Serena is showing neither genitals nor fully showing breasts in the image you apparently find so morally appalling. — John

Well I believe you haven't read all of my posts, otherwise you would understand that I said that the image is ugly, and justified the ugliness based on the fact that pregnancy is used to drive a political agenda through the picture. This, I believe, is immoral. And no, it has nothing to do with the beach. People at the beach aren't driving political agendas by their nakedness, nor do they stay with breasts out, only covered by the palms of their hands.

Having said that, I do tend to find celebrities' apparent needs to share everything with the public, and the public's tendency to lap it up somewhat disgusting, but more for aesthetic, than for moral reasons. This is also reflected in the 'minor celebrity' phenomenon of people sharing images and anecdotes showing mundane details of their lives on social media. " Look, this is me at the beach!" I do find that disgusting as well. — John

Yes, I very much share some of those feelings.

Because it's no big deal — Sapientia

Again, to whom? To you? It clearly isn't one to you.

I'm a liberal and you're a prude. — Sapientia

No, a conservative isn't a prude. I didn't suggest you should not show your sexy six pack to your wife, of course you should, she should enjoy that. But only she. (well people at your gym can enjoy that too, or the beach, etc. but certainly not the street).

I don't doubt that you go around judging what you take to be indecent behaviour. My point was, in what we were talking about, how can you be sure? — Sapientia

Nobody can be sure of anything, so what's your point? :s We shouldn't judge things just because we can't be sure? Our judgement should take into account the uncertainty.

Worse, the naked body of women becomes protected in public display. — TheWillowOfDarkness

What do you even mean the female body becomes protected in public display? Protected from what exactly? :s

In this instance, the concern isn't so much about sex, but the celebration of public nudity is politically associated with people who advocate for permissive sexuality. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes, it's a way to spread propaganda.

If we respect the publicly naked body, for example, he won't be able to attack women Slutwalk march for going topless. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Wow wow wow, slow down please. Why should we "attack" women who go on the Slutwalk march?

But the real question is should we have women going topless marching through our streets, and breaking down our standards of decency? No, I think we shouldn't. Nor do I think we should respect dangerous propaganda which aims to legitimise forms of sexual immorality. Rather, we should speak against it, and educate people of its dangers.

Agustino: You are Exhibit A in the Case of the Prudish Philosopher. — Bitter Crank

No, I don't think I'm prudish at all BC, it seems you picked that meme from Sapientia. I don't think there's anything wrong with showing your body in the right circumstances. There is however something wrong with purposefully looking to be sexually attractive.

Because they have a problem with being an embodied being. One suspects they have rejected their own body, and then generalized this rejection to others. If they thought being a body was really a good thing, they would celebrate it instead of constructing barbed wire fences and visual screens around it. — Bitter Crank

I do celebrate it, I have no clue why you'd think I don't. At the gym and in the right places. With my wife when I will get married eventually. And also by currently being a celibate - that's also a way to respect and celebrate my body, by the way. Freudians are really behind aren't they?

People who are physically and mentally healthy NATURALLY want to appeal sexually to others. It's NORMAL. — Bitter Crank

No I don't think it's normal at all. I want to be sexually appealing to the woman I love, not to any random woman on the street, that's silly now. Why would I want that? :s

Maybe where you come from that is so, but I doubt it. — Bitter Crank

I was speaking about decency there.

Exposed and eroticized torsos (of either sex) bother people who are uncomfortable with eroticism. — Bitter Crank

No, I'm not "bothered" by seeing it at all, it's just that it's not decent, and it would be better if it didn't happen. If I see a smoking hot woman walking by, I'm really not that interested anymore, as I would be when I was a younger boy :P - I really feel no need to be. But if I were to love that woman, that would be a different question...

The man informs you that his robes are at the cleaners. He shrugs and continues walking.

"Would you like to play again?" — VagabondSpectre

Yes, and your retarded man clearly has only one pair of robes...

All I really want is even one well founded and useful rule that is persuasive to me — VagabondSpectre

That is persuasive to you I cannot guarantee, but that there are reasons for holding such a belief, that I can provide you.

and how long before we stop caring and mystifying/immoralizing/obsessing over genitalia as a society due to our steady over-exposure? — VagabondSpectre

We will always care about it because people are born with a sense of decency, that has to be then overcome through education.

