Uh, no, I don't think so. — Heister Eggcart

I should've said OR adultery, or bla bla. There are some progressives which are encouraging of even adultery, just not most.

Apart from religion? What do you mean by that, exactly? — Heister Eggcart

Because you talked of morality apart from religion. So I was inquiring about it.

I am of the opinion that sex is only moral when it is necessary as a means of healthily releasing the sexual tension most people instinctively find themselves crippled by — Heister Eggcart

So. Suppose you are married to a woman, and she becomes crippled and can't have sex anymore. You are overcome by your sexual desires, etc. is it moral in that case to have sex with another woman to release the sexual tension you are troubled by?

Furthermore, if you are a regular husband, and your wife simply doesn't want to have as much sex as you do, is it moral for you to have sex with other women to release the tension you feel?

If a couple, say, must have sex in order for them to keep "loving" them, then to me that quite distinctly tells me that they don't actually love each other. They're only lusting after the other's body. — Heister Eggcart

I agree.

Answer my question. Are you a true Christian?

No. Answer my question. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Answer my question. Are you a true Christian? — WhiskeyWhiskers

Your question seems silly to me my friend. I would hope I'm a true Christian - although I have a lot of defects and shortcomings which prevent me from achieving that standard many times. So I'm not sure if I'm a true Christian - I would hope so, and if I'm not, I would hope that one day I can be.

I have a lot of defects and shortcomings which prevent me from achieving that standard many times — Agustino

You're not a true Christian if you don't follow the Bible.

If you're not a true Christian, what happens to you after you die?

There are some progressives which are encouraging of even adultery, just not most. — Agustino

Yes, and there are some conservatives out there batty enough to vote for Trump O:)

Because you talked of morality apart from religion. So I was inquiring about it. — Agustino

There are quite a few too many Christians out there that think you can't be moral or even discuss morality unless you're religious.

So. Suppose you are married to a woman, and she becomes crippled and can't have sex anymore. You are overcome by your sexual desires, etc. is it moral in that case to have sex with another woman to release the sexual tension you are troubled by?

Furthermore, if you are a regular husband, and your wife simply doesn't want to have as much sex as you do, is it moral for you to have sex with other women to release the tension you feel? — Agustino

Nope.

You're not a true Christian if you don't follow the Bible.

If you're not a true Christian, what happens to you after you die? — WhiskeyWhiskers

What you deserve shall happen to you - and I'm not sure what that means. I'm not sure if you're a devout Muslim, or Buddhist, or any other of the major faiths you'll end up in hell. I hope God will have mercy of me and give me the strength and wisdom to be a true Christian until I die, although I probably wouldn't deserve it by myself.

Yes, and there are some conservatives out there batty enough to vote for Trump O:) — Heister Eggcart

Indeed :P

There are quite a few too many Christians out there that think you can't be or even discuss morality unless you're religious. — Heister Eggcart

Okay. I'm not one of them then ;)

Nope. — Heister Eggcart

Ok so then I suppose your previous definition wasn't quite what you meant:

I am of the opinion that sex is only moral when it is necessary as a means of healthily releasing the sexual tension most people instinctively find themselves crippled by — Heister Eggcart

So what really is your idea about when sex is moral then?

My clarification is this - sex and sexual tension is a two way street.The only reason two people would have sex is to do so out of compassion for the other's struggle with it, which they also must share. It has to be an honest coming together, and for the right reasons.

I have a lot of defects and shortcomings which prevent me from achieving that standard many times — Agustino

If they do not follow the teachings of the Bible, then they are not Christians — Agustino

So we've established you're not a Christian. It's not even that you're not a "true" Christian. You, Agustino, are not a Christian. It's as simple as that. You are as much of a Christian as a member of ISIS, or a cancerous progressive. What do you think about that? What do you think of the possibility of going to hell for not being a Christian?

What you deserve shall happen to you - and I'm not sure what that means. I'm not sure if you're a devout Muslim, or Buddhist, or any other of the major faiths you'll end up in hell. I hope God will have mercy of me and give me the strength and wisdom to be a true Christian until I die, although I probably wouldn't deserve it by myself. — Agustino

And if you're not sure if non-Christians will even go to hell, what the bloody hell is the point of Christianity? I might as well become one of those raunchy cancerous progressives and have lots of blasphemous sex because for all you know I might not even go to hell.

Is Purgatory real? If I'm a sinner I might end up there, I don't mind waiting around a while before I go to heaven. If it means I get to have lots of pre-marital sex in the meantime.

My clarification is this - sex and sexual tension is a two way street. — Heister Eggcart

What do you mean a two-way street in this case?

The only reason two people would have sex is to do so out of compassion for the other's struggle with it, which they also must share. — Heister Eggcart

So I suppose you must necessarily be talking at least of couples and more likely of married people here given that they must "share the struggle" am I right? So this would agree with the statement that sex before marriage (or at least before being a couple) is wrong.

It has to be an honest coming together, and for the right reasons. — Heister Eggcart

What would you think about married people having sex because they enjoy the intimacy and spiritual relationship they have with each other?

What do you think about that? What do you think of the possibility of going to hell for not being a Christian? — WhiskeyWhiskers

I think that if that's what I deserve and that is God's will, then I shall go to hell. I wouldn't want that to happen - quite obviously - but if that's what it ends up being that's what it is. What do I think of the possibility? Well I feel fear and repulsion. I might add that I feel weakness, and I feel nothingness too. But I don't feel disgust, I don't feel injustice, I don't feel hatred towards God. It would only be what I deserve afterall.

And if you're not sure if non-Christians will even go to hell, what the bloody hell is the point of Christianity? I might as well become one of those raunchy cancerous progressives and have lots of blasphemous sex because for all you know I might not even go to hell. — WhiskeyWhiskers

I'm quite sure if you do that you will go to hell. I'm not so sure if you're a devout Muslim, or Jew, or Buddhist, or Hindu, or Taoist, etc. that you'll go to hell after you die. And it depends on your inner life to be honest. It is possible for someone to be very sinful and afterwards find repentance and be saved by God's grace.

Is Purgatory real? If I'm a sinner I might end up there, I don't mind waiting around a while before I go to heaven. — WhiskeyWhiskers

I'm not sure. The only problem is that you don't make deals with God. If this is what is in your heart - then you won't ever go to Heaven. Purgatory nor anything else are licenses to sin.

What would you think about married people having sex because they enjoy the intimacy and spiritual relationship they have with each other? — Agustino

Wouldn't know what this means. Empty words and hokus pokus to me.

Wouldn't know what this means. Empty words and hokus pokus to me. — Heister Eggcart

Two married people having sex because they either want to have children or they just love each other. They do this freely, not because they are compelled and therefore enslaved by their lust. Do you not think this is a possibility?

Two married people having sex because they either want to have children — Agustino

Red flag!

They do this freely, not because they are compelled and therefore enslaved by their lust. — Agustino

I doubt it.

Do you not think this is a possibility? — Agustino

No.

Red flag! — Heister Eggcart

Do you think married people preferably shouldn't have children then, or what do you mean by red flag? :P

No. — Heister Eggcart

Interesting position. It is indeed Biblical and in accordance with Scripture - although I hold to the opposite idea, which I also think has Biblical support and is in accordance to Scripture. Why do you think sex in and of itself doesn't have the possibility of being a moral activity? Do you concur with St. Paul that people should strive for complete celibacy if this is possible, and if so why?

I'm indulging myself and watching a soccer game. Will respond after I recover from my incoming heart attack :D

Okay no problem. Enjoy the game! :) Also let me know what you think about:

"Let your fountain be blessed, And rejoice in the wife of your youth. As a loving hind and a graceful doe, Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; Be exhilarated always with her love" -Proverbs 5:18-19 :)

I'm not so sure if you're a devout Muslim, or Jew, or Buddhist, or Hindu, or Taoist, etc. that you'll go to hell after you die. And it depends on your inner life to be honest. It is possible for someone to be very sinful and afterwards find repentance and be saved by God's grace. — Agustino

It's possible for non-Christian religious folk to not go to hell?

But then you don't know if purgatory is real. If it isn't real then they must necessarily go to heaven because there's nowhere else for them to go. So it's possible for devout non-Christian religious folk to go to heaven, regardless of whether they follow the bible (because a Buddhist is hardly going to be following the bible their whole life, they have different scripture). It therefore also means that it's possible for someone to go to heaven without following the bible (you're in luck!). Because if devout non-Christian religious folk could go to heaven, and they do not follow the bible, then those who do not follow the bible could go to heaven. Or do they need to be devoutly religious regardless of religion?

If not, this then includes cancerous progressives, because they might be very much focusing on their inner life but not following the commands of the bible. Take Socrates for example. He might be going to heaven, according to your logic. You might meet him one day. Do you believe that?

I would ask to see you back this up with actual scriptural analysis, but I'm not in a position to verify it, not being a biblical scholar myself. You can breathe a sigh of relief.

So, again, what is the point of Christianity if it is unnecessary?

I think that if that's what I deserve and that is God's will, then I shall go to hell. I wouldn't want that to happen - quite obviously - but if that's what it ends up being that's what it is. What do I think of the possibility? Well I feel fear and repulsion. But I don't feel disgust, I don't feel injustice, I don't feel hatred towards God. — Agustino

See this is how I know you don't genuinely believe any of this Christianity nonsense. If you genuinely believed you might be going to hell, you'd be infinitely more terrified by that than by anything that can happen to you in this life. And some pretty awful things can happen to you. "Fear" would not begin to describe that feeling.

You have also neglected to comment on the fact that you are not a Christian, according to your own definitions:

I have a lot of defects and shortcomings which prevent me from achieving that standard many times — Agustino

If they do not follow the teachings of the Bible, then they are not Christians — Agustino

You are not a Christian, regardless of your "inner life". If you don't follow the teachings of the Bible, you're not a Christian. What do you have to say about that?

Here's the ironic corner you've painted yourself into: you are not a Christian, and Buddhists could get into heaven (maybe even Socrates, depending how you wriggle yourself out of this one). As with all conversations that seem to be had with you lately, we are now through the looking glass once again.

It's possible for non-Christian religious folk to not go to hell? — WhiskeyWhiskers

I certainly believe so - and so do the main Christian Churches. I believe Christianity is the highest religion - not that it's the only possible path up the mountain.

But then you don't know if purgatory is real. If it isn't real then they must necessarily go to heaven because there's nowhere else for them to go. — WhiskeyWhiskers

That's your judgement, I'm just being honest and saying that I don't know.

So it's possible for devout non-Christian religious folk to go to heaven, regardless of whether they follow the bible (because a Buddhist is hardly going to be following the bible their whole life, they have different scripture) — WhiskeyWhiskers

Be careful. Buddhism isn't permissive of adultery, casual sex and the like. None of the major religions are. Neither were Stoics like Epictetus and Musonius Rufus. Neither was Epicurus funnily enough ;)

Because if devout non-Christian religious folk could go to heaven, and they do not follow the bible, then those who do not follow the bible could go to heaven. Or do they need to be devoutly religious regardless of religion? — WhiskeyWhiskers

They need to be moral people. And that includes sexual morality.

Take Socrates for example. He might be going to heaven, according to your logic. You might meet him one day. Do you believe that? — WhiskeyWhiskers

Absolutely!

I would ask to see you back this up with actual scriptural analysis, but I'm not in a position to verify it, not being a biblical scholar myself. You can breathe a sigh of relief. — WhiskeyWhiskers

You can be assured that the Catholic Church for one does hold similar positions about virtuous men and women through history. Check what some Catholics think here: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1010299
(I do not participate on their forum as I am not a Catholic - but I have followed it for quite awhile)

In my religion, Eastern Orthodoxy, we believe likewise about virtuous men and women. We believe some to be saints actually.

So, again, what is the point of Christianity if it is unnecessary? — WhiskeyWhiskers

What is the point of Buddhism if it's not necessary? It's a structured path for connecting with a spiritual reality and living a moral life that guarantees you the greatest happiness both here on Earth and in the afterlife. It includes the same core morality as Christianity does. The same that Islam does. The same that Hinduism does. It's no different.

See this is how I know you don't genuinely believe any of this Christianity nonsense. If you genuinely believed you might be going to hell, you'd be infinitely more terrified by that than by anything that can happen to you in this life. And some pretty awful things can happen to you. "Fear" would not begin to describe that feeling. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Maybe for you. For me no - because while I feel fear, I also feel God's justice, and I desire God's justice. I desire that God smite all the sinners, including me. And I don't feel worthy of God - why should I be in Heaven if I'm not worthy? That would be disgusting.

You are not a Christian, regardless of your "inner life". If you don't follow the teachings of the Bible, you're not a Christian. What do you have to say about that? — WhiskeyWhiskers

I do my best to follow the teachings of the Bible. I aspire to follow all the teachings. Maybe it's not in our power to reach up to God - but it is in our power to aspire to it.

maybe even Socrates, depending how you wriggle yourself out of this one — WhiskeyWhiskers

I would be disappointed if I don't see him in there! And Musonius Rufus, and Marcus Aurelius, and Epictetus, and so forth!

Here's the ironic corner you've painted yourself into: you are not a Christian — WhiskeyWhiskers

I may not be one - but like Kierkegaard, I aspire to be one, and attempt to follow and live according to the teachings of my Bible. It's not as easy as you think to be a Christian....

Trump is not an alpha male. Jimmy Savile was not an alpha male. Bill Cosby is not an alpha male. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Eric Trump apparently thinks that even Billy Bush is an alpha male >:O




More proof they let him abuse them. This corrupt society is built on abuse of men by women and women by men. People are so upset Trump abused them - I could give you hundreads of women who wish they were abused by Trump. Nothing more than lowly behaviour can be expected from both sides in such an immoral society. On the one hand people use their power like Trump to abuse women. On the other hand, women lust after Trump's power and they let him abuse them - to boast to their friends they did it with him. Shameful. Of course the feminazis only have a problem with Trump - not also with the women - who have also behaved shamefully. It is as shameful to lust after power and allow yourself to be abused for it - just as it is to use power to abuse the weak.

Of course the feminazis only have a problem with Trump - not also with the women - who have also behaved shamefully. — Agustino

Uhmmm... How exactly is, for instance, sitting in an air plane and having the bad luck of having Trump next to you, shameful behaviour?

Also, this type of abuse derives from an overblown sense of entitlement and a degradation of women as property and subservient to men. The claim by you that these women wanted this only demonstrates your lack of empathy.

Uhmmm... How exactly is, for instance, sitting in an air plane and having the bad luck of having Trump next to you, shameful behaviour? — Benkei

Well that's a loaded question isn't it? I doubt that the way you frame it is the way it actually happened.

I doubt he just started grabbing them without even saying a word. They must have been talking, and quite possibly the woman showed interest in him - and even allowed him to do it. The second video I posted gives the testimony of a British man who sat next to Trump and the woman in the plane, and did claim that she was interested in him - although he also claimed he saw no touching. I'm not saying all cases are like this. Just that quite a few are certainly like this. You're ignoring the fact that some women want to have sex with rich and powerful men as well - and are willing to do quite a lot to be able to - including let them grope them, etc. Some women later will also feel nice enjoying the spotlight that being a victim confers them. Maybe that's the only way they can appear on TV and get that kind of attention in their lives.

When I was young, as a teenager in Eastern Europe, I know for a fact that when an internationally famous man - say a famous footballer player - came for a match, and afterwards he showed up at some nightclub, many of the women would do ANYTHING for him. It's a power game for them (the women) as well. They're not just victims. I agree they're humiliating themselves by doing this - but it's what it is. They fully know that the person in question will use them - but then they can claim to their friends "Oh I got fucked by XX" - they feel superior - what kind of man they managed to get on with...

I also know people who've had sex with prostitutes and later the respective prostitute claimed she was raped, and got quite a bit of money off them. So it's not as simple as "Oh they're the victims, and the man is the abuser". In such "relationships" they are both objectifying and turning each other into victims - they are both abusing each other for power.

This is why I hate modern feminazis - it's not the peaceful feminism of getting votes for women, getting women to be respected, and so forth. It's actually trying to make the abuse of men by women - through different forms of sexual manipulation - moral. That's never gonna be moral. A woman purposefully going dressed like a whore to attract the attention of men - that's not her just being who she wants, she knows clearly what effect that will have - it's just a biological reaction. So while men shouldn't abuse her, catcall her, or anything of that sort even in that case - it doesn't also follow that she should purposefully get dressed in such a way as to excite strong (and potentially) uncontrollable passions in men. That's just not decent - it's simply a power game. She shouldn't be allowed to play that power game, nor should men be allowed to play the power game of catcalling her, insulting her, and so forth.

Also, this type of abuse derives from an overblown sense of entitlement and a degradation of women as property and subservient to men. The claim by you that these women wanted this only demonstrates your lack of empathy. — Benkei

So doesn't a woman doing anything to get in the pants of a rich and powerful man derive from a lust for power and fame? Doesn't that derive from the desire of having the rich and powerful man as her property? Doesn't she use her physical attractiveness, and her personality as weapons of seducing the said man? The claim that all these women are completely innocent just demonstrates your ignorance of their own faults and vices. That's the problem with progressive culture - it's so blind. It only sees one side of the story. Many of these women derive an extraordinary sense of self-importance by claiming Trump raped them - they basically can think of themselves as THE people who brought the rich and powerful Trump down in this election! No one succeeded - not Jeb Bush, not Ted Cruz, not hundreads of millions of dollars! That's a massive source of motivation. It's their way of "owning" Trump.

The feminazis and Marxists can say what they want. Women want as much as men to have the other as property - which basically means under their control. It's not one oppressor and the other oppressed - it's oppressor against oppressor. History is not class struggle - it's not the rich against the poor, the bourgeois against the proletariat - it's man against man - it's the history of oppressor against oppressor. That's why the Machiavellian "oppress or be oppressed" is true to a certain extent, but if we all followed that, then nothing will change - the world will keep being a hell-hole. A different sort of thinking is needed - one based on virtue and morality - to escape this game.

And this idea that women are somehow weak - that's just false. If we look at Cleopatra - she was quite possibly more powerful than Caesar! She certainly had Caesar at her finger tips... and Mark Antony even killed himself because he thought Cleopatra had died. She abused those men like nothing ever seen before - they were in her palm. She was a very big serpent - and a very dangerous one too. The Ancient Greek culture called love of women as inferior precisely because they were afraid of the power women could wield - and so they sought to train their men to resist it. Now men are trained to give IN to women way too easily - this loss of virtue is one of the reason why we get Trumps. On the other side, women are trained precisely to SEDUCE men - their sense of self-esteem is tied to their capacity to do so - and therefore they are trained to be todays Cleopatras and turn the Trumps on the fingers of their hands. Abuser vs abuser - nobody is "not-guilty" here.

And I might add that quite frequently the reason why the powerful abuse the weak is because the weak always seek to abuse the powerful. Many servants of the rich seek to steal, abuse, and deceive whenever they can. These people aren't innocent. So the rich get scared of them. That's why they become mean and harsh - to defend themselves. You yell at your servant when you catch them alone in your room - because you know that they may be looking for something to steal. Maybe not them - but one of the many servants will certainly look for this. So it's a defense mechanism the brutality. But the whole thing isn't about how do we give the servants better ways to abuse the rich - or how do we keep the rich capable of controlling the servants - but rather how do we escape this abuser-abuser relationship? If we remove the capacity of the rich to control their servants, then we turn the relationship into abuser-abused - where the rich become abused (progressivism). If we remove the capacity of the servants to abuse the rich completely - effectively turning them into slaves - then again we have an abuser-abused relationship (far-right ideology). So to escape Machiavelli one has to escape this loop. That is the politics of the future.

If you look at the discourse of many men who speak nastily about women (and there are a ton of them out there), you will notice a common feature: all of them at one point became disappointed because they were manipulated and abused by women. So they decided to take matters in their own hands - now they would manipulate the women and abuse them. The women would no longer toy with them, give them signals that they love them, then signals that they don't, and so forth. They would become masters - they would shag one woman, then the next - why? Because no woman is loyal - and they don't wanna be abused. So to avoid it, they themselves become the abusers. Machiavelli - abuse or be abused. That is almost the entire history of man.

This is all so intriguing...

Before the pussy grab remark video, the amount of animosity toward Trump at home across the entire globe (save in Russia it seems) was already staggering, and America in particular is perhaps nearing it's maximum potential emotional charge.

The way everyone instantly reacted to the hot mic video was predictable and understandable, and even Trump himself came out and apologized (has he ever done that before?). It's a fair point of character on which to base voting discrimination after-all.

But after Trump apologized for those remarks, it was as if the collective media and entranced viewership noticed a chink in Trump's until then impenetrable armor. The remarks began to be framed as "Trump admits to/advocates sexual assault". While this is a possible interpretation of what Trump said, It is hard to know if what Trump actually meant could amount to sexual assertiveness rather than actual sexual assault ("making the first move" so to speak, which is not necessarily without a prior phase where interest/consent can be reasonably discerned) and was just speaking in hyperbole.

Denigrating Trump for his 2005 remarks is one thing, but on the heels of this scandal of rhetoric, 9 or more specific allegations of sexual assault have emerged against Trump and have caught the main sails of the entire mainstream media. The court of public opinion has decided that he is a rapist deserving of nothing but scorn, incarceration, or worse. If the allegations are true, especially some of the more serious ones, then Trump does deserve jail time and we should all be thankful that we know now rather than after he potentially got elected, but if the allegations against Trump turn out to be false, then the presidential election will have been decided on something wholly separate from democracy.

In reality we're in a shittier situation than we were before, because the election has already been decided, meaning that Trump's candidacy really was a detrimental waste of time from the get go. Maybe because he's a rapist and he was not vetted by anyone with a brain before taking his campaign this far, or maybe because all it takes is crude "locker-room talk" and a few individuals willing to make an accusation that sends us so reliably into an emotional fervor. In future elections, how ready will the media and voting public be to take seriously any accusation of a sex crime that emerges before additional evidence is gathered?

Even though there's at this point seemingly a low probability that all these accusations are untrue, given the amount of emotional bias that already existed toward Trump, and that he was about to have a shot that the presidency, the incentive certainly would be there for individuals to make embellished accusations. In any case, the power that allegations of sex crimes have and the speed that they spread through and dominate media and public discourse has been very starkly demonstrated. If I was a campaign strategist in future elections, I would save sex scandals against potential political enemies, such as Trump's 2005 hot mic video, to use as magic bullets in the general election to destroy them.

TL;DR:Before we were stuck with either a giant douche or a turd sandwich, now since the giant douche turned out to be a giant rapist douche, our ability to choose between them as voters is basically meaningless. We're getting the turd sandwich.

