Reversible progress: Gay rights, abortion rights, the safety net...

BC

It's always a mistake to assume that progress is ratcheted, and can't reverse. It can.

A setback in gay civil rights legislation in North Carolina and Mississippi isn't the end of civilization as we know it, of course. But then, each individual defeat on abortion rights after Roe vs. Wade wasn't the end of women's privacy (aka right to choose) in reproductive decision making. Forty-odd years of isolated decisions on abortion policy have added up to a significant retrenchment of family planning and fertility control services.

Gay civil rights has been moving along relatively smoothly for forty some years. There were some significant defeats in the beginning, and if you think gay marriage is a critical issue, there were quite a few defeats in the 21st century--before what seemed like a final victory was delivered by the SCOTUS. More reverses may occur. Kudos to PayPal for cancelling its operations center plans in NC.

The safety net which was first strung up in the 1930s, and periodically improved (and seemed permanent by the 1970s), has been under attack for 30 years now. It has holes in it that weren't there before, and the whole thing is closer to the floor than it used to be, meaning you are going to impact the pavement rather heavily if you fall off the tightrope.

I'd like to think that we have to worry only about cretins and southern vipers like Trump and Cruz, but I don't trust Clinton either on this score (her husband ended welfare "as we know it" while he was figuratively screwing the working class with NAFTA and literally screwing Monica.) She might not take scissors in hand to snip away at the safety net. She is more subtle: She'll conclude deals with TPP partners (and a nest of Wall Street rats) which will result in further disinvestment in the American Working Class. The main group supporting her with enthusiasm in the primaries seems to be those who have been sufficiently disenfranchised that they have nothing to lose.

She isn't going to do much for poor blacks and hispanics either. She can't. The tide that would lift all boats is going to be channeled rather carefully to lifting a bunch of yachts instead.

If Sanders should win the nomination and then the election, and if the democrats do not capture both houses of the Congress, he won't be able to deliver much either. Of course, it could come to pass that things work out very well -- socialist Jews in the White House; Democrats chairing all the important committees; Justice Thomas dropping dead soon after the election like Tony Scalia did -- just in time; a liberal court for the next 20 years, the beginnings of the New American Socialist Party which supplants the Democrats and ushers in the expropriation of Big Pharma, the liquidation of the 1% (liquifying their assets and probably not the people), a conversion to green, etc. Yes, yes, yes -- I get carried away in my imagination sometimes. But it's a pleasant thought.

BC

Wosret

I would very much like to give you a good reply to your thoughts here, if not for my almost complete ignorance of politics, and world affairs... I don't watch nor read the news. The most I probably ever hear about the news come from the radio on the way to work between songs.

I share the sentiments though, a lot of progress has been made just in the last couple of years, and I too worry that things could go the complete other direction. I may be ignorant of politics, but it seems to me that the justice of the supreme court appointment may be more significant than the presidential election... you know... until a communist Jew comes along.

BC

Here's a piece of news for you, Wosret, and it's funny too.

Wosret

Lol, well, Alberta is a lot like the Texas of Canada. By far the richest province, the average wage here being twice as much as the second richest province... setting me still below even middle class in Alberta, but I feel pretty rich. Just bought a house in December.

Everyone is super conservative though, and are not super happy about our new Prime Minister, mainly because he'll share the wealth. Last week he was in Edmonton apparently explaining why he raised unemployment benefits everywhere except Alberta. I live in little town about an hour outside of Edmonton, with about 300 residents, and it has two liquor stores, a gas station, a bar, a grocery store, a pharmacy, auto repair shop, Chinese restaurant, and a coffee shop. That's unreal to me, and every little place is like that.

Still, no where in Canada is like the southern states I'm sure.

Cavacava

There is now a new Tennessee Toilet Law. I think that most legislators & governors who sign off on these laws understand that these laws will not stand-up to judicial scrutiny. However, due process will take a while and in the meanwhile they have made their Christian creds.

