? Are you unacquainted with, say, the misery of life under the Taliban? Would you care to pit, for instance, the per capita GDP of Afghanistan against that of Western nations? — Arkady

What does GDP/capita being greater have to do with sexual permissiveness? :S

EDIT: examples of pace... https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ByIll8zCfIsC&pg=PA134&lpg=PA134&dq=pace+definition+philosophy&source=bl&ots=z3c6hIfRO2&sig=-OXtVjPFYVFX_3h6pkzyz0yzf5Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiW8oyXwoDMAhWDlQ4KHaO2D44Q6AEIWzAO#v=onepage&q=pace%20definition%20philosophy&f=false

Perhaps, but that may be going too far as well. The main point is that I agree with the need for freedom of choice to exist in moral matters, because if right behavior was forced, then moral excellency would be impossible - moral excellency simply is freely choosing right over wrong.

I do believe in moral equality of all people (in religious terms that we're all equal before God). That may come close to social liberalism. Economic liberalism not really - I think the core value should be taking care of and respecting people, and this value should come prior to one's own individual freedom.

Only liberal in the sense that I think people should have moral freedom to make their choices. Conservative in the sense that those choices can be criticized and there exists a standard of judgement that can be used to distinguish between right and wrong objectively.

Yet more bullshit invocations of "dignity." I don't regard that using another person's body for sex provided they consent debases their dignity, so saying that I don't consider humans worthy of "dignity" is nonsensical. — Arkady

It does because it uses them as means to a (selfish) end. That is using them as an object, because only objects are used as means to ends rather than as ends in themselves.

How can one be deceived that one is enjoying oneself? — Arkady

Simple. Joy is not merely a subjective state, but also an objective state, pace Spinoza, Aristotle, etc. As Spinoza put it, joy is man's passage from a lesser to a greater perfection. If no such objective passage happens, then the joy in question is illusory, a mirage.

centuries of warmongering and conquering apparently don't constitute a "moral decline" in your eyes, but sexual licentiousness does — Arkady

Sexual licentiousness is worse in moral terms than centuries of warmongering and conquests.

This seems an appeal to antiquity and authority. You will notice that the most recent philosopher on that list lived in the early modern era. Why might that be? And no, I don't have an obsession about demonizing sex: I only point out that you demonize it. — Arkady

I can add the moderns too. Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein... need I list more for you? :) The fact that you refuse to admit that most of human beings who have ever lived would be horrified at your lack of sexual mores is just you being intellectually dishonest. It is a true fact, whether you want to admit it or not. But of course you don't want to face up to that fact. And these are people from radically different cultures, from different corners of the globe, who grew up in different circumstances etc. Why do you think absolutely all religions have sexual mores? Why? Sexual morality has been extremely important to mankind for all its history, and whether you'll admit this or not, the evidence is overwhelmingly FOR this conclusion.

This is just more appeal to authority and more ad-hom. Don't you have anything to offer besides dead philosophers and social conservative bullshit bromides? Arguments, please. — Arkady

Yes my argument is that you should not assume that you are right and demand evidence by stomping your feet when 90%+ of mankind who has ever lived has disagreed with you. You should at least have the decency to be humble and if you think you have a case try to make it.

You can start with the Middle East to look at sexually repressive societies which are less-than-successful. — Arkady

Any evidence that the ME is less than successful because it is sexually repressive? In fact, Europe has made its biggest advances in the Renaissance, not exactly the most sexually open period :) .

I must have missed this reams of data you offered. You gave weak, ill-founded assertions about the Roman Empire, and then yelled at me about some book about the Ottoman Empire which you once read. How is this "data"? — Arkady

There are books written about the role of morality in the collapse of both empires. Do you want me to provide you with a few?

And assuming that the above are doctrines of Christianity simpliciter, how is any of that reasonable? — Arkady

What's unreasonable about it?

Right...my point being that nothing in that post pointed to Christianity's doctrines (which would those be, by the way?) being reasonable. — Arkady

Original sin is not a doctrine of Christianity? To have no idols is not a doctrine of Christianity? To have no other gods before God the Father is not a doctrine of Christianity? Do you even know what you're saying? And I have shown what those doctrines mean.

Yes. So? They may still be enjoying the experience. The fact that they're not actually nourishing their bodies has nothing to do with it. — Arkady

In which case they are deceiving themselves.

