All relationships end in the sense of the world. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Not from the reference frame of our own life. From the reference frame of our own life, there is no death - there is no end, because we will never experience an end. Death is nothing to us.

An eternity, in this sense, is expressed all states. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Nope, not in the sense I mean it in.

My point was in ethics, there is no hierarchy. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I disagree, and I think most people would also disagree. Murdering a child is worse than hitting a child.

As an understanding of sexual relationships, it is a sibling of “seeking sex is only question of someone getting pleasure.” — TheWillowOfDarkness

Well it is, from the point of view of those seeking it.

I mean must you have sex someone to care about them? — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, you don't have to have sex with them.

You appear to hold the position that if someone has sex with someone, then they must continue to do so for the rest of their life, if they are to care for them. — TheWillowOfDarkness

If someone initiates a sexual relationship, then yes, if they are caring, they will devote themselves to that person - including in this case sexually - for the rest of their life (so long as that person doesn't reject them obviously). Otherwise, they shouldn't have had sex with them in the first place.

Suffice to say, your insistence you don’t care about sex is a pretence. You understanding it as an all consuming component of status. So much so much so that, if people have sex, they are bound to having sex for life, or else have no care for each other. The horndog holds their status depends on getting sex from others, you set your status by continuing to get sex from someone. For you the question of caring is not one of thinking about others, what they think and feel and what matters to them. Rather, it’s about maintaining your status of having a lifelong sexual relationship. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is wrong for the mere reason that the two people involved don't need to keep having sex, they merely need to be devoted and faithful to each other sexually. For all practical purposes, they could be having no sex at all.

Could you care about the woman you fell into bed with in a night of passion? — TheWillowOfDarkness

No - only if you are devoted to her sexually. That doesn't necessarily imply you keep having sex with her as you think. You could go on living with her, without any sex whatsoever. A celibate relationship - which probably is ideal at a certain point. And on top of that, one shouldn't be in a relationship if sex is what holds the relationship together, that just misses the point. Fact is, it takes a very long time to find the right person, or groom them and grow together into it. Most people don't have the patience.

You’ve imagined what humans supposedly are without reference to their behaviour and taken choice, responsibility and description out of the equation. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No - you have done this when you say there is no hirearchy of wrongs in ethics. It sufficies for the rapist and the regular playboy to merely have the same intention, and they commit an equal wrong, according to you. However, according to my conception, the intention is very important, but it's not the only factor - factors of behaviour, actions, consequences and so forth are also relevant. That's why the rapist's crime is worse than the playboy's although both are committing a wrong and share the same intention to use another.

Supposedly, people possess this “natural” inclination (intention) which means they are pre-determined to act immorally unless held back by a threat of rule. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No they don't possess it naturally, they develop it, and hold on to it. They choose it.

Have you read some of Haidt's stuff? I score more as a libertarian than a social conservative on his tests. That is probably because my form of social conservatism is unconventional, borderline libertarian.

I am fully willing to accept that gay couples can romantically love each other like heterosexual couples, but I am against same sex marriage.

I take no issue with casual sex, but I do have deep problems with irresponsible sex -- sexual behaviour that increases the amount of easily avoidable abortions, de facto making abortion an 'retro-active-anti-conception' method. 93% of abortions are committed by solely the reason of inconvenience -- utterly disgraceful.

At least conservatives teaches people responsibility.

I would legalise all drugs (and hypothetically abolish the FDA), iff we fully privatised healthcare. But If we are going to socialise healthcare, then my political views radically shifts towards authoritarian social conservatism on the spectrum.

Have you read some of Haidt's stuff? — Emptyheady

I've only watched a few videos of him with regards to morality.

I am fully willing to accept that gay couples can romantically love each other like heterosexual couples, but I am against same sex marriage. — Emptyheady

Well there's two different issues here. One is the morality of gay sex, which I view as immoral. The other thing is, what political attitude one should have towards that. And in that case I am for allowing homosexuals to enter into recognised civil unions similar to marriage, but which go by a different name and yet have all the legal implications of marriage. So I'm similar to you on this, broadly speaking.

I take no issue with casual sex — Emptyheady

That only means that you don't understand the potentialities of sex. "Casual sex". Is there any "casual prayer" too? Sex can never be "casual" - it plays too significant a role in life for it to be "casual". "Casual sex" is like "married bachelor" - nonsense. A lot of suffering in human life emerges out of or is related to sex. That's an observation. What follows from such an observation? That you need, at minimum, to be careful around sex. Being careful, or prudent, is antithetical to being "casual". When I casually play chess I don't really play for real - i'm not really concentrated to win. But sex just isn't the kind of activity that can be done casually (at least without high risks of injuring yourself or the other). And that's approaching it merely from the negative side. From the positive side, sex is too important to waste it, and engage in it "casually". It's too powerful and too significant for that. So at minimum - one will have no "casual" sex. One may have sex with a person they know for a long time, without being committed to them (given only the negative side) but certainly not casually (with say a stranger one just met). But if you take the positive side into account, then it seems that the only sufficient reason to have sex is if you're committed to the other person - if you love them. Otherwise (1) the risks are too high, and (2) you're just wasting your time, the rewards aren't great enough. So only people who (1) aren't aware of the dangers (and these aren't only physical dangers like pregnancy, STDs, etc. but also emotional dangers) or (2) don't respect sex enough can engage in casual sex.

I would legalise all drugs (and hypothetically abolish the FDA), iff we fully privatised healthcare. — Emptyheady

Hmmmmm... I would probably ban all of them :P I disagree on this one, because I don't think people are wise enough to be able to choose. They will just follow mass-culture, or what's cool to do. So there needs to be a force guiding them towards what's right.

I have not read the entire thread, so please forgive me if this has been covered, but I think it needs to be clarified as to which religion(s) is generally associated with social conservatism (assuming we are looking at this question through an American-lens). Most Jews, for example, lean liberal. Indeed for the last 100 years of US elections, Jews have overwhelmingly voted for the Democratic nominee.

However, if we focus on Christianity in particular, and its association with modern social conservatism, then this alliance has been well documented in the book One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America by Kevin Kruse. Kruse delineates the emergence of Conservative Christianity as a form of propaganda orchestrated by the business class during the 1930s in order to vilify and vitiate FDRs New Deal, which the business class saw as a threat towards Capitalism. FDR often used religious symbolism and direct quotes from scripture as apologia for the New Deal, and the worried business class sought to appropriate Christianity as a pro-Capitalist religion, and utilized the help of prominent preachers to help do so.

There is really nothing "inherent" in religion that would cause it to lean socially liberal or socially conservative in their modern day political implications. The current association is simply the result of about 90 years of business propaganda. Interestingly however, many modern businesses do seem to lean towards social liberalism at least as a PR move (e.g. Kellog's refusal to advertise on Breitbart, or various companies celebrating gay pride etc.)

Most Jews, for example, lean liberal. — Maw

Most Jews in the US, or most Jews in Israel? Because in the US most Jews lean liberal, but they aren't really Orthodox either - they're actually secular - like Bernie Sanders.

Kruse delineates the emergence of Conservative Christianity as a form of propaganda orchestrated by the business class during the 1930s in order to vilify and vitiate FDRs New Deal, which the business class saw as a threat towards Capitalism. — Maw

But the fact is that promiscuity, non-monogamous relationships, etc. - which I take to be the opposite of social conservatism - are actually huge cash cows. Diversity means more markets. Lust means more consumption. It all ties together. I agree though that in the past, business advocated towards religion, in large share because the big business owners were religious themselves. But their businesses have outgrown them, and they no longer really control them - nowadays Wall Street controls them.

The current association is simply the result of about 90 years of business propaganda. Interestingly however, many modern businesses do seem to lean towards social liberalism at least as a PR move — Maw

It's not only a PR move - you have to be socially liberal to be in line with modern culture - it's good for business, you'll get more people being willing to work for you and buy from you. Big business is happy if you keep buying and working - they don't care about morality, and vice is always easier to sell than virtue.