Agustino

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.

BC

I'll focus on what we agree on here.

Sexual responsibility and appreciation of human life should be promoted, like they have always been promoted in all healthy societies through human history. — Agustino

Yes. In developed countries, there are several means available to prevent unwanted pregnancy before the pregnancy begins -- condoms, birth control pills, IUDs, implants, vasectomy, tubal ligation, and so on. If a woman does not want to get pregnant, there are means at hand to avoid it. Mistakes can happen of course, like, "Oh no! I didn't know the gun was loaded."

The destruction of moral values was the beginning of the collapse of the Roman Empire as well. — Agustino

I don't think so, but that's a different discussion.

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. — Agustino

I am moving in that direction; people do have a right to their own body, of course, but we limit that right. IF, for instance, one has a readily communicable disease like multi drug resistant TB, we say "No, you can't just do whatever you want. You will take this medication every day on time, or you will be institutionalized until you are cured." Similarly, if one has HIV, doing nothing about it is not a socially acceptable option IF one is going to have sex with uninfected people. True, prophylactic treatment (Truvada) is available for the uninfected, but still, if you have HIV, then do something about it or don't have sex.

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

I don't understand why people want to have their cake and eat it too... — Agustino

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

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. — Agustino

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.

Regarding gay marriage, I don't understand what's the need for it. — Agustino

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.)

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.

Agustino

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 :)

Arkady

The destruction of moral values was the beginning of the collapse of the Roman Empire as well — Agustino

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.

Rome embraced Christianity as its state religion, and then collapsed about 150 years later. So, perhaps it was Christianity which brought about its collapse. 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

Kudos to PayPal for cancelling it's operations center plans in NC. — Bitter Crank

I know this is way off-topic, but for the love of god, people: "its" is for the possessive. "It's" is a contraction of "it is." I give non-native English speakers a bit of a pass on this, but you're from the American Midwest, where English is the lingua franca (sort of). >:o

Agustino

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.

Agustino

"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 :)

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. — Agustino

You said that homosexuality is "on the fringe" of immorality (or was it just plain ol' heterosexual promiscuity that you were objecting to?).

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. — 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.

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. — Agustino

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.

Agustino

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.

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: — Agustino

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.

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. — Agustino

Or perhaps it just shows that people are not bound by overly prudish mores which demonize sex as something evil? What evidence do you have that sexually libertine people are "no longer motivated by anything in life," other than your general dislike of sex?

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. — Agustino

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).

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

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

Agustino

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?

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. — Agustino

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?

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). — Agustino

Another baseless claim. People can (and do) fully enjoy sex even when not in committed relationships. Sex can range from a one-night stand fling for fun from a multi-decade, committed, monogamous relationship. You present no evidence of what people do enjoy, you're just telling them what they should enjoy. 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.

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. — Agustino

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.

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. — Agustino

We have no reason to believe that: you simply regard sex as sinful, and so it's plausible to you that sexual immorality was the cause of these societies' decline. In fact, the most sexually repressed societies in the modern world seem to be among the least successful.

And this "great empire" nonsense is just more of the socially conservative bullshit that I called out earlier: there's zero evidence for it, but they repeat it anyway (and it's of a piece with the similar claim that all societies which have embraced homosexuality have collapsed). The Ottoman Empire, for instance, collapsed in the wake of WWI: what did sexually libertine mores have to do with it?

The best you can possibly offer is post hoc ergo propter hoc-style reasoning, which I did with Christianity and the Roman Empire. You have nothing to counter this.

Which post? My response to BC or to you? — Agustino

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

Agustino

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.

Agustino

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)

Arkady

No, it shouldnt apply in such cases. — Agustino

I agree.

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. — Agustino

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.

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

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? This reminds of that quote from The Simpsons, when Moe says something to the effect of, "Rich people aren't happy: from the day they're born until the day they die, they may think they're happy, but they're not really happy."