Isn't that somewhat wholesome? — VagabondSpectre

No.

indecency = attempt to be sexually provocative. — VagabondSpectre

Yes, you can add to that attempt to show off.

By defining indecency as an attempt to be sexually provocative (rather than instances of individuals actually being sexually provoked (to avoid the ankle dilemma?)) you have essentially shoved your subjective (and perhaps religious reasons) into this one odd postulate that I will attempt to convince you is flawed. — VagabondSpectre

I see no attempt in your post so far, so hopefully I expect to see this in some future post.

Well, arguments that I might accept would be based on some kind of harm caused by an action — VagabondSpectre

Yes, indecency harms the person who is being indecent.

The reason why what I would describe as a "sex act" would be immoral for display in public is that witnessing them can be psychologically harmful to children — VagabondSpectre

So witnessing and passing by potentially infectious penises which swing from side to side isn't dangerous and psychologically harmful for children? :s

Men like you and I might have a hard time thinking straight if a very attractive woman suddenly exposed herself in our presence, but isn't that our problem and not hers? — VagabondSpectre

Maybe you would have trouble, but I have no trouble at all. This is a common occurrence for me. Attractive women don't attract me much anymore. People can train themselves to stop being enslaved by the cultural instincts that society breeds in them, especially when these instincts are immoral.

We will always care about it because people are born with a sense of decency, that has to be then overcome through education. — Agustino

Isn't this like when you tried to claim that babies are born with a desire for god?

Babies aren't born with any knowledge about decency; they're born naked and will happily piss, shit, and vomit on you.

If a child gets raised by a pack of dogs, they act like a dog. Do you honestly believe that humans are born with biologically pre-programmed ideas?

I see no attempt in your post so far, so hopefully I expect to see this in some future post. — Agustino

You previously stated that if a women tries to be sexually provocative by showing her ankle then she is behaving immorally...

All you have done is stated that "attempts to be sexually appealing are immoral" but you have not justified why (beyond some insane fear mongering of the collapse of western society that is clearly fueled by your passion for religious conservatism and your hatred of liberalism).

And you wonder why others call you a prude... Sexual attraction is a natural part of human life Aug, get used to it. By your standards any woman who makes sure she has good posture is an immoral whore.

Yes, indecency harms the person who is being indecent. — Agustino

How?

Seems to be that being sexy hasn't harmed Beyonce or Madonna. In fact I think they profited from it.

What harm are you taking about?

So witnessing and passing by potentially infectious penises which swing from side to side isn't dangerous and psychologically harmful for children? :s — Agustino

Infectious penises?



Nobody is flailing their infectious penis around. You have a really wild imagination... If you're really that paranoid, just remember that if someone comes at you with their infectious penis, you are permitted to defend yourself...

Regarding children, generally the mere sight of genitalia isn't likely to confuse them or lead to any increased risk of actual harm. Anything is possible, but the biological differences between genders in and of themselves can be as uncontroversial as learning about elbows, knees and toes.

Exposing a child to a sex act however is something that they won't be able to understand, nor will we be able to adequately explain it. We don't want children thinking or worrying about sex for a host of reasons, foremost among them being their own health. Merely learning the difference between girls and boys however is something that most children naturally wonder about, and teaching them about that difference isn't very risky for parents to do...

No, I'm not "bothered" by seeing it at all, it's just that it's not decent, and it would be better if it didn't happen. — Agustino

It's quite possible (even probable) that your emotional response to exposed torsos led you to view it as indecent and (if carried to far) immoral--rather than morals being the reason for your emotional response.

It's quite possible (even probable) that your emotional response to exposed torsos led you to view it as indecent and (if carried to far) immoral--rather than morals being the reason for your emotional response. — Bitter Crank

Okay, how is this possible if I have no emotional response at all to exposed torsos, especially for man? Growing up this was a VERY common sight for me. There's no emotional reaction. I still think it's wrong.

We will always care about it because people are born with a sense of decency, that has to be then overcome through education. — Agustino

Baloney.

