One thing we can be sure of is that if adultery were criminal, the burden would fall disproportionately on black males. What sort of maximum punishments did you have in mind? — photographer

Well probably it should start with something preventing them from causing future suffering in the same way. This may be declining them the right to marry someone else (talking about closed marriages now) for their whole life, or maybe for a fixed period of time. This includes the right of future closed marriage partners to know about their past (in other words, it needs to go on some record). They would still be allowed to form open marriages and open relationships freely.

It may be coupled with certain economic sanctions, such as having to provide their ex partner with a certain percentage of their income, especially if they have children with them.

That, to begin with, I think is sufficient. The punishment doesn't have to be big (in fact, making the punishment TOO big is probably detrimental, as people would stop getting married out of fear - rendering it an empty law, with no one to apply to). But a point must be made that people will not be allowed to be exploited, and that it is not culturally okay to do this. Everyone has a right to live as they wish, provided they do not interfere and harm others. In our day and age, the one who cheats is often seen as "cool" or "smart" by the media. If it's a woman, she's also seen as assertive, strong, and not allowing herself to play the role demanded by certain cultures. This is nonsense, and it is just as terrible as seeing the slave-owner as cool or smart. So long as harm is done, the action is and remains evil.

You might want to re-read what I said about history. I said that the rulers who set these sexual norms and rules, the ones you hold dear (no, they weren't hammered into through a million years of evolutionary struggle), all fucked multiple people, none of them had just one spouse. But the hypocrisy is that they enforced this whole notion of monogamous ethics and morality which you are spewing now. — discoii

Yes indeed - you are correct, and I misread. My apologies. Nevertheless, if you re-read what my theory says:

Nature's interest is that the alpha male fertilises as many females as possible - hence showing us that it is man's nature to be polygamous. — Agustino

You will be perhaps shocked to discover that it already accounts for men in power desiring and having more than one spouse. Since most of the absolute rulers in European history have been male, it is in perfect accord with the theory that they would be capable to express their real nature most fully. Their real nature according to the theory is polygamous. Hence it is to be expected that if most leaders were men, most of them would have more than one spouse. Why? Because nothing stopped them, hence their real nature manifested most fully.

Now, I also mentioned that woman is a monogamous animal by nature and that she wants man to be monogamous as well - hence the source of conflict. If you look at those leaders who have had concubines or consorts, which are many of the Chinese emperors, and also the Turkish Sultans, you will notice that the females were, most of the time, always scheming against each other, and always looking for a way to get their lord to favor one of them to the detriment of the other. What does the theory say? Exactly that. That women will try to keep their men only to themselves if they can.

Now we turn to the poor. Could a poor man have multiple wives? No. Did he want to? You bet! But why couldn't he? First of all - economic reasons -> he couldn't provide for them. Second of all, they wouldn't accept it, because it's in their nature to want the man for themselves (this reason combines with the first). So of course he would have to resort to cheating on his wife if he was to fulfill his nature completely. Hence why the popular image of man being the one who cheats, and not woman. Notice that this nowhere implies that man SHOULD fulfil his nature or not - there's no question of morality here, just describing what happens.

Now why is it that women also cheat sometimes? Nature's interest: women want the alpha male. Hence if they see a man whose genes fit with theirs better, they will be tempted to cheat. Most often this won't happen. Why not? Because even if the genes are better, they're not SIGNIFICANTLY better. Hence it is better for a woman to stay without cheating (which in the past was a very dangerous attempt, which would most likely result in death for her). It's not worth the opportunity cost. The theory which states that women will generally find a stable male to live with and then be tempted to cheat at a certain point in the month when their fertility is highest in an attempt to get some better genes implanted in them is, I believe, wrong. The reason is that this was an extremely dangerous attempt, and failure to hide it would result in death, or if not in death, then certainly in conflict with her male, as well as other women. Hence, I believe that by and large, Nature has eliminated these genes which compelled woman to cheat in those moments - since it was more likely for a woman and her offspring to survive if she stuck with a relatively weaker male all the time instead of trying to profit whenever she could to get better genes. This type of opportunism would be sanctioned by all, even the alpha male, who would fear she would do the same to him, if she found someone better than him. Also, another male would be unlikely to want to take care of another's offspring - hence if she already had children with him this would be a HUGE risk. This accounts for both why it is in woman's nature to be monogamous and to cheat less than men, and also for why they do cheat when they do (which is either a deviation, or the other male's genes are vastly superior and better matching which combines with other favorable circumstances, such as having no children yet, etc.).

It also occurred to me that if you think geniuses are cultivated more in aristocratic societies, then how do you account for the Middle Ages? There are some centuries, like say the 7th, where I doubt you could compose a list of 10 geniuses of the caliber you seem to want, anywhere in the world, where such societies were clearly the norm. — Thorongil

Poverty, lack of access to intellectual resources, lack of cultural values, high levels of oppression, military conflict.

Just like I attribute the lack of genius in today's world to:
too much social pressure, commercialisation of sex, high levels of misinformation, too much comfort, too much counter culture.

What is best is a median between those two extremes. You don't want an affluent hyper-democrato-capitalist rule of the mob state of affairs as we have now. Neither do you want a closed down monarchy with no regard for the people and full of poverty.

So, from the top one poverty needs to be removed, such that people have access to reasonable amounts of resources, intellectual resources need to be easily available, cultural values need to be promoted, levels of oppression need to be maintained to a minimum, and military conflict must be avoided. From the bottom one, you don't want social pressure (mob-rule via ostracisation and social exclusion), unregulated sex (which is almost enforced via mob-rule) - which increases conflicts between people and prevents them from developing their intelligence, high levels of misinformation so that people can no longer distinguish truth from falsity, too much comfort such that people aren't pushed to do anything useful, and irrational disregard for authority (other geniuses) (this doesn't mean that the authority shouldn't ever be questioned though).

If you are hurt from someone else having sex with people other than yourself, maybe it's time to re-think why it's painful and why you added unnecessary conditions to your being in a relationship with said person in the first place. — discoii

Or maybe it's time for you to re-think why you want to oblige everyone to live like you. Or maybe it's time for you to re-think why, despite having no intellectual foundation for your theory, and failing to counter any of my arguments, you still attempt to hold an intellectually superior position. Or maybe you should really think if it's right for a person who agrees to be in an exclusive relationship with someone to have sex with other people. Maybe you really should :) Afterall that's why you have a brain. Let's see if you can use it.

Agustino, 10% of all humans are estimated to be homosexual — discoii

This is false. Show me proof. And keep in mind, do not include bisexuals. They are a separate category :)

And even if it was true. 10% is a deviation, it's not the natural tendency :)

Bitter Crank, according to Agustino, you are a deviation from heterosexuality and should screw that Excalibur Cock on the right way and find yourself the right woman-sheath so that you may become one with nature. Remember, righty tighty, lefty loosy. — discoii

I never said that there is something wrong with being a deviation. (or that a deviation should try to be normal) I even said that I am a deviation in some regards you idiot. If I did say that it is wrong to be a deviation, please show me where I have. Let me guess - you won't be able to. That's right.

With these lists, especially if they include writers of fictional prose and philosophers whose views one disagrees with, you can't judge based on your own aesthetic preferences. I think Heidegger is mostly a hack, Picasso an unappealing painter, and Steinbeck a bit dry at times, but that doesn't negate their status as geniuses, it seems to me. I am not the sole arbiter of that distinction. — Thorongil

I agree.

What Marx was saying (this in 1844, remember) was that the bourgeoisie (big factory operators) didn't give a rat's ass about the family, and were perfectly willing to exploit men, women, and children for sexual or productive purposes. The bourgeois accused the revolutionaries of the day of wanting to do away with the family, but in fact, the bourgeoisie was already doing precisely that thing. — Bitter Crank

Very well - but I've argued, and you haven't responded to the argument, that the bourgeoisie doing this behind closed scenes was better than the revolutionaries doing this openly.

I don't see where you can possibly disagree with me.

Not all people want closed marriages. Some do want them. If they want them, and then their partner decieves them, then they have been done an injustice. They need a way to protect themselves or to punish those who have done them wrong. Simple.

It has nothing to do with adultery being morally wrong or whatever. It just has to do with people who are decieved and done wrong. It's that simple really.

Furthermore such people should be treated RESPECTFULLY, instead of with scorn as discoii and other idiots do. Because disrespectful treatment also is oppressive and builds up hatred.

Fair enough - I would disagree though with Heidegger, Orwell, Eliot. They aren't anywhere near Spinoza (for Heidegger), Shakespeare (for Eliot) or Cervantes (Orwell). I'll give you that Heidegger is arguable though. The other two definitely not.

I will need to compile a full list sometime soon to check this matter.

When things fall apart, when the center does not hold, — Bitter Crank

Chinua Achebe and William Yeats :p

Right BC. Unfortunately I am not disagreeing with anything you said there. My point is that some people, those who get married in closed marriages, do not want to take part in this. They want to keep their partners for themselves. If they are decieved and harmed, then they need the tools to protect themselves, and legally punish those who have harmed them. Otherwise, they will take a gun and go out there to do justice themselves. You want that to happen? Violence will always happen when people are oppressed. Right now, around the Western world, there are large masses of people who feel oppressed exactly for those reasons. Keep denying them any possibility to live as they want to live, and in 50-100 years time, their anger will build up, until it will explode in massive wars. And guess who will be the first to support them? The Church, which is still the richest institution out there. Guess in whose arms they will run? The Church. Of course! Because you refuse to care for them. That's why.

It is my intuition, but let's attempt to test it. Name me 10 geniuses from 1900 onwards.

I will name you 10 geniuses from 1550-1650

1. Newton (1642-1726)
2. Galileo Galiei (1564-1642)
3. Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
4. Michelangelo Buonarotti (1475-1564)
5. Giordano Bruno (1548-1600)
6. William Shakespeare (1564-1616)
7. Spinoza (1632-1677)
8. Leibniz (1646-1716)
9. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
10. Miguel de Cervantes (1547-1616)

Probably some of the greatest writers, poets, philosophers, scientists, and artists in history there.

I will start your list:
1. Einstein
2. Wittgenstein

Also your idea of keeping a running list is interesting... maybe I should!

Would you like this to be illegal? — coolazice

Yes, and it should have a punishment according to the harm it causes. Maybe a fine of 5$ is enough for such a simple thing. Or maybe no punishment is necessary as it's taken as banter by the other. Anyway, it should be up to the insulted person to decide if he was sufficiently hurt to pursue the other with legal action, and whether the legal action will be worth the effort.

Clearly not, since there are millions of users on Ashley Madison, and millions more on other websites that are meant for the same or similar purposes — discoii

Yeah, 50 million out of 7 billion. Great! You proved it to me that they aren't outliers. Because they are MILLIONS!

The best you can do is claim that most people think they do not agree with such things. You can try to find a poll that supports your claim, but it would be entirely flawed since there's the pressure of not being honest in answering said polls. A site with millions of paying customers engaging in consensual sex with people that aren't their partner is a much more reliable measure of people's opinions here. — discoii

There was an option not to answer in this poll. Also answers were anonymous. Again you are spewing bullshit because you're afraid you won't be able to carry on hurting other people in the future. Classic opressor. And yes, a site containing only people who agree with something, is certainly a reliable sample of the population that can be used to measure the population's opinion of that something in question. That's what they teach in statistics 101. Who the fuck are you kidding mate? You don't know basic statistics. Go back to school.

I find it interesting you decided to remove the part about homosexuals from my comment about the fact of human life. Oh, here's another fact: homosexuality is natural, people are usually born homosexuals, it isn't a derivation. — discoii

Homosexuality is a natural deviation of the tendency which exists towards heterosexuality. And yes, people are born homosexual. How does this suggest that they do not represent a natural deviation? A natural deviation implies that among a population of 100, only 1 is, let's say, homosexual. Yes, obviously that one will be born homosexual. But that doesn't mean that the tendency is homosexuality. You can't even understand the distinctions employed here.

Finally, last fact: your knight in shining armor Excalibur cock fantasies is so Victorian era, your views on sex originate from attempts by rulers to create a family unit and control women sexual reproduction and this is pretty well documented. Almost none of the rulers themselves actually had one spouse, but politically they aligned with religious sectors (morality police) to try to corral everyone else into this nonsensical and completely unnatural sexual arrangement. — discoii

Mate - go learn some history please. Please. This is embarassing. Name 6 rulers who had no spouses. Not to mention that there never was an attempt to control women's sexual reproduction... Only the communists would make you think so. Show me any ancient (or Victorian) first-hand source which documents an attempt by ANY ONE ruler to control women's sexuality. I don't care about revisionist history, I'm asking for real history, factual, as it happened. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if you don't even know what revisionist history is. Being a learned man and an intellectual is not easy. It's not enough to complete school and have a few University degrees mate. You can still be the village idiot, even after you have all those qualifications.

Also, many women in our days support views which call for sexual morality. Look at how many women supporters Donald J. Trump has for example. Sexual morality has nothing to do with whether men and women enjoy sex or not. Of course they do. It has to do with preventing others from getting harmed. Smart men and women realise this. They're not against enjoying sex, they're against harming others while you enjoy sex.

Also sexual morality PREDATES religion, and has nothing to do with it. You don't have to believe in God (like I don't), to press on for sexual morality.

Really, the problem with people that would never forgive their partners for sleeping with other people is that they have some sort of sexual repression that they haven't yet resolved. Best way to resolve it currently? Sign up for an account on AshleyMadison.com. — discoii

Ah - the old tactics. You disagree with my views on morality - just because you have a psychological problem. How to solve it? Just do what my moral view demands. Absolute, utter nonsense and smelly shit.


PS: What is worse about the revisionist theory against sexual morality is that it fails to explain adequately why most people are so against it (fails to match empirical evidence). Also it fails to explain even why it exists (lacks internal completeness). Whereas the normal theory for sexual morality explains its existence by tying it in to our biological evolution, which is necessary given the biological asymmetry between man and woman. You tell me people enjoy sex. You don't explain to me why? Why did they evolve to enjoy it? That is why the theory I presented trumps yours, without a shadow of a doubt. In terms of both explanatory power and fitting in with all the historical data that we have (because even if today's society was as you say, that means very little, since for thousands of years society was never like that).

Who cares what nature thinks? You're a human. Humans do things that aren't a direct byproduct of the function of human cyclical desires all the time. For example: having sex without intending to reproduce. Your theory has to be able to explain the instances where humans wish to have sex but not reproduce. It currently cannot. For the record, your theory is almost certainly wrong. — discoii

As far as biological evolution is concerned, if I have sex for personal interest (which is pleasure), then its aims are fulfilled. Full stop. Biological evolution has no conscious mind to realise that I could, in millions of years, find a way to circumvent this. So yes - my theory DOES say that men and women love and desire to have sex for fun. However, it explains the origin of this desire - Nature allows this desire because it fulfills its interests :)

Don't you find it interesting that you have this senseless impulse that allegedly was strengthened over millions of years, yet I, also a human, don't care whatsoever if my girlfriend fucks whomever? — discoii

You my friend. But most people, as I showed above, are STRONGLY against adultery, and would NEVER forgive their partners if they committed it. I didn't say there aren't deviations in Nature, which don't fit the general trend. Of course there are. But this says nothing about the natural tendency of human beings. So in order to universalise any element from your personal experience you need to make it fit. You can't. You just tell me you are like this, and therefore everyone is like this. I have my own peculiarities which don't agree with the natural tendency. For example, I wouldn't want more than one woman even if I could. Most men aren't like me, instead they agree with the natural tendency to want more than one woman if they can. For something to be a natural tendency it doesn't mean we all agree with it. Heterosexuality is a natural tendency, even though there are homosexuals (deviations from the natural tendency) out there. Men being polygamous is true, even if there are wierdos like me out there who are monogamous.

This is a fact of human life: heterosexual girls tend to like cock, heterosexual men tend to like pussy — discoii

Thanks Captain Obvious, I didn't know that already.

But I can reject your claim that humans have this strengthened impulse to consider another person as property because... well, Ashley Madison exists, and that's millions of data points to support the contrary to your claim. — discoii

No you can't reject it. Fact of the matter is that MOST people do not agree with such things. Ashley Madison is simply a community of outliers (and yes, even a community of 50 million outliers is nothing compared to the world's population of 7 billion).

Why are you assuming heterosexual men here? — discoii

Nature's interest, as I said, is in reproduction. Homosexual sex cannot be explained by this, but must rather be explained by a derivative of these basic principles (it CAN be explained - but I don't see the point of going into it; it's not related to the explanation above in any way).

This argument above also explains why homosexuality is a minority position among men. Most are by FAR heterosexual, or otherwise bisexual (many for cultural reasons, such as in Ancient Greece or Ancient Rome)

Also, people feel sexually aroused even when they don't personally consciously want a child. You know, sex is fun and feels good for the majority of people. People like to have it a lot. — discoii

Sexual arousal is the mechanism that Nature uses in order to get you to achieve its aims (reproduction). Otherwise, how could it get you to reproduce? Of course most people don't consciously desire reproduction, but rather "fun" or something like that. I am not saying that Nature doesn't bribe you as it were in order to get you to reproduce. Of course it does. But people, they are, however, most often unaware of how they will react to different situations that will occur, because they don't have a solid understanding of themselves. Many men don't understand a priori that they would feel extremely jealous if they saw other men having sex with whoever they see as their sexual mate. Their intelligence just isn't strong enough. Once it happens, then they start realising. So they get into all sorts of dangerous situations, because they don't understand the dangers.

Women like to have sex too, and not only for bearing children, and you do know that women can still have sex while pregnant, right? — discoii

I am talking about Nature's interest. Of course women love sex, otherwise how could Nature get them to have it?? Women could not have sex without getting pregnant in the past. Now, man has found a way to circumvent Nature's aims (and even this isn't very successful), as people who repeatedly do this, will reproduce less, and will in the end be replaced by those who reproduce more (Europe's population is declining - because we use condoms and have subverted Nature's interest - not a problem, in 200 years, those who use condoms will not exist anymore - Nature is smarter than us, in the end it keeps us as its slaves, even while we think in our arrogance that we are masters). Man, also because he is unaware of how Nature has made him - fails to realise that, even though pregnancies can be avoided now, this does not mean that sex can be allowed to go on completely free. Why? Because when I see another man having sex with my wife, even though I know she won't get pregnant, I still want to kill him. My natural impulse, which was developed and strengthened over millions of years, is and will always be there. You cannot overcome it. I will still feel terribly angry (much more angry than if you stole my car, beat me up, mocked me, etc.) Of course I may try to control it, but, I may not be able to (and it's reasonable that I may not be able to - you have no reason to expect me to). Nature gave me that instinct such that I would prevent others from approaching my sexual mate. I will go on having that instinct, because my subconscious brain does not understand condoms, avoiding pregnancies, etc. For it, sex = pregnancy, end of story.

If you really believe this, your ideal state would be several shades more totalitarian than North Korea. — coolazice

Why is protecting people from harming each other (because immorality means bringing harm to another) totalitarian?

Yes, they may do, and that may be because of their limited capacities for understanding and compassion. — John

I don't think so - I think it's rather because they disagree morally with my behaviour.

I personally would not "disconsider" you, as long as I believed you caused no pain to the dog, although I might think your sexual tastes were somewhat deviant insofar as your libido was not directed towards fellow humans — John

So Muslim people may feel that homosexuals are somewhat deviant insofar as their libido is not directed towards females, as, according to them, God directs it.

In any case, being offended by witnessing or hearing about, sexual acts, no matter what their kind, is not ethically equivalent to blanket condemning of specific kinds of sexual behavior that involves consenting participants behind closed doors. — John

I personally agree. But then this is because we share the same values - there is no philosophical necessity in other people sharing the same values that we do.

I think you have a skewed notion of genius, science and painting. It always takes considerable time to see whether particular artists or scientists have been, in fact, great. You should not consider your own limited view to be a very good indicator in such matters. — John

Since when is it a necessity that genius is not recognized during their own life? Einstein for example was recognized during his life. In the past it often was the case that genius went unrecognized because they didn't have the means to communicate to a wide enough audience, and it took time for their work to spread.

Do you not think people would be offended if you did that? — John

No, they'd just feel jealous (this is meant to be a joke btw).

Would they feel you have offended their moral or merely their aesthetic sensibilities, do you think? — John

Both.

Or would they just think you were an insensitive idiot for disregarding your sexual partners' senses of intimacy and privacy? — John

This depends on whether my partner is okay with me sharing such information, but yes, they'd most likely think that as well.

Yes, but how is this any different from the same person being tempted by aristocratic privileges in a non-democratic society of the kind you envision and then squandering their abilities? — Thorongil

There were more geniuses produced by aristocratic societies than by democratic ones if you look through history. So practically, it seems to have better results at least.

What Marxist hate for the family are you talking about? What passage in Karl Marx's writings leads you to think that Marxism hates families? — Bitter Crank

Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.

But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.

The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.

Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private. — Communist Manifesto Chapter 2

Marx says that he wants to destroy the bourgeois family, which is in part kept together by the economic needs between man and wife.

He admits that non-communists fear that this will lead to a community of women, where women are free for any to take. He doesn't think that this will happen, however - he admits that it may. At worst, he says, a hypocritically concealed system of "wives in common" will be substituted for an "openly legalised community of women".

Marx fails to see that once economic needs no longer press on him and somehow "force" him to remain with his wife, he is much more likely not to, given man's nature. He also fails to see that the "hypocritically concealed" system is better than the "openly legalised" one, because at least in the hypocritically concealed this is condemned, giving another control mechanism that in the "openly legalised" one will be completely removed.

Most people are too weak emotionally to be able to live a life of virtue. Even the strongest of us will have temptations. Whatever mechanisms can help restrain our temptations in our moments of weakness - those mechanisms should be there. Many times, when I was tempted to do something wrong, I didn't just because I was afraid of the consequences. The mechanism was good - now I thank it - if it wasn't for it, I would've done a lot more wrong than I did even with it.

My dog has very refined sensibilities. If you insult her by taking liberties she may employ her big sharp canine teeth to correct your indiscretion. — Bitter Crank

See - even the dog wouldn't agree to something like this :P

But I think the former can be explained by the extension of the idea of a citizen who deserves the protection of the law — photographer

I think spouses also deserve the protection of the law from being deceived (which as far as I am aware is a harm - if it is not, emotional suffering which it entails surely is).

Being the pessimist you are, you surely hold to the idea of a profoundly flawed, lying, cheating, stealing, sneaking, and conniving humankind whose very nature it is to be hypocritical — Bitter Crank

Well - I don't really. I think man is both angel and devil; there's both a principle and source of altrusim in us, and a principle of selfishness. But yes - I think we are bound to always make mistakes regardless of what we do.

It's one thing if people are just too stupid to behave properly. They can be taught, trained, and schooled. It is quite another to have high expectations for people to behave morally -- especially in behavior powerfully driven by gonads which have no interest at all in morality. (A stiff dick has no morals.) No amount of education has ever prevented people from sinning in all of the various and sundry ways to which we are prone. No amount of force has ever worked either in this area. — Bitter Crank

Agreed.

Had we more leisure, more imagination, more energy, more money, more time -- we'd probably get more sinning done. — Bitter Crank

Definitely.

Your particular sin may not be sexual; perhaps it is related to gluttony, greed, jealousy, or sloth -- I don't know, there are various possibilities. It doesn't matter, because sin is sin. Lust as much as larceny. — Bitter Crank

Sure - but I think the emotional damage done to one's spouse due to cheating is in many cases worse than the damage done by every-day kind of gluttony, greed, sloth, etc. It is the damage that we should prevent and punish, not the sin itself.

Not only is sin sin, but we are incapable of not sinning, Left to our own devices, we will sin. I will, you will, he will, she will. Everybody. — Bitter Crank

Sure - but at least let's seriously try not to hurt others.

This is, see, a nice pessimistic way of looking at morals and behavior. One can lament naughty behavior, but then realize we can't help it. You can't help it either. — Bitter Crank

Yes, but the point isn't to lament harmful behavior (such as stealing for example, which still goes on even if there is a law and punishment against it), but rather to prevent it as much as possible and to punish it when it can't be prevented.

Modern legal theory is that the purpose of law is to prevent people from harming others, not from being "immoral." — Landru Guide Us

Okay, agreed. I never said ALL adultery should be illegal. In an open marriage adultery should be perfectly legal since both partners agree and no one is harmed. BUT!! In the case of closed marriages, people are greatly harmed by their partner's adultery. Hence laws need to be implemented to prevent, and if not, to punish those who decide to become harmful elements of society.

Being cheated on - that is probably one of the worst emotional pains one can encounter. I have a friend that I haven't met for a long time, and finally we saw each other now (we live in different countries). She told me that she recently found out her husband cheated on her, and that literarily, her whole psychological well-being has been totally destroyed. She compared the experience of finding about the cheating to the experience of finding that one has cancer. Now to tell me that the state doesn't have a duty to prevent, and if not to prevent, at least to punish in some way the perpetrators of this harm? Yes - it's a duty to prevent people from being harmed this adultery business, much more than it is a "moral" business. And in fact, what is morality, if not preventing harm to others?

I find Ashley Madison to be an incredibly moral thing. Your relationship is almost certainly a vacuous sham, you are most likely biologically predisposed to want to fuck as much as possible but aren't doing so for a variety of nonsensical reasons, you're probably unhappy in your relationship, listening to Katy Perry Taylor Swift definitely won't help you but their constantly being spammed on the radio makes you believe certain things are more important than they should be, society frowns upon your thoughts and ideas when it comes to sex, society essentially corralled you into a family unit so as to ensure you reproduce the next generation of labor, you teach your children the same bullshit about love and marriage as you were taught, which, let's not forget, is a huge reason why you are incredibly unhappy in the first place, and you give too much value to what is simply the act of coitus. — discoii

Very Marxist - but - factually wrong. These theories are first of all speculations. There is no empirical, undeniable proof. But - if we start from first principles - I think we can develop a plausible theory. Nature's overarching interest (a metaphor for what will statistically happen over the long term) is to develop the strongest species possible. Nature puts the following constraints: man can fertilise as many females as he wants, a female can only be fertilised once afterwhich for 9 months she must be protected to give birth (a very painful experience, which was very probable to cause the death of the female as well in the past), and then the baby must be protected. Nature's interest is that the alpha male fertilises as many females as possible - hence showing us that it is man's nature to be polygamous. However - given the biological constraints put on the female body - Nature's interest is also that males stay with females, and protect them and their babies after birth. Hence showing us that females must by nature be monogamous (of course there are exceptions, but those are only deviations). Not only is it female nature to be monogamous - but men also want their women to be monogamous. Why? When the alpha male saw other males lurking around his women, if he wasn't careful and annihilated them as soon as possible, they would mate with his women. Then the women would be unable to mate for the next 9 months, and would also risk dying through child birth. Hence Nature had to make the alpha male stop this from happening, so that he would be the one spreading his genes. How? Enter jealousy. Nature must also have given women the arsenal necessary to keep hold of the alpha male - beauty, charm, and - in case of conflict with other females - deceit. Hence Nature made it such that women desire the alpha male to reproduce only with them - in other words that the alpha male was also monogamous. Herein lies the birth of conflict, as the alpha male is desired to be something other than he is.

Keep in mind that for Nature reproduction is MORE important than individual survival or flourishing. Hence the most powerful instincts are implanted to assure it. That is why the fires of jealousy are so strong, that is why love so easily turns to hate. You hear all the time about someone shooting their girlfriend's partner because of cheating on him. But if that same person who had sex with their girlfriend stole their car - they would be much less annoyed. Why? Because Nature has put extremely strong emotions to be associated with these sexual issues. That is why they interest us so much. Hence society must be organised in such a way as to MINIMISE the arising of such strong emotions, and the conflicts that they lead to.

So what are you saying? That our society is not organised as best as it could given our natural predispositions? Perhaps. Perhaps men should be allowed multiple wives so long as they can provide care for all of them, like it is in the Arab world. But apart from this - I see nothing wrong with our current system of organisation given our natural predispositions.

There are leftists who are quite rigid in their morals, have strong family values, and so forth. — Bitter Crank

How do you explain Marxism's total hate for the family then? Most of what socialism is has evolved from Marxism afterall.

We may just disagree on this point. I'm trying to say that there is such a thing as practical assent and that you exercise it in this case by speaking freely. It's also called implied assent under social contract theory and is the basis of the state's power and authority over you in a democracy. And from what I can tell, you clearly do accept the state's authority over you, do you not? On what else might it rest in a democratic polity, assuming you do accept its authority? — Thorongil

Okay I somewhat follow your point. So you're right on this and I have been somewhat wrong. I'll give you this - although I will still reply that me accepting it even in practice does not mean that I necessarily think it should be accepted in practice by everyone else.

In the context of today's free societies, it seems to me that this phrase needs to be amended to say that everyone is born free but then exercises their liberty to put themselves in chains. — Thorongil

Agreed.

But if they do disappear and society returns to autocracy, then how many potential geniuses are lost due to being born into the wrong social status, never getting a chance to kindle their abilities? — Thorongil

I don't know if geniuses will be lost. As far as I know, most geniuses happened in the Renaissance/Enlightenment, which wasn't exactly the most libertarian and democratic stage in European history. If I look around today - there's hardly any geniuses left - all I see is mass idiocy. Does a Stephen Hawking compare even to someone like Einstein, much less to a genius of the stature of Newton? Does the best painter in the world today compare to a Leonardo Da Vinci? Of course not.

In a democratic society, the genius is ignored but is able to realize his potential by being given the opportunity to do so. — Thorongil

In theory - practice shows us that the temptations of democracies are so great that the genius will become stuck in the easy life, instead of take up his yoke and follow the hard and difficult ascent up the mountain - hence he will be stuck with a puerile and undeveloped intelligence, as he will lack the seriousness needed, and would much prefer bread and circus.

Do you think Plato's Republic will be implemented any time soon? — Thorongil

Unfortunately not.

If not, then why not support liberal democracy? — Thorongil

I would support them in certain regions of the world, but not everywhere. There are cultural issues that are largely at play. Some people just cannot be governed by liberal democracy.

I think none of the political systems available today are adequate though. We need a different way of organisation, probably closer to a monarchy/meritocracy than a liberal democracy is. It is in fact that that we should be looking for instead of admiring liberal democracy. That is coming up with a different system.

That question is irrelevant. I'm speaking about what public perceptions were about whether it would or would not collapse soon and whether it could be predicted when it would do so. I'm saying that if you pulled aside the average Russian in the mid 1980s and told them that in just a couple years the Soviet Union will have been utterly liquidated,, chances are decent to good that he or she would respond with shock and surprise. Obviously, some closer to the internal workings of power might have realized it sooner, but I'm again talking about the masses here, who as you said in another thread, are hopefully naive and aloof all the time. — Thorongil

Yes. But there is also another reason why they would act in shock and surprise - namely that if they didn't, they would be killed. This is an old communist test - tell you some misinformation to see how you react to it - and if you react to it in a way that is against party line ... get rid of you.
Also do you think Eastern European countries today have real democracies, or is democracy used merely as a mask?

You are a terrible (and I think, tendentious) mis-reader. I clearly stated that no private sexual behavior should offend anyone's sensibilities. How could it, if it is private? If you shagged, not in extremis, a dog, but merely your girlfriend in public that would offend many people. You may hate country music, but why should it offend you that others listen to it, provided they don't force you to? — John

Okay, sorry if I misread, as indeed I have. So if I privately shagged a dog, and told other people I did (because why not - I want to express and talk about my sexuality freely), would they not disconsider me?

Sites like Grindr or Ashley Madison and a million other sleazy sites exist because pointing-and-clicking adults wish for them to exist. And then too, capitalism reduces everything to the cash nexus. (KM) — Bitter Crank

Yes, you are quite right BC, in this case, capitalism has acted as a means of oppression, that is why government intervention is needed to prevent this.

In the larger civilian sphere, sexual activity is covered by the expectation of privacy, meaning the state does not interfere with (is not supposed to interfere with, anyway) individuals' behavior or activities in non-coercive, consensual sexual activity. — Bitter Crank

What if this behavior is non-coercive, consensual but nevertheless opresses and harms third parties? Do you think it's right if privacy is used as a means to justify oppression? Afterall, most people who are cheated on would not accept remaining with their partners if they knew. Hence, they are being greatly decieved, in perhaps one of the MOST important aspects/spheres of their lives.

The state has pursued other sites for arranging and facilitating fraud and deception. Both site operators and individual users who downloaded illegally obtained music and video were prosecuted. (All of them were not prosecuted, but some were.) — Bitter Crank

This is all good :) .

There is another consideration that would/should/might discourage the state from pursuing sites and participants who wish to, or have committed adultery: a flawed relationship can not be forced to be good and whole by legislative, judicial, or ecclesial authorities. — Bitter Crank

True - but then the people involved should divorce first, and then engage in whatever relationships they want, instead of pretend to maintain their marriage contract while they break it. It's not adultery itself that is wrong - but the deception that goes along with it.

I much prefer the idea of long-lasting stable mutually agreeable marriages when and where children are present. Parents have a binding obligation to their children, and they (parents) should put up and shut up to the best of their ability. My preferences not withstanding, neither the church nor the state has found a way of making people be good parents, putting up with the deficiencies of the marriage, and shutting up about it, and dutifully and cheerfully doing their duty to their children. — Bitter Crank

Maybe because people expect too much from marriage... if there was a more thorough going pessimism - this isn't going to make me happy, but it's the unhappiness that I choose.

One other thing: Adultery is not unforgivable. Even if it isn't a good idea, the failures of one or both partners can be amended, reformed, and wholeness re-established. — Bitter Crank

Can - but most people would not want to do this, as it goes against their sense of justice and being done wrong.

The state of the family as it exists in 21st century America is not good. Many children are conceived and delivered by breeding pairs who are thoroughly unprepared to properly parent their offspring. They just don't know how to maintain a relationship, they don't have adequate incomes or the potential to earn them, and they don't know how to nurture healthy children and prepare them for a healthy stable life. This goes for both the male and the female in the pair.

The more urgent obligation these idiot parents have to their unfortunate children is a far more pressing issue than childless adults jacking their partners around and having extramarital affairs. — Bitter Crank

Agreed.

I wouldn't oppress you, but others might. They have a right to shun you if you have offended their sensibilities. There is no way to legislate against that. If you want to shag a dog in public, the question also needs to be asked as to why doing it in private is not enough for you, given that you might offend people's sensibilities. Homosexual behavior, or any sexual behavior, in private should not offend anyone's sensibilities. It would at least be incumbent on you to ensure that no children were to witness you shagging the dog, as witnessing such a thing could damage a delicate sensibility. — John

So according to you, it is normal to disconsider homosexuals if they offend our personal sensibilities? This, to my mind, is barbaric. One should not let one's personal sensibilities act as judgements upon others. I hate country music. Yet I would find it horrible to disconsider people who love it.

immoral act and a criminal act. — photographer

Immoral acts should be criminal (even though currently they may not be) - that is why the law exists, as an approximation for morality. Otherwise why would beating one's children be illegal? The justification is clearly because such an act is immoral.

If you are not too embarrassed to shag the dog publicly, and the dog consents to being shagged, then I wouldn't stop you. You would be the main victim, having to then live with the stigma of being a renowned 'dog-shagger' for the rest of your life. — John

So - you will oppress me afterwards for shagging the dog by means of social exclusion no? Would you not thus break your own philosophy?

You're going to have to specify in what sense it was, for I think the consensus is that it was on the whole unexpected. — Thorongil

I've updated my post. Do you think Thorongil that the collapse of the Soviet Bloc was a planned, or unplanned event?

It's probably not perfectly achievable on the large (or perhaps even on the individual) scale, but as an ideal, yes. — John

I fail to see how people shouldn't be prescribed how to behave at all (I agree people should have freedoms to choose their behaviors, but not unlimited freedoms). If I want to go and shag the dog in the street, you will let me? You will encourage me?

The proper aim of enlightenment in my view is to be above the law, in the sense of no longer thinking that one's behavior be should be prescribed, or proscribed, by others, and also in the sense of no longer arrogating to oneself the right to prescribe what others should do. This is workable, though only for those in whom an appropriate feeling and respect for the rights of others is in place. — John

And the enlightenment is the "correct view" that ALL of mankind will always have for the remaining of its history?

And there's no need to be ashamed Photographer. When I first started my own business, I had people working for me for disgusting sums of money. I knew it was immoral to pay them so little, even though legally this wasn't a problem (it was still legal). But I still did it, and I'm not afraid to admit it. But I KNOW that it is and was immoral and I shouldn't have done it. But I was too greedy and too scared that I'd fail otherwise. But nevertheless I always knew what good and evil were. It seems that you have ceased to be aware of the difference Photographer - and that is much worse than to have committed immoral acts in the past

No ordinary person expected in 1788 that this would happen just a year later, just as very few people in 1988 living in the Soviet Bloc expected or predicted the utter collapse of Soviet rule over the next few years. — Thorongil

This is factually wrong, which is all I'll say here. I come from one of those countries - the collapse of the Soviet Bloc was imminent and predictable - if not from the outside, then certainly from the inside.

Also - some of those countries are still governed by "fake" democracies - because people cannot accept a democracy.

Being against the law is not a good reason, on its own, for judging any practice to be ethically or morally right or wrong; and if you think it is then you are an ultra-conservative idiot. — John

Then you think people should consider themselves above the law?

What prevents some of them from doing so at this moment in time are the artificial and contingent factors of culture and religion. — Thorongil

Yes but these factors are so entrenched that they cannot be changed, except over very long time, by allowing the process of transition from dictatorship towards more democratic societies to happen.

I didn't say that outlawing having black skin, but rather outlawing showing it, would be equivalent to outlawing, not being gay, but expressing it. It is you that is interpreting poorly. — John

You are peddling nonsense... as if it were possible for a black person not to show any skin...

There is no good reason why homosexual (or any other kind of sexual except) people should "control ( read as 'repress' or 'redirect') their impulses" as long as those impulses are directed towards others who are of appropriate maturity to consent, and it is this lack of good reason that determines that any requirement that they do so would be oppressive, and should not be supported by any rational person. — John

Yes there is good reason - that being against the law for starters.

Or you can follow Donald Trump's lead and censor the internet in the U.S.. — photographer

Which is a most reasonable option. You have to keep in mind that with the internet the possibility of disinformation is GREATER than the possibility of information. Hence something must be done to cut out from disinformation, so that the average person can more easily access the real information he is looking for. The average person doesn't have your intellectual capacities nor the time to judge whether information is accurate or not.

What is clear to me is that we Canadians make no such distinction, nor is adultery simpliciter any longer illegal in Canada or the U.S.. — photographer

Why not?

According to your precepts from your incoherent political thread you should respect our tolerance for adultery in Canada and buzz off — photographer

I'm not trying to FORCE you to be different - I'm just inquiring why you are so accepting of deception, treachery, betrayal, cheating, and adultery. It seems quite inhuman to my tastes, but if the majority of Canadian people, like you, have no problem with this, then that is fine. However, Mr. Photographer - I doubt the average Canadian would in fact agree to your immoral and violent animalistic mentality. Just take a look:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/graphic-the-demography-of-adultery

66% of Canadians deny that they would commit adultery if they could.
51% think their partners would NOT forgive them if they did
49% (compared to 32% opposite) would NOT forgive their partners if they did

So the evil-doer and oppressor sir, is most certainly you, who wish to take advantage of your fellow countrymen and are not interested to even listen to what they're telling you. Political correctness needs to go out the window - yes, Donald J. Trump is in fact right.

The freedom of the individual from arbitrary authority - which goes far beyond an expectation of privacy - is considered by some scholars (rightly I think) to be part and parcel to secularism. Our current PM's father stated it succinctly "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.". — photographer

The freedom of the individual to abuse his fellow men and women? If abuse goes inside bedrooms, then the state should get its tail there and stop it. Why are you so afraid? Are you an adulterer?

Your judgments are far too premature. None of these states have been in existence for longer than a few decades at most. Western democracies are well over 200 years old, and were never perfect then as now, though they have made vast improvements, such as abolishing the slave trade. — Thorongil

Again - I fail to see on what your assumption that all regions of the world can be governed reliably through democratic means rests on, except on the fact that the West is governed so. Maybe there are some regions where people simply cannot accept such governments.

What you are saying is equivalent to insisting that black people hide their skin colour if they want to enjoy citizenship ( they can't help their skin colour but they should hide it if it is deemed offensive). — John

How can you misinterpret this so badly I wonder... When I clearly said that having a law outlawing black skin would be IMMORAL because black people have no choice in their skin color, and cannot help but break the law.

People have no control over their sexual orientation, and to require people to repress their sexual feelings, not to express them, would be an act of unacceptable oppression, pure and simple, and as such completely unsupportable. I would like to know what your motivation is for making such idiotic claims. — John

They have no control over their sexual orientation. I agree. But they have control over whether they engage in gay behavior or not. And not engaging in gay behavior doesn't mean they repress their sexuality. They have outlets through masturbation and fantasy, and ways to sublimate this desire through fighting for legalising homosexuality within the bounds of the law. You make it sound as if homosexual people are like animals who cannot control their impulses... Isn't that demeaning?

You agree in practice, in other words, that you should be able to express yourself freely, if not in principle. — Thorongil

No I don't. I simply take advantage of an opportunity I happen to have. I may not agree with having such an opportunity in the first place.

Why not? — Thorongil

Because just like I have my freedom, others do too.

Ergo, unlike Plato's vision, this requires a free and open society, one that still has rulers and a state to be sure, but one whose sovereignty lies with the people. — Thorongil

This is infantile. The masses will never be sufficiently enlightened, hence why they need rulers in the first place. I wonder - have you encountered real human stupidity? I come originally from Eastern Europe. I have encountered stupidity... some people, you explain to them something a hundread times - they don't care. I tried to explain to this old friend this relatively simple mathematics equation when I went back once: it was as if I talked to a wall. I had to give up. It is simply impossible. The village priest says something - that is the truth. They really don't give a fuck about anything else. They live in a state alike to that of the animals. The only way they can be controlled, and they can be stopped from slaughtering each other is through religion. It is an infantile dream of liberals that you'll ever convince those people that homosexuality is wrong - the only way to convince them will be to kill them. These people will live the way they have learned to live, regardless of what you do. You cannot even educate those people. They need to be governed by taking into account their intellectual level.

Most of Western society is the same. It's full of animals - who are totally confused and incapable to think, who just follow the crowd, wherever it is going. The only difference is that the Western crowd aren't peasants living in the countryside.

The Bible said "For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief". And if I think about it - even though I belong to no Church, and cannot be considered a Christian in any traditional sense - much more an atheist - this principle is correct. It befalls the elite to bear the sadness of the world and to take upon responsibility for everyone else. Everyone else doesn't care about knowledge - this harbringer of sadness, which is only acceptable to the elite. As the Romans said... bread and circus. That's all that they know or want to know.

However, I do say that they should have the ability to do so should they so choose. — Thorongil

Don't waste your time. Those who wish to do so, don't need your help. And those who don't wish so, cannot be helped by you.

Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, and now Iraq — Thorongil

Turkey is a quasi religious dictatorship under Erdogan. Lebanon is internally unstable. Israel is a Western state. Iraq is terribly unstable and violent, and the government can do nothing to prevent oppressive regimes from coming to power (like ISIS). The Middle East can only be governed by the fist as its past history shows.

Well, you and ISIS both believe that adulterers are criminals; you seem to disagree on the punishment. You both seem willing to brush away the subtleties of the secular notion of law when it suits you. Let's be clear here: only the payer can be defrauded by Ashley Madison. — photographer

No - I clearly outlined that adultery (extra-martial sex) is not a crime if both partners of the relationship agree with this - in other words if it is an OPEN MARRIAGE. Do you understand these words?
Yes - only the payer can be defrauded by Ashley Madison. BUT Ashley Madison encourages illegal activity, and provides the means for people to do so, by providing adulterers from CLOSED MARRIAGES (towards which Ashley Madison is aimed to) both the means and the moral encouragement to defraud their partners and break their marriage contracts, all the while attempting to cover their backs. Is this clear enough for you?

I fail to see why people (just like you blindly do so here) associate sexual morality with religion. To me, it's equally an important question for atheists too. And I count as an atheist in this discussion. Sexual morality has never been a question of God - people who put it in those terms are idiots. It's not because of God that adultery is discouraged, it's because people are in-built to feel possessive about their lovers, and adultery encourages lots of harmful emotions. As you can see - has nothing to do with God. But if there are people who are not harmed by adultery - if BOTH of them are not harmed - then let them have an open marriage, and have as many other partners as they want to. If you don't believe this, perhaps I should teach you a little about the evolutionary basis of jealousy, monogamy, and morality which will justify why most of us find it abhorring if our partners cheat on us, while the rest are a mere deviation of nature.