Incidentally, I never said that sex was good for people (though in some ways it may be: it is, for instance, a good cardio workout, it's fun, etc). What is enjoyable or pleasurable needn't be "good" for a person. 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).

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. — Agustino

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)).

"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.

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. — Agustino

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.

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. — Agustino

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.

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

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.

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) — Agustino

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

Agustino

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.

Agustino

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.

Arkady

In which case they are deceiving themselves. — Agustino

How can one be deceived that one is enjoying oneself?

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

Desire for something other than the good is immoral — Agustino

This just begs the question (if you mean "good" in an ethical sense).

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. — Agustino

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.

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. — Agustino

Yes, and I gave a "concrete" example about how the embrace of Christianity brought down an empire. See, fallacious post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning cuts both ways. You also ignored my rejoinder that the centuries of warmongering and conquering apparently don't constitute a "moral decline" in your eyes, but sexual licentiousness does. Are you prepared to make that claim? Otherwise, you shall have to look elsewhere for the causes of the decline and fall of the Roman empire.

And yes, I will match your generalities with generalities of my own. I will counter your low-quality evidence with low-quality evidence of my own. Up your game, and I will respond in kind.

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. — Agustino

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.

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. — Agustino

Uh, what? You gave it to me, and I'm staring at the cover? Are you feeling well?

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. What arrogance. — Agustino

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.

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. — Agustino

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

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

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. — Agustino

You do realize that there are different denominations of Christianity, which differ in some aspects of their core beliefs?

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

Agustino

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?

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. — Agustino

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?

(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.)

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. — Agustino

You do realize that "pace" means you're expressing a contrary viewpoint? Anyway, pleasure is most definitely a subjective sensation. One can no more be in error that one is in pleasure than one can be in error that one is, say, in pain. Again, you are simply asserting what people ought to enjoy rather than acknowledging what they do enjoy.

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

Wow: so mass murder and subjugation of entire populations is less egregious than consenting adults doing what they want in the bedroom. Ding ding ding! We have crazy person liftoff.

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.

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. — Agustino

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.

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 :) . — Agustino

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?

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? — Agustino

Sure, I am very interested in books that offer evidence that a decline in sexual morality brought down the great empires of the world. I just hope they offer more than post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning.

What's unreasonable about it? — Agustino

For one thing, they command obedience to an imaginary character named God. And a character who is petty, cruel, and childlike in many ways (drowning all of mankind because it's grown sinful? Really? Stone to death disobedient children? Really? Don't waste my time with this foolishness.)

Agustino

(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

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. — Agustino

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.

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. — Agustino

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.

Where did you get this from? — Agustino

From my general fund of knowledge about words. You may look it up, if you wish.

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

Well, sure, we can objectively say that so-and-so is subjectively in pleasure. It doesn't follow that they can be in error about being in pleasure (do you believe that someone can be in error about being pain?).

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. — Agustino

Right, because no one was killed in these campaigns of conquest. :-} In any event, "genocide" is the concerted, targeted effort to wipe out a select group of people based upon, for instance, religious, ethnic, or national criteria. "Mass killing" doesn't equate with genocide. For one thing, mass killing can be carried out indiscriminately. And thank you for reasserting your status as a moral lunatic by admitting that you hate sex more than you hate mass killing. Like I said: demonizing sex.

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. — Agustino

Sweet Jeebus, man, do try to keep up: you appealed to what the "vast majority" of people in history would have found appalling, and then used that to buttress your claims about sexual morality. I replied that the vast majority have people who ever lived would have blanched at equal rights for women, and you reply with the non-sequitur that they believed that women were morally equal. So, these morally equal creatures were apparently nonetheless unworthy of equal property rights, equal voting rights, ability to get an education, etc. 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.

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

Look, I'm happy to talk to you, but if you can't even recall your own questions from two posts ago, then there's nothing I can do for you.

Arkady

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 — Agustino

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

Agustino

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”.

Reversible progress: Gay rights, abortion rights, the safety net...

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions