How are penalties for adultery an exploitation of women considering that men are prone to cheating more often than women? :)Polygamy, penalties for adultery etc. are just forms of exploitation of women. — photographer
I am not married BC.
We all have things we can't tolerate,
From the girlfriends I had in the past, only one cheated on me, and I left her as soon as I found out. — Agustino
All through history it worked. Adultery was, in most societies, illegal under most conditions, for most of history. You cannot justify it not working simply because there's a gap in historical time when it's not happening. It will come back, fear not. — Agustino
True enough, we all do have a string of things we can't tolerate.
So be it then. Sign a prenuptial agreement when or if you get married, specifying that the marriage will suffer sudden death if your partner can be proven to have strayed from the strait and narrow. She may wish to impose conditions too. For instance, "One notice of late payment on the light, water, gas, telephone, mortgage, or credit card bill and you are OUT." That way you'll both know in advance what you (plural) are getting in to. She might also meter your time on philosophy forums, as well. "Oops, 5 minutes too long. Sorry. Pack your bag and get out." — Bitter Crank
Maybe in The Handmaiden's Tale, which I suspect you would consider utopia. It must be some solace to you that ISIS and the Taliban are on your side.
In any case, the delusions of the Right become more elaborate the closer it gets to demographic extinction. — Landru Guide Us
I didn't know we were talking about "the Right" in this thread man... I think you made a mistake, you should move the conversation to the other thread :p — Agustino
Pretending your views aren't rightwing won't help you here, boy. — Landru Guide Us
You are still making the same error, Agustino. Numbers have no relevance here. The nature of anyone is their nature. Higher numbers doesn't make any being because each one of us is an individual. All a higher number signifies is that, in the given situation, there are more people with a given trait. It doesn't define the presence of any sort of trait as "natural" or "proper" over any other. — TheWillowOfDarkness
This, a version of the"naturalistic fallacy," is one of the more deep-seated ideas of prejudice. It is the understanding someone is a lesser part of the community just because their aren't as many people with some trait and they happen to be different to a larger group of people in some way. People fail all too easily for this bullshit because thyme mistake it for describing the world. It is not description of the world. "The Truth" of human existence it is not. It is an absolute failure to take states of the world on their own merits and describe them. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Nonsense - facilitated by your misunderstanding of Aristotelian philosophy.You do consider gay people to be a lesser part of the community. Your basic understanding of them is that they are deviant. They aren't what a (larger) mass of human is, so you consider them to fall outside the truth of what makes are human. In your understanding they fly against what "makes" a human, that "universal" generality which (supposedly) represents the nature of all humans. It's not purely descriptive. It's normative all the way down. You think being gay ought to fall outside the representation of what makes a human just because their aren't so many gay people. You aren't willing to accept that some humans have a "tendency" to by gay merely because there are less of them. — TheWillowOfDarkness
You think there is no nature of man. But I DO need a nature of man to explain why most people aren't homosexuals. They aren't homosexuals because there is a natural tendency towards heterosexuality. Why is there such a natural tendency? Because of evolution which encourages reproduction overall. Homosexuals cannot reproduce, therefore, evolutionary speaking, there will be less of them, because evolution ensures that over time the majority of the species can contribute to the reproduction effort.No. It's not. For there is no "nature of man." Humans are always individuals. the nature of one cannot be "universalised" to act as a descriptor of them all. There is no "general human nature," for there is no "general" human." Being gay is no less a "natural tendency" than being heterosexual or bisexual : both are what, by there nature, humans are. Gay humans certainly don't have a tendency to heterosexual and bisexual. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Nope... I'm merely identifying the Platonic error of Aristotelian philosophy: the mistake of thinking of things as an expression of logic, as opposed to individual things expressing logic.Nonsense - facilitated by your misunderstanding of Aristotelian philosophy. — Agustino
You think there is no nature of man. But I DO need a nature of man to explain why most people aren't homosexuals. — Agustino
What makes you think that I care if they are "right-wing" or "left-wing" — Agustino
You're even making basic errors of biology here. Gay people can reproduce. They don't even need any sort to modern reproductive technology to do so. Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they are limited to sleeping with people of the opposite sex. Gay people can and have, whether it be by choice or by the social obligations of the time, reproduced throughout history. — TheWillowOfDarkness
I do accept they are human like everyone else. I also don't consider them "mistakes", nor have I ever used that word, which implies a moral judgement of the condition. Nor do I identify everyone else as "proper". Those are all your designations which you input on me.you are unwilling to accept they are just human like anyone else. Rather, you insist, there must be some reason these deviant mistakes of a human have appeared, why these people are different to the "proper" humans who follow the "natural tendency." — TheWillowOfDarkness
There is no reason some people are gay and other are not. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Nope. For sexual identity isn't determined by who one has sex with. A gay person, for example, my choose to have sex with someone to a person of the opposite to which they have no sexual attraction, to reproduce. A gay person may be pressed into having sex with someone they are not sexually attracted by social expectations.Then they are bisexual? — Agustino
I do accept they are human like everyone else. I also don't consider them "mistakes", nor have I ever used that word, which implies a moral judgement of the condition. Nor do I identify everyone else as "proper". Those are all your designations which you input on me. — Agustino
You might have not used the word per say, but that doesn't mean you aren;t thinking it. — TheWillowOfDarkness
↪Agustino Indeed. It's brute fact the majority of people aren't gay. Just as it is brute fact the Earth is the third planet form the sun, the sun rose this morning and that object fall to the ground when dropped. Some people are gay. Other people are not. None of these have an explanation, causality included. They just are what they are. (and may change at any time. Everyone could, in fact, for example, wake-up gay tomorrow morning).