I see. So, they believe they enjoy it, they have a sensation of enjoyment, they may say that they enjoy it, but they don't really enjoy it? — Arkady

*facepalm*. If they enjoy that which is not good, they are neither ethical nor moral.

What is enjoyable or pleasurable needn't be "good" for a person — Arkady

In which case it is immoral. Desire for something other than the good is immoral.

I enjoy beer and pizza, but I can't for one moment pretend that it's good for me (that, of course, doesn't imply that it's unethical to eat beer and pizza). — Arkady

Yes it is good for you to enjoy a beer over with friends.

Ah yes: vapid invocations of "dignity." Yet another bullshit social conservative trope. (I don't mean to pick on you, but I see this rhetorical strategy in social conservative talking points distressingly often: simply say that "dignity" of the human person necessitates your desired course of action or state of affairs, and voila, opposition melts away without the need for all of that pesky argument and intellectual disputation. (Steven Pinker's essay "The Stupidity of Dignity" is an artful takedown of this strategy)). — Arkady

If you do not consider human beings worthy of the dignity of being treated as ends in themselves and not as means to some (selfish) end, then I am sorry for you. You have just lost what is the most important thing in life, which makes all other things worth having: virtue.

"Meant to be" by whom? This seems an argument by assertion. And, to boot, you toss in an ad-hom about me being disgusting or some such thing. — Arkady

By their nature. As for arguments by assertion, isn't that what you've done in every single post in this thread? i've given you multiple concrete examples, and you have failed to provide anything but generalities about some repressive societies, who knows which, doing worse than some permissive societies... really... get a grip.

I don't necessarily hate religion (though I do strongly dislike some aspects of some religions, a dislike which might rise to the level of hatred in some cases). And, no, one needn't be religious in order to demonize sex, but it helps. — Arkady

You have an obsession about demonizing sex dont you? So you think Jesus, Buddha, Epicurus, Spinoza, Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, etc. all demonised sex? All these vastly intelligent men demonised sex, and you, the great intellect of mankind, are the only one who can appreciate sex. Give me a break, and stop embarrassing yourself.

So, harems and sexual promiscuity brought down the Ottoman Empire (or at least contributed to its cause), in addition to a melange of other factors that you toss out? Riiight...it was the harems. — Arkady

Yes it was the harems. Read the fucking book. Why did I give it to you? So you stare at the cover page? If that's what you do with books you'll never understand anything. And don't read only a part of it, read all of it.

And, in addition to post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning, you accuse me of historical ignorance and moral blindness, more ad-homs. — Arkady

Oh look, the the baby is suddenly alarmed by the truth, after he has continuously and falsely accused me of demonising sex, hating sex, thinking sex is sinful, etc.

What you call moral crassness, I call moral advancement away from a harmful, Puritanical viewpoint which demonizes sex and the pleasures of the body in the name of morals and virtue. — Arkady

Yes it is characteristic for those who are blind, and yet arrogant, to think that they can distinguish advancement from regression. Too bad that the greatest minds who have ever lived have, almost unanimously, disagreed with you. Literarily everyone. Theist and atheist alike. Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Lucretius, Spinoza, Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus, etc. But of course, you, the great genius of mankind will tell us what is proper about sex, and naturally assume the moral highground in your speech. No arguments needed for you. What arrogance.

I also note that you ignored my observation that modern societies which are the most sexually repressed also seem to be the least successful by a number of metrics. However, this is only a vague impression on my part: you no doubt have reams of statistical data to counter my naivete. I look forward to seeing it. — Arkady

Examples please. I can't talk with nonsensical generalities like these. Which societies are you referring to. And yes, I do have reams of statistical data to counter your naivete - the whole of human history, and the greatest minds who have ever lived. You should talk less, be more humble and read more.

Your response to me, above, which contained religious bromides. — Arkady

It's relevant to show that Christianity's doctrines are reasonable :) (and in fact, if they weren't reasonable, I would not agree to them in the first place)

I didn't say they should have no say, but I should think that the person who assumes the greater risk and greater burden should have the greater say. Would your last statement (my bolding) apply even in cases of rape or sexual coercion? — Arkady

No, it shouldnt apply in such cases.

People can (and do) fully enjoy sex even when not in committed relationships. — Arkady

That's your opinion. People may also think they are nourishing their bodies when they are dreaming that they are eating and feeling the taste of the food, but in truth they are not.

