Because you seem to be obsessed about saying things like that and it's not the first time you've said it, clearly. Most people don't think about people that they spend their time with that they're not worthy or they merely tolerate them. That's not kind, that's not nice, and that's not virtuous. End of story. :sTHEN WHY SAY IT? — TimeLine
>:O What the hell does the verb "to rag" mean? My dictionary tells me that it means to compose in ragtime LOL!rags on the forum — Heister Eggcart
Because you seem to be obsessed about saying things like that and it's not the first time you've said it, clearly. Most people don't think about people that they spend their time with that they're not worthy or they merely tolerate them. That's not kind, that's not nice, and that's not virtuous. End of story. — Agustino
It has zero to do with what you said to Noble Dust, it has to do with how you think about your friends, quite clearly - you think they're not worth your time, you merely tolerate them. That's not nice. And this isn't the first time you said that. Last time it wasn't to Noble Dust. I don't even remember who it was to, and I don't really care. Point being you're behaving very strangely coming on an online philosophy forum to complain about your friends.I said one friendly comment to Noble Dust and you call that obsession? — TimeLine
Says the person who has multiple times been accused by different people of not being able to comprehend what is being told to them, but then sure, there is something wrong with me :s :sStay silent, Augustino. Enough rubbish. — TimeLine
Interesting opinion, however if you try you cannot cite one proper insult addressed to TL from me, yet her comments:Both of you. — Heister Eggcart
Listen, you moron — TimeLine
Idiot. — TimeLine
And other such >:O . It's interesting why she's getting so upset... ;) (we'll see what else she does by the time when I return from the gym - oh oh, there she is at it again!!! >:O )projecting your own obsession, clearly there is something wrong with you. — TimeLine
It has zero to do with what you said to Noble Dust, it has to do with how you think about your friends, quite clearly - you think they're not worth your time, you merely tolerate them. That's not nice. — Agustino
However, you do give off the vibe of being a misandrist. — Heister Eggcart
Interesting opinion, however if you try you cannot cite one proper insult addressed to TL from me, yet her comments: — Agustino
Anyway, that is my two cents that neither of you asked for and if I could get my change, I will be going now. — ArguingWAristotleTiff
Men happen to notice when a female comes onto the boards but very few women last. Not because women are incapable of discussing Philosophy but because in addition learning the tools of debate, pondering, explaining and substantiating your personal position, you come across an underpinning of 'objectification' of women that can and does exist in all of us, both female and male, just to different degrees. — ArguingWAristotleTiff
Forums? — Agustino
That, among a host of other different things. It seems that you're intent on subsuming communion, to emotions, etc. but this is completely false. These are all different and independent reasons. — Agustino
To relate to another you must first relate to yourself and to something that transcends you. The act of relating to another isn't a purely physical one, but something that involves your whole being. — Agustino
Tell me Vagabond, is it possible that a man wrong himself? Clearly it's not only actions that affect other people that are wrong, we accept this every single day of our lives in the practice of living. A drug addict who injects heroin in his veins is doing something wrong to himself, even if he "consents" to it. His consent doesn't change the wrongness of it, neither does the fact that it doesn't affect other people — Agustino
Do you wish to discuss the morality of discussing sex, or the conditions under which the sexual act is disrespectful? — Agustino
There is no close emotion that renders sex not harmful as such. — Agustino
Yes, the feeling of lust would be an emotion. So let's start with it. When you lust after something you're not satisfied. How can lusting be good? If you get yourself in the position when you lust for something you are hurting, you have already harmed yourself. How can that be good? Do you enjoy being thirsty? Would you purposefully go around getting yourself thirsty? — Agustino
If two willing participants negotiate an anonymous contract whereby one will eat the other one alive, and they both give their consent, have they done nothing wrong? Again, this whole idea that consent somehow has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with the rightness or wrongness of an activity is absurd. If I force you to have dinner with me, that's as wrong as if I force you to have sex with me from the point of view of consent. But clearly, we take me forcing you to have sex with me as a much more serious offence than if I were to force you to have dinner with me. Why is that? — Agustino
It TRIES to mitigate them, however it is not successful. For example, people could still experience feelings of guilt afterwards - among many many other emotions that it's possible to experience, including during the act. — Agustino
Well do you want to be a nice and decent person? If so, then yes, you should consider everyone's emotional well being. — Agustino
Why would you assume that? How the hell do you know that she's competent enough to take care of her own emotions from her body language, can you tell me that? How do you know for example that she just didn't have a fight with her boyfriend/husband and is doing something to express her anger towards him, something that she may later regret for example? — Agustino
Sex always involves one's whole being. — Agustino
Except that you would be abusing each other. — Agustino
What does their dignity as people have to do with the amount of money they charge? :s This is a very peculiar thought, so please explain to me. Clearly you're asserting that the amount of money they charge has something to do with the dignity they have. So presumably a prostitute charging very little has little dignity, while one charging a lot has a lot of dignity. So then, by your own argument, a prostitute charging nothing for her services has no dignity, and this seems quite close to what we mean by casual sex. Is this correct? — Agustino
They are. They are doing a lot of harm to themselves, their partners, and their future spouses. — Agustino
Prostitutes can also suffer direct bodily and emotional damage. Most of them have quite a beaten up psyche, which makes life very difficult for them, which is why a lot of prostitutes resort to doing drugs. — Agustino
Again, why the hell are you referencing that they are (1) horny, and (2) consenting? We've already established that consent has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the morality of the underlying action. For example, if I force you to have dinner with me, that has nothing to do with the morality of having dinner, it has to do with me respecting your will as an individual. So consent is NOT part of sexual morality, just like it's not part of dinner morality. Consent has to do with respecting the autonomy of other people, and their freedom of choice. Breaking one's consent tells us nothing about the morality of the underlying action over which their consent was broken. And you should explain to me now, why forcing you to have sex with me is worse than forcing you to have dinner with me, and clearly consent ain't gonna help you. — Agustino
No, absolutely not. See, this is what I mean when I tell you that you don't understand these terms. That's why your first definitions are wrong. Indecency cannot be positively defined in and of itself, but rather it is always defined with regards to decency, which can be defined in itself. Children have a potential for decency - if they fail to actualise that potential, then they are indecent. — Agustino
Because without these potentials, they could not develop in the directions that they do in the first place. — Agustino
No, not at all. It is the experience of sin that threatened them with eternal damnation. — Agustino
Now, onto more serious matters. First thing to note is that sex is terribly problematic, and has been terribly problematic for all of human history. So your approach of treating sex as if it was not problematic at all BY DEFAULT is simply ignoring everything that we anthropologically know about man. This is so because sex has to do with the very existence of life itself. It is very close to the source of our being. That is why most cultures and civilisations that have ever existed have had what is known as natural sexual morality. Sex has not been treated like buying a burger from McD's, and there are clearly reasons for this, some of which have been outlined above. — Agustino
Otherwise it would be absolutely impossible that very diverse civilisations have condemned certain sexual behaviour - such as homosexual sex - but haven't condemned looking at the sky for example. As an example, all major religions of the world condemn homosexual sex, including the Eastern ones like Hinduism and Buddhism. There were civilisations which allowed homosexual sex in certain circumstances, but not in all (Roman, Greek, etc.). What we note from this is that this behaviour has always been problematic and has been regulated by rules, for most of human history. So it is entirely absurd to treat it as if it wasn't problematic, and the burden of proof rested on me to show that it is. That's number one. — Agustino
Oh, and please don't give me examples now of some minor tribes, etc. who have lived differently. I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about the majority of large human civilisations that have existed. — Agustino
Point number 2. Why does one want to have sex? Where is the origin of sexual desire in a human being, and what is it directed towards? Now, one undeniable end of sex is reproduction. I think you will agree at least with that much. Without affirming this end of the sexual act, one is in effect denying themselves, because they're denying the manner and mode in which they themselves entered the world. — Agustino
Another essential end of sex is unitive - do you agree that the sexual act is something that can produce intimacy and closeness between two different people, something that perhaps can only be achieved through the sexual act? If so, then this is something that appears to be unique to sex, unlike "fun", "pleasure" and the like, which can be attributed to a variety of other experiences, and do not seem to be essential to the nature of sex. — Agustino
Eating burgers with someone can produce feelings of intimacy, and the "fun" aspect of sex isn't accidental (evolution made it that way for a reason).So if we had to define sex, we would define it as that action that occurs between a man and a woman that can lead to either reproduction or intimacy. That's what sex can do, essentially. That's what belongs to its essence as an activity, and isn't an accidental feature, like "fun" and "pleasure" would be. Sure sex can be fun and pleasurable, but that doesn't belong to it as an essence, that's not what identifies it as a separate activity from, say, eating burgers with someone (which is also "fun" and "pleasureable"). — Agustino
We also affirmed before that sex is very close to the origin of life, including your own origin. It is thus very close to your being, and necessarily so. It reminds you of your own making. Therefore sex is something that involves your whole being, and not just your physical body, but your soul too (defined as the form of the body). — Agustino
So tell me Vagabond, does good food frustrate the essential ends of the body it is meant to satisfy? So likewise, would good sexual behavior maintain accidental features, like "fun" and "pleasure", while frustrating essential features such as procreation and intimacy? So then, can we call casual sex "good"? — Agustino
Denying your spouse sex entirely is potential grounds for a divorce. I don't understand how that compares to euthanasia (or in this case some kind of suicidal-vore fetish?). These insane moral equivalences you make grow increasingly disturbing...Furthermore, if sex always involves one's whole being (as a person), is it right and loving to deny your beloved sexual fulfilment, by denying them intimacy, for example? Or do you mean to argue that you simply do not care about the actual needs of the other, but only what they say, such that if they were to tell you that their need is to be eaten alive, you would proceed to give them a hand with it? — Agustino
As we have established, sex is inherently directed towards a unitive end (btw we're talking about sex in-so-far as it relates to persons, so please don't bring up animals), so then if you deny yourself this unitive end by whatever means, is that no different and no worse than chewing food for the taste, and then spitting it out? If you refused to eat food anymore, denied the nutritional end of eating, and instead just chewed the food for the taste, and then spit it out, would you be harming yourself? So then Vagabond, don't you think that likewise you'd be harming yourself if you deny the unitive purpose of sex, which as we said is very close to your own being, and doing so regardless of whether or not you experienced some pleasure in the process? — Agustino
If you treat another person as a tool for your own pleasure, then have you not neglected their real needs and desires? Have you not objectified them, treated them as undignified, and insulted their personhood? Is a human being no more than a vibrator or a plastic vagina? So if someone were to desire to be like a plastic vagina, would it be good to help them achieve that desire? If someone desired to be a slave, put in chains, would it be good to help them achieve that state? Would you, without hesitation, help them by putting and locking the chains on them, and then sending them off to the corn fields? And if this is how you treat others, then what about your own self? Does this not mean that you consider your own self the same way you consider them, and therefore you harm your own self in the process? — Agustino
It is about your choice in the end and there are a number of different possibilities that would suggest why a woman behaves in such a manner. I have not yet had sex with a man but the way that I dress and communicate can often be interpreted as provocative and highly sexual, indeed there have been many men that have become really aggressive towards me from frustration at their inability to get close to me and as a way of trying to make me comply.
You need to be weary of your assumptions and consider a number of factors that requires you to know a person first, understand who they are, where they come from and perhaps you may find that it is your own assumptions that is making you choose to believe what is essentially your desire and your lack of responsibility. Such intimacy without respect for her history, her personhood, her reasons for being their in the first place merely objectifies her into what you want, not who she is. — TimeLine
Does it surprise you though that if you show up to certain places dressed a certain way that men assume it's O.K to approach you? Are they wrong for not assuming you're not interested or that you might get upset? — VagabondSpectre
It all has to do with the circumstances which individuals can use to create a reasonable expectation of whether not a sexual pass would be taken offensively... — VagabondSpectre
This is what I mean by not wanting to have to consider everyone's emotional well-being to the N'th degree. — VagabondSpectre
I'm quite sure people don't drink because it's pleasurable (or they're thirsty), but rather because they're going to die if they don't. Obviously the same doesn't hold with regards to sexuality.Humans don't purposefully get thirsty, they just get thirsty. Drinking a cold liquid then becomes inherently pleasurable. — VagabondSpectre
Where have I done that? Stop straw-manning please. I know that you don't really have arguments against me, because I read through your post and it's mostly blabber and completely off the point, but still you should have the decency not to be intellectually dishonest. Certainly you should read the passage you quoted again:Holy shit Aug, you're really gonna equate casual sex with suicide and cannibalism? — VagabondSpectre
No mention of cannibalism and suicide here.If two willing participants negotiate an anonymous contract whereby one will eat the other one alive, and they both give their consent, have they done nothing wrong? Again, this whole idea that consent somehow has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with the rightness or wrongness of an activity is absurd. If I force you to have dinner with me, that's as wrong as if I force you to have sex with me from the point of view of consent. But clearly, we take me forcing you to have sex with me as a much more serious offence than if I were to force you to have dinner with me. Why is that? — Agustino
The morality of respecting one's freedom is different than the morality of sex. We were talking about the morality of respecting another's will (consent) at that moment.We generally don't let people end their lives for no good reason Aug, if you want to talk about the morality of euthanasia we can do that, and subsequently about the morality of consuming dead humans, but these are two separate discussions from the one we're having. — VagabondSpectre
Right motherducker, and did I say anything different?! The immorality has nothing to do with the underlying activity (whether this is SEX or EATING DINNER), but rather with the infringement of their freedom. And in both cases, there is the SAME infringement of freedom.The main reason why "forcing people to have meals they don't want to have" is immoral is actually because you're removing their freedom, not because eating food is an inherently harmful act. — VagabondSpectre
Right, so we can conclude that having dinner with me is not immoral. Now you stopped looking at the question of consent, and looked at the underlying activity. Do the same for sex. Stop looking at consent. It has NOTHING to do with it.Now, if I consent to dine with you, and to clean my plate save for the squash, has any harm been done upon me? (the answer is no) — VagabondSpectre
Right, exactly.So when you hold someone captive, there's the immorality of that, and then what you do to them constitutes additional moral infractions above and beyond just imprisoning them. — VagabondSpectre
Riiiiight >:O >:O >:O - and until now you were saying that the prostitute does a service just like the McDonald worker - no difference!! Can you see how that was a piece of crap that you're contradicting yourself now? So now you finally admit that sex is different from other activities. It's more invasive. Maybe I should start like you. But why? Why is it more invasive?! Ahhhh is it because it has to do with their personhood, and involves their whole being, just like I told you before eh?!Because it's more invasive, it's more important to have that consent. — VagabondSpectre
Bullshit. Forcing you to do something against your will is immoral, regardless of what I force you to do against your will. But - there can be additional immoralities that have to do with the underlying activity that I force you into, and those immoralities have to do with the activity in question and its nature, not with disrespecting your will.Because it's more invasive, it's more important to have that consent. — VagabondSpectre
Nope. Giving someone a tattoo is immoral in both cases. However, when you force them, there are two immoralities - the immorality of forcing them against their will, and the immorality of harming their body. The latter one is the only one that has to do with the activity of giving them a tattoo in and of itself. The other one has to do with respecting their will.Of course consent has something to do with the rightness or wrongness of an activity. If I give a tattoo to someone who wants one, it's not immoral. If I tattoo someone who does not want one, then it's immoral. — VagabondSpectre
Yes it's not. Why not? Because the underlying sexual activity isn't immoral, and you respect her will.If I have consensual sex with my wife, it's not an immoral activity right? — VagabondSpectre
That is immoral not because of the underlying sexual activity (which is moral, you're having sex with your wife), but because you force her to do something against her will. If you forced her to have dinner with you in the same manner, that would be equally immoral.But if I have non-consensual sex with my wife, it's rape. — VagabondSpectre
Sure, but that's NOT because the underlying activities done to them are immoral, but rather because you infringe upon their will.Doing actions upon people who do not want those actions to be done upon them constitute moral infractions against the afflicted party. — VagabondSpectre
I absolutely can, but stop changing the subject. I pointed out to the fact that breaking your will and forcing you to have dinner with me, is not as immoral as breaking your will and forcing you to have sex with me. You have answered, FINALLY - that having sex is more "invasive" than having dinner. So you perceived my point, even though you're being a little snitch and trying to hide this, that there is something in the underlying activity, beyond consent, that makes one worse than the other. Consent is broken in both cases.Can you honestly not see the relationship between personal rights, consent and force? — VagabondSpectre
So Vagabond, does God randomly decide what actions please Him and what actions displease Him? Or does He have some rationality in so deciding? I feel that you think God is some sort of idiot who would make you do what's actually bad and harmful for you.I'm guessing that you came to this strange hill because in your mind God decided that certain actions please him and other actions displease him — VagabondSpectre
Irrelevant.And what if both parties go away from the glory hole happy with the exchange? — VagabondSpectre
Yes, because quite honestly, you're just using this as an excuse to think of yourself as moral, when you should be thinking the opposite. It's a problem that you don't consider other people.I don't have time to consider everyone's emotional well-being and I refuse to coddle strangers. If I'm going out of my way to benefit someone's emotional well-being then that's morally praiseworthy, but it's enough to not go out of my way to damage the emotional-well being of others — VagabondSpectre
Yes, and it's absolutely morally wrong to harm another knowingly, even if they accept this through their will.Adults who have no mental disability must be allowed to make decisions on their own rather than someone making decisions for their own good. If and when bad things happen to people as a result of their un-coerced choices, that's life. — VagabondSpectre
It means the same shit you were saying when you said sex is more invasive than having dinner :s Really, you're feigned ignorance is pathetic.What does "whole being" mean? If I had to guess I would say some emotion-esque nonsense about souls and sin. Am I right? — VagabondSpectre
Yes, a scientific foundation is exactly what you lack, that's why you can't even distinguish properly between different aspects of morality.Please take this as a request for a somewhat rigid or scientific definition for whatever the fuck it is you mean by "whole being". — VagabondSpectre
:s I don't care if they're virgins, but I do care if they're decent people who strive to be moral. Someone who goes out every weekend to shag a different person is highly immoral, and definitely not decent, so yes, I wouldn't be interested in them. If someone had sex because they had a boyfriend or something, then that's understandable to a certain degree (though obviously still immoral).I bet that the fact that most women are out there having casual sex causes you emotional harm because you feel like there are therefore less virgin women for you to choose from. — VagabondSpectre
Yes, and so should men. They should strive to do that, they may fail, but that's not that bad if they're at least trying. But many, especially amongst men, don't even give a fuck, and that's very immoral, and a serious problem.Do you think that women should be obligated to save themselves in case you wind up being their future spouse? — VagabondSpectre
I'm ego-centric? >:O >:OEveryone else is free to live the way they want to live despite your ego-centrism. — VagabondSpectre
No, that's not what I'm saying.Let's step back and think about what you're saying though: an illegal alien who works your garden dirt cheap is losing some kind of dignity in comparison to the citizen who sells their labor for a livable wage. That's a sensical appraisal, but it's not "immoral" for the illegal alien to sacrifice their dignity in a consensual agreement with their employer, they're free to make such an exchange and we have no recourse to judge them for it. — VagabondSpectre
Oh really? I didn't know we had a special term for it. You surely had to bold it and make it obvious. So what if it's rape? :s Why the hell does it matter that we call it rape and not fjhsdhdas? Breaking someone's consent is immoral - on top of that is added the immorality of the sexual act (fornication) and therefore we assign it a special place of immorality, and call it rape.Sex without consent is rape. — VagabondSpectre
No, it's not. Consent is part of respecting your will, which is different from dinner morality and sex morality. It is also a part of morality, but a different aspect of it.Consent is a part of "dinner morality" just as it's a part of "sex morality". Please tell me you realize this... — VagabondSpectre
I see you've run out of arguments, and into speculation.Your whole notion that certain actions are in and of themselves immoral must not stem from any kind of harm based moral argument but instead from some kind of arbitrary and absolute god morality where actions are inherently immoral because they breach some immutable and objective standard ("god morality"). — VagabondSpectre
Immorality doesn't only harm you in the afterlife, but in this life also.Do you honestly think that some god-like force reached out to you and then communicated that if you don't obey it's will it will torture you for eternity in some terrible place of no return? — VagabondSpectre
No it's not. It's not an inherent end of sex. That's exactly why masturbation is wrong.Biology gets us to have sex by offering up the reward of pleasure, which for us is an undeniable end of sex (i.e: why you masturbate). — VagabondSpectre
Ehmm, yes it does actually mean we need to treat it with reverence and respect.Just because sex was the original act which caused our inception doesn't mean we need to treat sex like some sacred domain. — VagabondSpectre
Intimacy is one thing that can only be achieved, to that same extent, via the sexual act. That's why it counts as an end of sex. Sure, you can be intimate by sharing food - but that's not as intimate as having sex. Why? Because sex is fucking more invasive, you yourself said it just a few moments ago! It's kind of pathetic how you pretend to forget what you have said, and shift from contradiction to contradiction because you want to run away from the truth."Fun/pleasure isn't essential to the nature of sex"... That's very sad, but it's true. "intimacy and (emotional?) closeness" are also not essential to the nature of sex though, nor are they unique to sex. You can feel intimate with and close to someone through verbal interaction alone. Orgasms are a big part of sex but they are also not essential if we're speaking broadly about sex. Really the only essential characteristics of sex are physical contact and or the involvement of sexual organs. — VagabondSpectre
No, because the same degree of fun achieved with sex can be achieved via other means. So that "fun" isn't essential to define sex. It's not the same as reproduction and intimacy. I told you to read Aristotle, and you should, because then you'd actually understand what essential means, and how it opposes accidental. Accidental doesn't mean that there isn't a connection between two things, but rather that that connection does not belong to the essence of the activity.So, if we had to define sex intelligently, we could say that it is something that can lead to reproduction, or intimacy, or fun/pleasure, or any combination or these things. — VagabondSpectre
The end of eating is providing nutrition for your body. It's NOT pleasure. Pleasure is an accidental feature of eating. Likewise for sex. And it has ZERO to do with whether something is required for living or not.You cannot equate nutritional health with whether or not someone chooses to reproduce or to seek intimacy as intimacy and reproduction are not required for an individual to go on living. — VagabondSpectre
The freedom of people is only part of morality. We're talking about the intrinsic morality of certain actions now, so stop bringing in the freedom of the people. The freedom isn't negated because action X is immoral. They're still free to engage in it, but that doesn't change the fact that it is immoral.You only feel that way because you think reproduction and intimacy have intrinsic moral importance, which is a fairly crappy moral position because it negates the moral freedom of people to choose whether or not to seek intimacy or to reproduce. — VagabondSpectre
Care to answer the questions? Or do you prefer to run away?Denying your spouse sex entirely is potential grounds for a divorce. I don't understand how that compares to euthanasia (or in this case some kind of suicidal-vore fetish?). These insane moral equivalences you make grow increasingly disturbing... — VagabondSpectre
Answer the damn questions..."We" haven't really established anything Aug, you keep saying random variations of the same vague and sometimes disturbing platitudes and I keep accusing them of being undefined and contradictory to common sense. — VagabondSpectre
There's no moral equivalence there. I didn't say they're equally wrong. I'm using it to illustrate a point, namely that there is an intrinsic morality of an activity which has ZERO to do with consent. So stop pretending like you don't see it, and answer the questions. It's very simple. You can either answer the question if you have a good answer, which would be able to illustrate that you are right, or you can run away, fleeing from the truth, because you don't have an adequate answer.You're just assuming that sex is necessarily harmful and then making false moral equivalences between sex and slavery or sex and suicide or sex and cannibalism... — VagabondSpectre
False, as I've explained above. Just like pleasure isn't a valid end of eating, so pleasure isn't a valid end of sex. A valid end of sex is what is essential for sex, what sex is aimed at. It's aimed at reproduction and intimacy, the same way eating is aimed at nutrition. Simple.Pleasure is just as much a valid end of sex as is reproduction and "unity"... — VagabondSpectre