If there is one thing that infants don't have, it's a sense of decency. It takes education (and screwed up experiences) to develop warped values--or values which aren't warped.

Isn't this like when you tried to claim that babies are born with a desire for god? — VagabondSpectre

Like I TRIED to claim? :s

Babies aren't born with any knowledge about decency; they're born naked and will happily piss, shit, and vomit on you.

If a child gets raised by a pack of dogs, they act like a dog. Do you honestly believe that humans are born with biologically pre-programmed ideas? — VagabondSpectre

Yes, however those ideas do require other factors in their environment to be actualised. And I'm not sure that if a child gets raised by a pack of dogs he will act like that pack.

You previously stated that if a women tries to be sexually provocative by showing her ankle then she is behaving immorally... — VagabondSpectre

Yes. So?

All you have done is stated that "attempts to be sexually appealing are immoral" but you have not justified why (beyond some insane fear mongering of the collapse of western society that is clearly fueled by your passion for religious conservatism and your hatred of liberalism). — VagabondSpectre

Attempts to be sexually appealing are immoral because they (not all the time, but most often) involve the desire to use others (and their traits/bodies) for your own satisfaction. Using other people is failing to treat them with the dignity they deserve as persons, objectifying them, and mistreating their spiritual nature. There's your reason, now go walk the dog.

You might add that so treating other people also demeans your own self.

And you wonder why others call you a prude... Sexual attraction is a natural part of human life Aug, get used to it. By your standards any woman who makes sure she has good posture is an immoral whore. — VagabondSpectre

Depends why she intends to have good posture. If she intends to have good posture in order to attract other men to her and use their wills/bodies, then yes, that would be immoral. Most often though, women don't have those intentions when having good posture - they just want to be healthy and comfortable.

So yes, sexual attraction is part of life, and I have no problem with it IN THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES.

Seems to be that being sexy hasn't harmed Beyonce or Madonna. In fact I think they profited from it. — VagabondSpectre

They profited from it financially, but finance is relatively unimportant to other ways in which they have been harmed.

What harm are you taking about? — VagabondSpectre

The harm takes the form of neglecting their human nature, failing to actualise their potentials for a lot of things, amongst which relationships (that's why Madonna isn't even married anymore, because who could be married to such a person, except maybe someone equally bad) - and also failing to uphold their dignity.

Okay, how is this possible if I have no emotional response at all to exposed torsos, especially for man? Growing up this was a VERY common sight for me. There's no emotional reaction. I still think it's wrong. — Agustino

Keep digging.

Thinking something is wrong may be only the result of educated morality. If you think tax fraud is immoral, then that is probably the result of educated morality. But because sexuality is central to our personality and physical development from infancy forward, (and one doesn't have to cite Sigmund Freud for support) the morality of all things sexual are probably strongly influenced by experience and emotions.

Also, you are presumably straight, so you probably wouldn't find a male torso arousing. But still, too much nakedness (uncovered breasts! Oh, no! Save us from concupiscence!) is immoral.

But because sexuality is central to our personality and physical development from infancy forward, (and one doesn't have to cite Sigmund Freud for support) the morality of all things sexual are probably strongly influenced by experience and emotions. — Bitter Crank

I doubt this is the case (that sexuality is central to our personality, etc.). Some people seem to WANT this to be the case, but I doubt it. It's certainly true for the people who have bought into this idea however - their life does seem to be all about sexuality.

Sexuality is important, like all other factors of our existence, but not the absolute central bit. Our values seem to be a LOT more central than sexuality, and values do determine one's stance on sexual issues to a large extent.

Keep digging. — Bitter Crank

Typical of Freud, when something doesn't fit the theory, it's a problem with the person (they're repressing something) not with the theory :-}

Also, you are presumably straight, so you probably wouldn't find a male torso arousing. But still, too much nakedness (uncovered breasts! Oh, no! Save us from concupiscence!) is immoral. — Bitter Crank

I didn't say it's immoral btw, I said it's not decent. They are a bit different, lacking decency is not ALWAYS immoral. Decency is a matter of social norms that we expect to hold ourselves accountable to in order to foster a more moral (and predictable) environment. So for example a man walking without a shirt on in the street will be indecent, but not immoral unless he's doing it to (1) show off, or (2) to sexually attract others. The social norms though are indeed built on objective moral standards.

And by the way, you seem to think that sexual abstinence or celibacy is a repression of sexuality, but this isn't at all the case. Rather abstinence isn't repressing sexual feelings, but not acting on them - that's wholly different. Repression means when you don't acknowledge your sexual nature at all, but so long as you acknowledge it, and accept that you are a sexual being (amongst other things), there is absolutely no problem with not acting on sexual desire - it's actually a good thing, you become self-controlled - your own master, captain of the ship, even though poor Freud thought it was impossible.

Sexuality is important, like all other factors of our existence, but not the absolute central bit — Agustino

No, sexuality isn't the sin quo non of human development. Sexuality, along with physical development, cognitive development, personality development are also central. The importance of sexuality derives from our physical embodiment. What the child experiences first are the pleasures and pains of physicality. Sexuality is central to our development because it is such a strong, evolved drive, common to many other species.

Most animals don't have the cognitive ability to screw up their off-spring's sexual development. It just unfolds and that's that. Humans, on the other hand, do have the cognitive ability to screw up the sexuality of their offspring (and much else), which they do with regularity and aplomb.

Well yes, I do understand that celibacy is more complicated than a neurotic repression of sexuality (or anything else).

self-controlled - your own master, captain of the ship — Agustino

It isn't celibacy that makes one self-controlled, it's self-control that makes celibacy possible.

poor Freud — Agustino

What poor Freud thought was that we sublimate our sexual drives to produce civilization. We don't repress, we redirect. Celibacy is an institutionalized form of sublimation. The celibate sublimator doesn't deny his sexual urges, he redirects that energy to other goals.

Most of us are sublimators. We forgo the time and energy it takes to acquire lots of sex and instead go to work every day, we write books, dig ditches, build houses, cook, clean, mix concrete, change diapers--all the stuff that it takes to build and maintain civilization.

Humans, on the other hand, do have the cognitive ability to screw up the sexuality of their offspring (and much else), which they do with regularity and aplomb. — Bitter Crank

:-} There's a problem with this because it assumes that sexuality is the same for man as it is for animals, and this is not true - at least not true in comparison to MOST animals, there may be some with regards to which comparisons can be made.

Man is a spiritual being (and before Vagabond jumps up in arms about some bullshit), all that means is that we are rational creatures, possessed of both will and intellect - we are PERSONS. Animals are not persons. So as human beings we do struggle to manage our sexual drive in accordance to our nature as persons, and thus have different conundrums than animals. When an animal feels the sex drive, it goes jumps on the female boom boom boom, gets the job done, and that's it. No questions asked of who is the female, does she want it, etc.

When we feel our sex drive, it is mediated by the fact we are persons. I don't want to just fuck a woman like a dog. Why not? Because I'd feel bad about myself for using her and not treating her as a person worthy of dignity and communion, and thus failing to respect myself and my own personhood in the end.

Now the way the human mind functions is that there can be irrational desires present. For example it is possible for someone to want to fuck a woman like a dog - even though they realise this is not in accordance to reason, morality, and their own nature. Freud would identify this as some part of the psyche for sure. This is the part that most often has fantasies, which many times are irrational. There's no problem with these so long as they remain fantasises, but there is a problem when you try to bring fantasises in reality, for the simple reason that the fantasy does not share the same structure with reality. For example, it is impossible to fuck a woman like a dog in real life and still respect her personhood. In a fantasy, this may however be possible. Freud was right that some of these desires emerge from different associations (some mistaken) that we formed during childhood in our minds. The way to deal with such fantasies is to either (1) acknowledge them and keep them as fantasies, or (2) work with them by bringing them into consciousness, and severing the link between the pleasure associated with the object/action of the fantasy, by mentally trying to bring the fantasy into reality and therefore experiencing the actual negative emotions that would in truth be associated with it.

Like I TRIED to claim? :s — Agustino

Tried and failed to maintain the claim, yes. You ended up trotting it back to some ultra-vague nonsense that dropped the god parameter entirely and settled on anything vaguely superstitious ("in any way beyond the physical"). You elected not to defend it against my subsequent rebuke.