Before the pussy grab remark video, the amount of animosity toward Trump at home across the entire globe (save in Russia it seems) was already staggering, and America in particular is perhaps nearing it's maximum potential emotional charge. — VagabondSpectre

The amount of animosity of the media, Hollywood and the academia (the three bastions of progressivism) to Trump is the same animosity cancer shows to chemotherapy. The progressives are so against Trump because Trump unmasks them - he unmasks their fakeness, their lies, and their immorality through himself. He is the product of their society - a society where your average Joe is a rapist like Trump. And your average woman is a power and fame hungry creature waiting to manipulate and abuse men through her sexuality. This is nothing but the cold truth. Now thanks to Trump we get to see it for the first time. We get to point at it - the mask has come off. The progressives can no longer go on pretending - even if Trump loses. Now everyone knows we have a BIG BIG problem - something that I had been saying for ages.

The freedom of the progressives is precisely the transformation of a certain social class - rich, white, heterosexual, male - into slaves - into objects of abuse. That's how the progressives propose to gain freedom for the homosexuals, for the women, for the blacks, for everyone else. By creating more war - that's how they'll achieve the noble end of freedom - by getting women to walk around dressed like sluts while men can't comment on it. Absurd.

I remember reading about Baden writing in some other thread how poor working class white males are having problems because of Tinder and the easy access females have to sex - that's why in the sex market they are starved. He writes all that without even being capable to see the abuse that is implied in there! It's like slave owners 200 years ago - that's what they want to make women into. And they call this freedom - how ridiculous! How utterly absurd. It's bad that men force women - but it's not bad when women force men. The philosophy of the LAST MEN as per Nietzsche - of the weak. We live in the times when weakness (vice) oppresses strength (virtue). The slut oppresses the decent man. The rapist oppresses the decent women.

I remember reading an article awhile ago written by a stay at home father whose wife suddenly said she wants to have sex with other men. And he was describing how difficult it is for him, and how painful it is but how he must be strong and let it happen, because women are free and he is a feminist, etc. etc. Then when she would return home she would cuddle next to him and insisted to tell him in details about it... ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? That's freedom? No - that's outrageous fucking slavery. That's like the slaves 200 years ago, who were happy with their chains "no we don't want to be free - we deserve being in these chains - these are our chains from birth! This is the place allocated to us by God". Now it is "Oh we deserve this because women are meant to be free, and we're just a stay at home father! This place has been allocated to us by the emancipation of women". This is disgusting - such women should be thrown in jail without question - deserving of the harshest of punishments. Such crimes scream to the Heavens for justice. Just like the crimes of the slave owners.

http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/07/what-open-marriage-taught-one-man-about-feminism.html

There's the article. I found it again. Fucking abuse. This world is filled with such scum today. Now of course I predict that the progressives will come "uh just another white male wanting to keep his dominance" - no just another white male not wanting to be a slave sir - a white male deserving of dignity and justice - like all people.

Are you a true Stoic — Agustino

The only "true" Stoic is the Stoic Sage. But some of us are trying to be Stoics.

The only "true" Stoic is the Stoic Sage. But some of us are trying to be Stoics. — Ciceronianus the White

Just like I'm trying to be Christian :P

So do you think casual sex is moral - apart from religion? — Agustino

Agustino seems to think that things are moral or immoral on the basis of some authority, religion, the Bible or whatever. The truth is that causal sex is immoral because it burdens, obscures and/or injures the spirit.

Agustino seems to think that things are moral or immoral on the basis of some authority, religion, the Bible or whatever. The truth is that causal sex is immoral because it burdens, obscures and/or injures the spirit. — John

On what fucking ground do you claim such stupid nonsense huh? One gets sick and tired at some point of this superficial and uncharitable attitude you display. What's written below, please tell me:

I was mentioning morality and such as separated from religion. I think you can do that... — Heister Eggcart

Because you talked of morality apart from religion. So I was inquiring about it. — Agustino

There are quite a few too many Christians out there that think you can't be moral or even discuss morality unless you're religious. — Heister Eggcart

Okay. I'm not one of them then ;) — Agustino

This is about the third thread in which you're not listening to what is being said to you, I'm sorry for having to be so blunt about it.

What I said is based on watching you in this thread and others, ad nauseum, promoting an authoritarian model of morality, it's based on nothing more nor less than that, Agustino.