You present no evidence of what people do enjoy, you're just telling them what they should enjoy. — Arkady

Their mere claims that they enjoy it are not sufficient to objectively sustain the assertion that it is in fact good for them.

And while you may not regard sex as "evil," you do regard it with moral opprobrium when it doesn't occur in circumstances in which you approve. — Arkady

Yes I do.

Sometimes people use each others' bodies just for fun. Kantian protestations aside, there's nothing wrong with that, in my opinion, provided both partners are willing. — Arkady

That is wrong, because it means they are not respecting each other's bodies for what they are meant to be. It does not give full dignity to the other human being OR to yourself. The fact that you think otherwise does not change this objective fact. And it just serves to prove how you think of other people as objects, and think that this is fine so long as they accept it. How disgusting.

you simply regard sex as sinful — Arkady

I don't. It's your hatred of religion which seems to make you think that a man has to be religious to think there is such a thing as sexual morality. You just cannot concieve that pure reason can bring one to this conclusion... how boring an atheist fundamentalist is :-d

The Ottoman Empire, for instance, collapsed in the wake of WWI: what did sexually libertine mores have to do with it? — Arkady

The collapse started prior to that, with expanding harems, people treated more and more poorly, growing separation of the ruling class, sexual promiscuity, etc. there have been books written on the subject, I can recommend you a few titles (Macfie's End of Ottoman Empire was a good one!). The problem with people like you is that you don't actually know much history, but your mouths are big, and you talk loud, and naturally assume the moral high ground. You have displayed no understanding of the importance of sexual morality in your post, quite the opposite, you have displayed quite a crass moral blindness.

Your seeming hatred of religion seems to blind you to values that were relevant even to atheists. Even Epicurus and Spinoza advocated sexual restraint.

If society is no longer properly punishing people who break the law (and by this I mean the right people with the right kind of punishment) it is probably because the justice system and the criminals are cronies. For instance, major crimes are occurring in the financial sector, but few trials are being initiated. Why? Because there is a revolving door between regulatory agency personnel and financial business personnel. — Bitter Crank

I agree.

Possibly, but this is limited to certain areas within the various layers of society. If it was generally present, then society would have fallen apart already. It hasn't, but there are definitely pockets of corruption. — Bitter Crank

Growing pockets of corruption, and also a culture which makes corruption seem cool and smart.

The middle class is shrinking, not growing; this is a significant problem contributing to the collective problems of society. People lose faith in a society which seems to be facilitating their downward economic and social mobility -- as well they should. When modest dreams of advancement are frustrated (because you couldn't afford to date a new girl twice a month, let alone every night) people
begin to withdraw their loyalty--again, as well they should. — Bitter Crank

I don't think so. More and more people consider themselves middle class, even though in truth they are not. This middle class deception is part of the tricks that a consumerist society employs to propagate itself. And I disagree that dating a new girl twice a month is a worthy or modest dream for example. People should just look for the right person instead of endlessly date for no real, serious reason. They should be more concerned in growing in intimacy with a person rather than looking for new prospects. That way, there would be a lot more social harmony. And social structures should exist to facilitate this. Right now many people are promiscuous because they simply cannot trust that their partners will be loyal to them, and so they're afraid to make such a commitment.

I agree that people are ends and not means and should be treated as such; the master narrative in the degraded capitalist culture is quite the opposite: "If you can't help me get ahead, what good are you?" — Bitter Crank

I agree with this criticism of capitalism.

Before the present moment profit became a traditional virtue. — Bitter Crank

I don't think profit is a virtue.

You do realize that women are the ones tasked with actually bearing children, right? Given that they're investment isn't equal, I don't see why both partners should get an equal say. — Arkady

So men should have no right over the child compared to the woman just because they do not hold the child in their body for 9 months? That's unfair, sorry to tell you. A woman cannot have a child without a man, and therefore, she should not be able to decide to kill a child without the man's approval as well. In fact, if any one of the two partners objects, the abortion should be strictly illegal.

EDIT: There has to be an exception in this case, when the woman's life is put in danger by the birth, she should have full rights to decide by herself.