Yes, however those ideas do require other factors in their environment to be actualised. — Agustino

This is nonsense. Babies aren't born with every possible idea in their head and then through different environmental factors have them "actualized".

Teaching someone mathematics isn't "actualizing" the mathematical ideas they already had, it's introducing them to new ideas which previously did not exist in their mind.

Yes. So? — Agustino

You would condemn an ugly woman for wearing makeup, or an ugly man for compensating with his career, right?

Attempts to be sexually appealing are immoral because they (not all the time, but most often) involve the desire to use others (and their traits/bodies) for your own satisfaction. Using other people is failing to treat them with the dignity they deserve as persons, objectifying them, and mistreating their spiritual nature. There's your reason, now go walk the dog. — Agustino

What if the desire to be sexually attractive is to advertise yourself on a market of fair exchange where when two people have sex it's not simply one using the other (or whatever it is you're afraid of?).

What if instead of "using" other people for sex, they "had mutually gratifying sex together" and both enjoyed it?

It's hedonism then? Isn't any sex other than for the purpose of reproduction therefore immoral because both parties are clearly just exploiting each-other's bodies?

But let's take a step back: You're essentially saying that you don't like women who try to be attractive because you think they are disrespecting your spiritual nature (by controlling you?) with their bodies...

Depends why she intends to have good posture. If she intends to have good posture in order to attract other men to her and use their wills/bodies, then yes, that would be immoral. Most often though, women don't have those intentions when having good posture - they just want to be healthy and comfortable.

So yes, sexual attraction is part of life, and I have no problem with it IN THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES. — Agustino

What are the right circumstances? Do you need a chaperone?

They profited from it financially, but finance is relatively unimportant to other ways in which they have been harmed. — Agustino

What harm do you speak of?

I don't want to just fuck a woman like a dog. — Agustino

I would hope that you would fuck a woman rather better than a dog would. >:)

And I'm not sure that if a child gets raised by a pack of dogs he will act like that pack. — Agustino

They're called feral children. They tend to have no language and behave in a manner congruent with their development. In the case of a child growing up with a dog pack, they act like a dog.

Your ideas about pre-existing ideas in human babies is really a mal-formed/naive way to view human psychology.

Man is a spiritual being (and before Vagabond jumps up in arms about some bullshit), all that means is that we are rational creatures, possessed of both will and intellect - we are PERSONS. — Agustino

Sure, we're spiritual beings if that means we are rational creatures possessed of both will and intellect. Sure, we are PERSONS. however...

Evolution did not start from scratch with new species. It always (has no choice) incorporates last year's design into this year's model, with additions or the occasional deletion. The basic kernel of human sexual drive isn't all that different from other animals. For instance, you don't have to decide to be sexual. Sexual is baked in. You don't have to figure out how to get sexually aroused. The circuitry of arousal is pre-installed. You don't have to figure out how to thrust. It's part of the program.

Human sexuality, the sexuality of embodied persons, however is more complicated -- as you point out. But it is in the complexity of human existence that we get screwed up by bad/stupid/evil ideas.

Tried and failed to maintain the claim, yes. You ended up trotting it back to some ultra-vague nonsense that dropped the god parameter entirely and settled on anything vaguely superstitious ("in any way beyond the physical"). You elected not to defend it against my subsequent rebuke. — VagabondSpectre

:-} :-} :-} You are a bigger liar than Jeb Bush, as Trump would tell you. It is YOU who idiotically thought I said God, when I had said the divine/transcendent from the very beginning, something that I pointed you to, but it seems you still haven't acknowledged it. Maybe you want me to point it again, how you can't even read what I write properly.

Teaching someone mathematics isn't "actualizing" the mathematical ideas they already had, it's introducing them to new ideas which previously did not exist in their mind. — VagabondSpectre

No, it is actualising a potential of their mind to do mathematics. If their mind has no such potential in the first place, how come you can teach them mathematics? Why the hell don't you teach mathematics to your dog as well if there's no potential in discussion?

You would condemn an ugly woman from wearing makeup, or an ugly man from compensating with his career, right? — VagabondSpectre

:s what does this have to do with anything? I don't think they should "compensate" with anything, there is no necessity to be sexually attractive in the first place. They should be happy with how they are.