"Explanations" are neither accurate (as each states is denied in-itself) nor is it necessary, as merely pointing out, for example, that a greater number of non-gay people exist because of some cause be it (genetics, environment or anything else) gives a full account of the situation. There is no need to have an "explanation" of why some people aren't gay, for their existence accounts for that entirely. — TheWillowOfDarkness
I also did it in this very thread to discoii once. I did it to Thorongil in the other thread. If you were right on this, I would admit it. But you're just not. You're not even close. I think you should have the intellectual integrity to at least admit it. — Agustino
Us having an intellectual conversation presupposes that we trust that each other thinks what he says he thinks. If you're not going to trust what I say I think, then the conversation must end here, as a fundamental underlying assumption of our conversation has been severed. I basically am put in a position where I can no longer communicate with you regardless of what I do. — Agustino
And it is the philosophical idea which grounds a whole host of prejudice because, supposedly, any humans is meant to fit the "explanation" by their nature. — TheWillowOfDarkness
No, this is just laughable. We are given by our parents. Logically.Logically, we are given by nothing but ourselves. — TheWillowOfDarkness
How quaint that you assume I consider myself logically necessary, while you are the one who implies each being is logically necessary. To wit: "Logically, we are given by nothing but ourselves".An unwillingness to look at the world any understand it for what it is, drawn out a desire to consider ourselves the logically necessary result of a governing origin forc — TheWillowOfDarkness
Okay, we will analyse this together, and I will show you that you are absolutely wrong, beyond any possibility of doubt. What is a naturalistic fallacy?So says every user of the naturalistic fallacy — TheWillowOfDarkness
Yes, and you are so concerned to make sure that homosexuality isn't wrong, that you will not even look at the truth, because the truth admits the possibility that it could be wrong.I know what I'm talking about here, Agustino. This form or prejudice goes unnoticed by it proponents and takes a long while to die, for they are under the illusion they are merely telling the truth about the world and so feel compelled to protect the task of accurate description. I can tell you now, you will not admit are wrong because you can't even see the mistake your making. So concerned about the "natural tendency," you aren't even stopping to think about people, who they are and what you are saying about them when you suggest they are deviants from the norm. — TheWillowOfDarkness
No I am not. I have stated that in men of inferior intellectual capabilities, the idea that homosexuality is a natural deviation will lead to the conclusion that homosexuality is therefore wrong. But this is just because most people, unquestioningly and unknowingly (just like you), hold the assumption that what is natural is good. A naturalistic fallacy, as you like to say :)but rather your knowledge and understanding of your thoughts and words in relation to society. I am saying you a missing something very important about the relationship of your thoughts and words to the world. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Me too. I am pointing out the irony that you are the one committing a naturalistic fallacy and then projecting this unto me. Why are you committing it? Because you are afraid of what you may find.No doubt you don't, yet, have the understanding to talk in terms of this argument. But that's the whole point me making the comment: to point out something you missed, that you haven't understand. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Genetic variation? Genes don't copy exactly from parents to children, so I expect that homosexuality is always the effect of genetic variation, that's why it is ultimately unavoidable, and a necessary feature of the world. What I mean is that the existence of homosexuality as a natural deviation is logically necessary (or otherwise inevitable) given evolution and the biological constraints that exist on reproduction.Gay people aren't gay because their parents were gay (they almost certainly weren't) but something shifts the distribution of sexual preference from 100% straight to something less than 100%. I'm interested in what that something is. — Bitter Crank
This is most peculiarly false. There is no assumption that humans are 'by default" not gay. In fact a particular human is "by default" not anything - it cannot be said a priori, since it is an empirical matter.What is at stake here is the possibility of gay people and how that relates to humanity. The "deviance" of being gay is a failure to understand that humans are sometimes gay. It's defined on the assumption all humans are, by default, not gay and that something "shifts" them into the improper, for humans, state of homosexuality. Understanding that some humans are, by their nature, gay is missing. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.