Or perhaps it just shows that people are not bound by overly prudish mores which demonize sex as something evil? — Arkady

You seem to be under the impression that I think of sex as something evil. I don't. I think sex is one of the best things available to man. It's just that in order to truly enjoy it, people must be in committed relationships, devoted to one another and growing in intimacy together. If they are in that position, I would encourage them to have as much sex as possible. I have outlined this here many times before, as well as my reasons for holding those beliefs (namely that people who engage in promiscuous sex harm themselves and their own psyches first and foremost).

What evidence do you have that sexually libertine people are "no longer motivated by anything in life," other than your general dislike of sex? — Arkady

Sorry to say my friend, but I actually love sex, I don't dislike it :) . At the same time I also respect women and other people, and do not look to use their bodies as means to an end, but rather treat them as ends in themselves.

Yes, that's entirely the point: you say that a decline in moral values in the Roman empire led to its downfall, and I counter by pointing out that its decline also sharply followed its embrace of Christianity as a state religion, which is just as likely an explanation (which is to say, not very likely). — Arkady

We have reasons to believe, a priori even, that moral decline will likely lead to social decline. Why? Because moral decline, including loose sexual behavior, leads to social conflicts, jealousies, alienation, etc. But this is not everything. If you study the history of other great empires, including the Ottoman Empire for example, you will see a similar trend towards the end. I have no reason to believe Christianity is the cause of social decline on the other hand. None a priori, none a posteriori.

Right...but my question was regarding the content of your post. What was the point of any of it? — Arkady

Which post? My response to BC or to you?

You said that homosexuality is "on the fringe" of immorality. — Arkady

No I said people who want to have their cake and eat it too are on the fringe of immorality, and it was referring to women and abortion:

Exclusive rights for women on this issue why? They can't have the baby without the man, and therefore they can have no exclusive rights over what happens with the baby. If they don't want to have a baby, and if they don't want to take the risk that comes with sex, they shouldn't have sex. It's quite simple. I don't understand why people want to have their cake and eat it too... Why would anyone want to be reckless/irresponsible and not be punished for it? Moral cowards shouldn't get an easy way out in society. — Agustino

Really! People always want to both have their cake, and to eat it too. I think chromosome 8 is devoted to this behavior.
— Bitter Crank
Maybe it could be chromosome xyz, I could care less, but I find such behaviour to be on the fringe of immorality. — Agustino

You claimed that a "decline in moral values" brought on the collapse of the Roman Empire. Given that this was in the context of sexual morality, I take it that that was what you were referring to. If not, you'll have to specify exactly which "decline in moral values" you're talking about, as apparently centuries of warmongering and conquering didn't quality as such a decline. — Arkady

Yes sexual morality is a very important part of morality and it did play a major role. When sexual morality declines it is a sign that people are no longer motivated by anything in life, and so resort to base pleasures not knowing what else to do. Life has become too easy for them.

Fine. But Rome embraced Christianity as its state religion, and then collapsed about 150 years later (after having existed for over a millennium). Therefore, said embrace was a cause of its decline. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. — Arkady

You have to demonstrate more than a correlation to prove causation my friend. It may be as you say (I don't have anything against the idea a priori) but I just have no reason to believe it at the moment.

What's the point of any of this? — Arkady

You commented on my post so I just replied back, no more point than that.

"Seek ye first the Kingdom of God, and ALL things shall be added unto you" - Virtue is what makes everything else in life worth having.

"Have no other gods before Me" - As virtue is what makes life worth living, it must never be sacrificed for anything else

"Thou shalt not make thyself an idol of anything in Heaven" - Do not take words and concepts to be the same as their referents, especially when dealing with the mystical. Experience is essential.

"I am a jealous God" - vice is its own punishment, and virtue is its own reward.

etc. etc.

Christianity is artful, and simply makes reasonable sense, at least as I understand it, and as most theologians have in fact understood it :)

I just wanted to respond to this point, which, I'm sorry is utter bullshit, and a fanciful far-right talking point (along the lines of "every society which has embraced homosexuality has collapsed"). Whatever drove the Roman Empire to collapse, a decline in "moral values" (as you understand them) was likely not among them. Rome was a conquering, warmongering empire: it is nonsense to claim that it was suffused with "moral values" until such time as it embraced libertine sexual mores. — Arkady

How do I understand them? I don't believe you understand how I understand moral values. As I said many times, I don't consider homosexual sex in and of itself a particularly harmful vice. Much more serious is sexual promiscuity, whether in homo or heterosexual relationships.

it is nonsense to claim that it was suffused with "moral values" until such time as it embraced libertine sexual mores. — Arkady

This is historically false. There was a small ruling class who embraced libertine sexual mores in different periods of Roman history, but definitely not the average citizen.

That being the case, we should ever strive to expunge this foolish superstition from public life in the United States, and instead base our laws and private moral judgments on a foundation of reason. — Arkady

I don't understand why you consider Christianity and reason to be opposed to one another. Personally I don't. I see reason in the teachings of Christianity. For me, for example, original sin is a concept that describes the world. First it describes the tendency of all things to decay (second law of thermodynamics) and secondly it describes the statistical tendency of human beings to choose wrong over right. I see nothing superstitious about this for example. And like this with many of the other doctrines.

I don't agree with conservatism of the type you find in the UK for example. I would also not describe myself as a liberalist in anyway.

I don't think the liberty of people should be affected, but rather that real justice ought to exist, and people who do such things be punished for it. The problem in the West is that we live in a society which no longer punishes breaking the law properly. Or it punishes the wrong people for the wrong reasons. It punishes the guy who steals a chicken with years in jail, while it leaves the one who steals millions of dollars and causes thousands of people to lose their jobs unpunished.

I'm a conservative on social issues first and foremost, not on economic issues (on economic issue I'm quite centrist). I find conservatism on social issue to be the correct moral position to adopt. One other problem which facilitates this behavior is that there no longer exists a code of honor, and social structures do not exist to properly enforce it. That's why we end up with such weak leaders who are unworthy and immoral people.

We have a growing middle class who wants to be just like the rich - have a few cars, date a new girl every night, etc. The problem with this is that they end up treating people (women for example) as means to an end, instead of ends in themselves, and my whole point is that people are ends in themselves and ought to be treated as such. That is why I put so much emphasis on the social side. I believe the source of all this evil is moral ignorance. People just think that being immoral is equivalent or necessary to being successful, and that immoral people end up happier than moral people. We have the image of the old religious man starving himself to death and navel-gazing... that's our image of the moral man, and so a profound moral ignorance settles over people. I think religion, especially Christian religion, and its emphasis on the moral man as a suffering man has harmed our culture. Instead of picturing the virtuous man as ultimately triumphant both in life and in death (pace Socrates: "the good man has nothing to fear, either in life or in death", or Jesus: "Seek ye first the Kingdom of Heaven, and ALL things shall be added unto you") we have created this false image which has deceived people.

Second of all, our culture does not appreciate politics (Trump is right on this point - there just is no respect for politicians anymore). We have treated and pictured all politicians as lying snakes, and to a certain extent this has made it a self-fulfilling prophecy, because it has made people believe they simply have to be like this to be successful in politics. These are issues that can be resolved by returning to traditional Western virtues. What is happening instead though, is that comedians and the media find examples of priests, and other people who are supposed to be virtuous, and show that these people are also immoral. For example, they show priests having sex with children, or priests engaging in promiscuous sex, or laundering money, etc. So this further makes people think that morality is fake, and to be happy, you must be immoral - because look, even those people who are supposed to be moral examples are immoral.

Where there is involvement in a relationship, then the decision should not be unilateral. — Bitter Crank

Yes this was my point. Giving women alone the right to abortion, opens up the situation of the father literarily having no say in what happens with what is, in the end, his child as well. Very unfair!

Really! People always want to both have their cake, and to eat it too. I think chromosome 8 is devoted to this behavior. — Bitter Crank

Maybe it could be chromosome xyz, I could care less, but I find such behaviour to be on the fringe of immorality.

Right. Gay people are first and foremost human beings. Being human at all and moral choices go together. I don't think sex is morally problematic more than lots of other moral choices (like deciding to not serve in the military, or becoming a vegan, or not lying on one's tax forms. — Bitter Crank

I think sex can be morally problematic, but I'd put most of the problems, as you know, with regards to promiscuity rather than hetero or homosexual sex.

We've hashed this out before, but I am not a gay marriage enthusiast. Love is love, true enough, but two men do not bring the same elements to a relationship that a man and a woman bring. I am happy about that, actually -- as a gay man I never wanted to marry. (I wanted a long relationship with another man, I had it, and it was voluntary.) It is the case that gay and straight men can both be nurturing, but there seem to be clear advantages to having a heterosexual couple model marriage for a child rather than 2 men. (This assumes that the heterosexual couple are capable of modeling the best aspects of marriage. A lot of straight couples are no more capable of modeling happy marriage than two kangaroos are.)f

Almost all people are heterosexual. Granted, sometimes some people stop being straight for a period of time, but they generally resume straight behavior later. Only a small proportion of the population is always gay, (like moi) and it seems to me that we are best off focussing on the advantages to us of a male/male relationship rather than attempting to imitate a male/female relationship.

And, of course, morals apply within a gay male relationship. — Bitter Crank

I agree with most of this :)

I think a Trump presidency might do the country a bit of good. The Republican establishment hates him and the Democrats obviously think he's cancer, so he actually wouldn't be able to do a whole lot in office except make more blusterous speeches. I would enjoy basking in the collective tears of glib Romney-esque people on the right as well as politically correct infantile people on the left huddled in their safe spaces. I also like his general stance on terrorism. — Thorongil

Agreed.

Clinton would only be worthwhile if she gets to nominate the next supreme court justice and forgives my student loans. Otherwise, I think she's a snake and corrupt as they come. — Thorongil

Haha, so if she does something good for you, she's good, otherwise she's terrible? :P I just think she's just about the worst, most immoral person I've ever seen. Never seen a bigger liar in my life. This one, you show her she lied to her face, and she just goes on denying it. Just makes me so angry.

death is an ever-present threat to our psyche — darthbarracuda

Yes, death is an ever-present threat to people's psyche, because unlike Socrates, they have not yet realised that the immoral life is not worth living to begin with, and hence, the threat of impiety, and of being immoral, always looms greater than the threat of death. Thus Socrates said "it is not difficult to avoid death gentlemen; it is much more difficult to avoid wickedness, for it runs faster than death!"

The moral of the story is that you should be afraid of being immoral and doing wrong. That way, you will never fear, nor be concerned about death but all your effort shall turn towards leading a moral existence. In religious terms, fear God, and you will not fear death anymore.

Good news for the world, the corrupt should be exposed and brought to justice.

6. Vladmir Putin — discoii

I don't buy this. That people close to him were involved I agree. But there is no clear evidence that Putin himself was involved in any way.

I grew up around a lot of religious people, and still am good friends with one now, and whenever shit happens to him, he goes all hardcore into it, and I of course just see it as his form of coping. He likes the way certain power words sound, and certain ideas makes him feel, so he's just manipulating his feelings with connotative language, and self-elevating beliefs. — Wosret

And non-religious people are also coping (and deluding themselves) by being unbelievers. Non-religious people are afraid of ever being held accountable, so their refusal to believe in a Creator is just the manifestation of their fear of responsibility. They just don't want to be responsible, and so they're afraid of judgement more than they're afraid of death. For this reason, they find comfort in the belief that there is no God - they would exchange the non-existence of God for the existence of death. Death is afterall a good thing for them, it's freedom, without ever being held accountable for your actions in the world. Morally disgusting if you ask me. People ought to be held accountable for their actions.

Empirical research is not of much help when it comes to issues which are culturally mediated because the culture you live in, will, to a large degree, determine the results of empirical research. In a largely chaotic Western society, where there is no real social cohesion left, and people have become islands onto themselves, of course the despairing are the most honest, and those who appear happy are the most deluded. But as Kierkegaard said, better to despair and be aware that you are despairing, than to despair and think yourself happy. Better to be awake and know that you are starving, than to be starving and dream that you are feasting - for the food in your dreams may taste well, but it shall not nourish your body.

I think reversing current abortion laws is moral progress. Sexual responsibility and appreciation of human life should be promoted, like they have always been promoted in all healthy societies through human history. The destruction of moral values was the beginning of the collapse of the Roman Empire as well. This woman's right to choose is bullshit. If it's my baby, I have as much of a right to chose whether they are born as the mother does. Exclusive rights for women on this issue why? They can't have the baby without the man, and therefore they can have no exclusive rights over what happens with the baby. If they don't want to have a baby, and if they don't want to take the risk that comes with sex, they shouldn't have sex. It's quite simple. I don't understand why people want to have their cake and eat it too... Why would anyone want to be reckless/irresponsible and not be punished for it? Moral cowards shouldn't get an easy way out in society.

I think abortion is in order if both partners in a committed couple agree, in case of rape, incest, and abuse. I think abortion is a terrible crime, equivalent in seriousness to murder, when done as a result of promiscuous sexual activity, or out of desire to further economic goals (such as desire to have a child later in order to have a career, etc.)

Respect for gay people (though not unquestioned approaches towards the morality of homosexuality) should also keep being promoted. Gay people, because they are first and foremost human beings, deserve to be respected and treated with dignity. Nevertheless, this does not mean that their moral choices with regards to homosexuality should not be questioned.

Regarding gay marriage, I don't understand what's the need for it. Gay people can live together without being married, and since marriage is a religious institution, it should follow religious laws. As Cruz said, the state has no right over the pulpit on this issue.

Indeed.

Depends what you mean by homosexual lifestyle. If it's a homosexual couple living non-promiscuous lives, then clearly no. If we're talking about a homosexual person who goes and tries to encourage other non-homosexuals to engage in sex with him, then probably it does affect the well-being of the general public. So it depends on the people involved.

Do you disagree that the way the US ended the Iraq war facilitated ISIS's rise to power in the region? Do you not think that if the US had retreated more slowly, and promoted more stability in the region, today we would all be better off?

Also, what do you think of the millions of Americans who are disappointed with ObamaCare?

Ending two wars isn't an achievement? — Question

Ending two disastrous wars in an even more disastrous way that has left the Middle East in tatters and gave rise to ISIS...

Introducing comprehensive healthcare reform? — Question

ObamaCare has done absolutely terrible for people, and has greatly diminished the quality of services.

Obama has been a great US president. There is no doubt about that in my mind. The favorability of congress amongst the American public as of recently speaks for itself. — Question

Obama has been a great President?? No way. More like one of the worst Presidents in US history - he has literarily not done anything while in office. Congress has. The Democratic Party has. But Obama? Absolutely nothing. The rest of the world doesn't respect Obama, I can tell you that. His one and only achievement is that he became President. That's it. He's done nothing else.

Both are extremes in a way Mayor. I would prefer somewhere in the middle between the two. No authority, vs complete authority are both extremist perspectives that cannot produce a lasting civilisation. We need liberty, combined with education and principle. Principle does not function to prevent people from using their freedom, but rather in encouraging choices which are good for society. Principle does not impose choices on people, but rather recommends them - people are free to ignore them, if they so choose.

For example, I don't disagree with B. Sanders that women should be free to decide whether or not to have an abortion. But I disagree with the fact that he doesn't emphasise the moral nature of this question (ie, which is the right choice to make?), which is beyond the question of whether women should have this freedom or not (coincidentally, many people just like me would never support Sanders for this reason). Of course freedom should exist, otherwise moral excellence becomes impossible. But, people need to recieve a moral education, regarding how it is good to use their freedom for themselves and for their fellow citizens. Giving freedom without moral education regarding how that freedom ought to be used is alike giving a child a gun with a bullet inside. So I cannot encourage people to vote Sanders - he is giving children guns, without educating them to first drop childish things and become adults.

I agree, so long that this is done legally, in a way that enables communities and countries to protect themselves.

Unless you subscribe to some totalitarian pseudo-morality, Agustino, laws are not necessarily good or right, and the most interesting political debates are about how the law should be changed. — jamalrob

Agreed. Do you think illegal immigrants should be allowed to freely come in whenever they want?

That seems like a hasty and ill-considered judgement. Forgiveness should be conditional, and they should be granted at least that much. But even if they are unrepentant, their actions should be judged in light of the circumstances and context. They would certainly pale in comparison to the alleged long-term endemic and institutional racial injustice, as well as it's dire consequences, which seems to be being wilfully overlooked or dealt with softly by those in power. — Sapientia

Yes, forgiven after they face the consequences that the law requires them to face for committing acts of violence etc. Not forgiven in the sense of not being punished for what they've done.

As for racial issues dealt with softly by those in power. I'm not quite sure Sapientia. I have a family friend whose brother goes to a prestigious US university. Sometime this year they had an incident there, where some anonymous student said on a public university chat group "back to the cornfields" regarding black people. The person was identified later by the administration, and expelled. That to me, is not dealing with a racial issue softly at all. It's perhaps dealing with it much more harshly than I think it should be dealt with. The person they expelled is right now probably going to only feel even more justified in his beliefs: what has happened, has proven him correct in his mind - namely that the black people have gotten too much power. This, combined with the fact that his being expelled will probably put severe constraints on his life, has literarily ensured that this man will hate black people. And this is unfortunate.

I would say that the same problem exists with the severity academia treats other issues, such as plagiarism. These are issues that are important to our young people, and they should be addressed. We live in a society which cannot be honest about what affects us. We cannot honestly speak about what should be done with people who are racist, because unless we take the absolutist, hard-line stance, we're labelled racist ourselves, or otherwise encouraging racism. This is a serious problem, and it's not doing any good for black people either - it's in fact only preserving the discrimination and/or hatred.

You once again mention justification when there is no disagreement about justification. You also mention Mahatma Gandhi, who Russell Brand himself mentions in the video as someone with whom he shares similar views on violence. I can't speak for Russell Brand, but I'm guessing that he thought that it was understandable given human nature, which is far from perfect and sage-like. Those affected by the shooting were understandably angry and outraged and no doubt felt a sense of overwhelming injustice which compelled them to take the actions that they took. If you don't think that that's understandable, then you're too far removed from human nature. It's important to remember that ideals are just that: ideals. — Sapientia

I agree with it in this sense. I don't agree with understandable in the sense of saying that they should be forgiven.

His caution is selective. He wasn't cautious in his choice of comparison between homosexuality and beastiality, nor with his choice of analogy between a basic mathematical summation and a controversial social issue. — Sapientia

When talking about moral matters and teaching a moral lesson, it is different than when having to take a stand on an issue that is still being played out in the world no?

Suppose there would be a 20 years prescription period (maybe assorted with some other restrictions, such as the lack of a criminal record, say). It seems unlikely to me that a prospective illegal immigrant would chose to move to the USA with the hope not to get caught during the next 20 years, but would cancel her plan if there were no prescription period. Maybe there will be a precious few that would be thus influenced, but likely not enough of them to justify the harm caused to society by the forced deportation of scores of long established individuals and families. — Pierre-Normand

Okay, agreed, I see your point.

This seems to imply that, on your view, some people's choice not to suffer and die miserably is wrong because their only means to avoiding an undeserved death constitutes a misdemeanor and is disrespectful of the law. Or maybe you just mean "wrong" pro tanto. — Pierre-Normand

Indeed, I mean it is wrong only in-so-far as they are breaking the law. Of course people have a right to take sensible and reasonable actions to sustain their own lives and well-being. Such a sensible action, may be seeking to escape an oppressive country which will, sooner or later, kill you anyway. But the country you are running to, has a right to refuse you - they don't have to refuse you, and mercy should be shown, but nevertheless, you have to understand that you don't have a right to be accepted by that country - it would be a privilege, not a right. With the recent refugee crisis, etc. etc. too many people seem to think they are entitled to be accepted. For example, refugees come to the borders of European soil, and literarily demand to be accepted. That's not right. They can ask to be accepted, but they cannot kill themselves on our borders, starve themselves to death and so forth in an effort to force us to accept them. That is wrong. It's like me going to the Saudi Arabian borders, and demanding that I be let in, lest I shall starve myself on their borders and show the whole world how inhuman they are for not accepting me. Emotional blackmail is wrong.

So long as the penalty produces the desired deterrence effect, there is no need to increase its severity further than that, except maybe as a means for the legislator to obtain political gain through demagoguery. — Pierre-Normand

Agreed.

Deporting families that have been long established and that may have contributed positively to society may be a penalty that is unnecessarily draconian and that harms society more than the marginal gain from the enhanced deterrence effect would justify. — Pierre-Normand

What use is a nice, tall building if the foundation is corrupt? This must be an example to all that the law must be followed.

You are suggesting that it's not practical for there to be prescription periods for some forms of offence. — Pierre-Normand

I can see this working for some issues and not working for others.

It's also quite unclear that illegal immigration qualifies as immoral — Pierre-Normand

This is not legislating morality, but rather following the laws of a country. Illegal immigration is harmful because 1. it breaks the laws of the country, 2. it disrespects the country and the authority of the law, 3. it promotes disobedience. Therefore, illegal immigration is always wrong - even if you're running away from North Korea it's wrong so long as the country you're running to doesn't want to accept you legally. If that country had said for example, that it's willing to accept refugees, etc. it's a different story.