What if the desire to be sexually attractive is to advertise yourself on a market of fair exchange where when two people have sex it's not simply one using the other (or whatever it is you're afraid of?). — VagabondSpectre

Love is not a business, sorry to break this one to you. When I pick a woman, I don't do a business deal, tallying up the costs and benefits. That's a very STUPID way to pick a woman.

What if instead of "using" other people for sex, they "had mutually gratifying sex together" and both enjoyed it? — VagabondSpectre

What does mutually gratifying sex have to do with the fact that they're using one another? :s They can absolutely exchange pleasure for pleasure, but that would NOT change the fact that they are using each other. CASUAL SEX IS PROSTITUTION - that's what I say, just as Proudhon said that PROPERTY IS THEFT!

The reason for that is such a relationship bears a utilitarian modus operandi, where two people engage in sex for self-serving ends. The man who fucks a prostitute desires the sexual pleasure she can provide, and the prostitute desires his money. When the self-serving ends of each are over, their relationship is too, which means they treat each other as TOOLS - not as persons. In casual sex the two participants each want the sexual pleasure that each can provide the other. When one of them can no longer do that, the realtionship ends - again showing that they were just TOOLS that each was using for his/her own selfish ends, and not real people. That is why casual sex is prostitution, because it bears the logic and modus operandi of prostitution and degrades both of the participants, whether they freely agree to it - like the man and his prostitute do - or not.

You're essentially saying that you don't like women who try to be attractive because you think they are disrespecting your spiritual nature (by controlling you?) with their bodies... — VagabondSpectre

No, they absolutely can't control me, try as they may. I'm actually quite good with that. It's not about me, it's about the intentions of their heart. They have impure intentions (to control me, make me lust for them), which is their problem and their sin. Whether they succeed or not is of a secondary nature. Even if they fail every single time, it's still sinful, because intentions matter.

They're called feral children. They tend to have no language and literally behave in a manner congruent with their development. In the case of a child growing up with a dog pack, they act like a dog.

Your ideas about pre-existing ideas in human babies is really a mal-formed/naive way to view human psychology. — VagabondSpectre

Such children do not behave like their animal counterparts, no. However, they do have a decreased function as human beings.

And I'm not sure that if a child gets raised by a pack of dogs he will act like that pack. — Agustino

I would hope that you would fuck a woman rather better than a dog would. >:) — Bitter Crank

>:O

The basic kernel of human sexual drive isn't all that different from other animals. For instance, you don't have to decide to be sexual. Sexual is baked in — Bitter Crank

Agreed.

Human sexuality, the sexuality of embodied persons, however is more complicated -- as you point out. But it is in the complexity of human existence that we get screwed up by bad/stupid/evil ideas. — Bitter Crank

It is more complicated precisely because we're different from animals in that we're also persons. So we have to deal with the fact of our personhood when we feel the impulses of our sexual desire. The idea obviously would be to get the two in harmony, and religions (and Freud) would I think advocate for the same, even though they may share different means of doing that.

Is our sexuality complicated by bad/stupid/evil ideas? I think it's just complicated by vicious authoritarianism which uses fist and force instead of education to deal with our sexuality as it emerges. Most people don't have the capacity to educate, so they resort to other means.

I'd rather be labeled a prude than a sex-crazed maniac *shrug*.

I'd rather be labeled a prude than a sex-crazed maniac *shrug*. — Heister Eggcart

What is a sex-crazed maniac shrug?

I dunno, I was just shrugging. Perhaps if I was a sex-crazed maniac I'd be shrugging my peepee?

Perhaps if I was a sex-crazed maniac I'd be shrugging my peepee? — Heister Eggcart

What if you are one, and because you're afraid of yourself and what you can do, you've chosen prudery? >:)

Not a bad song, thanks! 8-)

Again, to whom? To you? It clearly isn't one to you. — Agustino

It's just no big deal. Obviously it's no big deal to me, and no big deal to others as well. As for the rest, it should be no big deal for them, too.

No, a conservative isn't a prude. — Agustino

Maybe not. But an Agustino is.

I didn't suggest you should not show your sexy six pack to your wife, of course you should, she should enjoy that. But only she. (well people at your gym can enjoy that too, or the beach, etc. but certainly not the street). — Agustino

My wife? What wife? :D

And what six pack? :(

Nah, people on the street should enjoy my hypothetical six pack, too. Some probably did in the past when I actually had one and when it was on show in public.

Nobody can be sure of anything, so what's your point? :s We shouldn't judge things just because we can't be sure? Our judgement should take into account the uncertainty. — Agustino

I was hoping we could avoid that quibble. I was speaking in a looser sense of not knowing enough about a situation to make a good, safe, reliable judgement.

You are a bigger liar than Jeb Bush, as Trump would tell you. It is YOU who idiotically thought I said God, when I had said the divine/transcendent from the very beginning, something that I pointed you to, but it seems you still haven't acknowledged it. Maybe you want me to point it again, how you can't even read what I write properly. — Agustino

Dude I quoted you directly in the other thread and it's there for anyone to read. Here it is again:

That's your opinion, but I'd argue that you are absolutely wrong. The desire for the transcendent (including God) is a natural human desire, which existed from the very beginning of mankind. So babies aren't born atheists, they're born with a desire for God from the very beginning. — Agustino

Like Trump you have a knack for contradicting yourself.

No, it is actualising a potential of their mind to do mathematics. If their mind has no such potential in the first place, how come you can teach them mathematics? Why the hell don't you teach mathematics to your dog as well if there's no potential in discussion? — Agustino

Being born with the potential to learn mathematics is not the same as being born with mathematical ideas in your head.

You choose the strangest hills to die on Aug...

what does this have to do with anything? I don't think they should "compensate" with anything, there is no necessity to be sexually attractive in the first place. They should be happy with how they are. — Agustino

What if they want a mate that they are attracted to, so they are trying to make themselves attractive?

Should they be happy with whichever man/woman their parents/priest indicates they should marry?

Love is not a business, sorry to break this one to you. When I pick a woman, I don't do a business deal, tallying up the costs and benefits. That's a very STUPID way to pick a woman. — Agustino

I'm talking about sex, not love. Why do people have to only deal in love and not in sex?

What does mutually gratifying sex have to do with the fact that they're using one another? :s They can absolutely exchange pleasure for pleasure, but that would NOT change the fact that they are using each other. CASUAL SEX IS PROSTITUTION - that's what I say, just as Proudhon said that PROPERTY IS THEFT! — Agustino

Umm, so you're upset that they're "using one other" even though they're both well aware that pleasure is being traded for pleasure? Doesn't usery need to be one-sided or else it's not usery? It's a fair an open exchange?

The reason for that is such a relationship bears a utilitarian modus operandi, where two people engage in sex for self-serving ends. The man who fucks a prostitute exchanges desires the sexual pleasure she can provide, and the prostitute desires his money. When the self-serving ends of each are over, their relationship is too, which means they treat each other as TOOLS - not as persons. In casual sex the two participants each want the sexual pleasure that each can provide the other. When one of them can no longer do that, the realtionship ends - again showing that they were just TOOLS that each was using for his/her own selfish ends, and not real people. That is why casual sex is prostitution, because it bears the logic and modus operandi of prostitution and degrades both of the participants, whether they freely agree to it - like the man and his prostitute do - or not. — Agustino

When you walk into any commercial establishment and exchange money for services, you're treating people like TOOLS? You're making a self-serving exchange for your own ends.... When you buy a sand-which.... So what?

Forgive me, but I'm having a hard time wondering who is harmed during an actual transaction of sex for money. Clearly the woman isn't harmed; she got paid! So is it the main who gets harmed? He loses his hard earned money and afterwards feels emotionally depressed that he must pay women to sexually gratify him? I don't get it, please enlighten me...

Such children do not behave like their animal counterparts, no. However, they do have a decreased function as human beings. — Agustino

Ummmmmmm.......

So running around on all fours, living amongst a pack of dogs, eating sleeping and living like them, is not animal behavior?

The existence of feral children pretty much destroys your notion that humans have some kind of innate set of ideas like "god" and "decency"...