You're not subverting anyone mate, you're just running away now that you don't have answers anymore.On an unrelated note I've come to realize that I severely enjoy subverting you through music: — VagabondSpectre
I'm quite sure people don't drink because it's pleasurable (or they're thirsty), but rather because they're going to die if they don't. Obviously the same doesn't hold with regards to sexuality. — Agustino
Where have I done that? Stop straw-manning please. I know that you don't really have arguments against me, because I read through your post and it's mostly blabber and completely off the point, but still you should have the decency not to be intellectually dishonest. Certainly you should read the passage you quoted again: — Agustino
Right motherducker, and did I say anything different?! The immorality has nothing to do with the underlying activity (whether this is SEX or EATING DINNER), but rather with the infringement of their freedom. And in both cases, there is the SAME infringement of freedom. — Agustino
and until now you were saying that the prostitute does a service just like the McDonald worker - no difference!! Can you see how that was a piece of crap that you're contradicting yourself now? So now you finally admit that sex is different from other activities. It's more invasive. Maybe I should start like you. But why? Why is it more invasive?! Ahhhh is it because it has to do with their personhood, and involves their whole being [CITATION NEEDED], just like I told you before eh? — Agustino
Bullshit. Forcing you to do something against your will is immoral, regardless of what I force you to do against your will. But - there can be additional immoralities that have to do with the underlying activity that I force you into, and those immoralities have to do with the activity in question and its nature, not with disrespecting your will. — Agustino
Nope. Giving someone a tattoo is immoral in both cases. However, when you force them, there are two immoralities - the immorality of forcing them against their will, and the immorality of harming their body. The latter one is the only one that has to do with the activity of giving them a tattoo in and of itself. The other one has to do with respecting their will. — Agustino
That is immoral not because of the underlying sexual activity (which is moral, you're having sex with your wife), but because you force her to do something against her will. If you forced her to have dinner with you in the same manner, that would be equally immoral. — Agustino
You have answered, FINALLY - that having sex is more "invasive" than having dinner. So you perceived my point, even though you're being a little snitch and trying to hide this, that there is something in the underlying activity, beyond consent, that makes one worse than the other. Consent is broken in both cases.
If someone says I wanna buy this pill and kill myself with it, it's wrong to sell them the pill. WHY? According to your stupid logic, which you don't even agree with, this shouldn't be wrong, because they've given their consent! (think of your stupid tattoo example) — Agustino
So Vagabond, does God randomly decide what actions please Him and what actions displease Him? Or does He have some rationality in so deciding? I feel that you think God is some sort of idiot who would make you do what's actually bad and harmful for you. — Agustino
Irrelevant. — Agustino
Yes, because quite honestly, you're just using this as an excuse to think of yourself as moral, when you should be thinking the opposite. It's a problem that you don't consider other people. — Agustino
It means the same shit you were saying when you said sex is more invasive than having dinner :s Really, you're feigned ignorance is pathetic. — Agustino
Yes, a scientific foundation is exactly what you lack, that's why you can't even distinguish properly between different aspects of morality. — Agustino
I don't care if they're virgins, but I do care if they're decent people who strive to be moral. Someone who goes out every weekend to shag a different person is highly immoral, and definitely not decent, so yes, I wouldn't be interested in them. If someone had sex because they had a boyfriend or something, then that's understandable to a certain degree (though obviously still immoral).
And yes, of course sexual immorality affects me - as well as everyone else in society, including children and couples. That's why divorce rates are through the roof and people can't even have a fucking family anymore. So many children growing up with a single parent or worse. — Agustino
Yes, and so should men. They should strive to do that, they may fail, but that's not that bad if they're at least trying. But many, especially amongst men, don't even give a fuck, and that's very immoral, and a serious problem. — Agustino
I'm ego-centric? >:O >:O
Says the guy who likes shagging random people because it "feels good", and who isn't concerned about their emotional being, because, well that's too much to ask of him, they should take care of themselves! >:O >:O Give me a break! — Agustino
No, that's not what I'm saying. — Agustino
Oh really? I didn't know we had a special term for it. You surely had to bold it and make it obvious. So what if it's rape? :s Why the hell does it matter that we call it rape and not fjhsdhdas? Breaking someone's consent is immoral - on top of that is added the immorality of the sexual act (fornication) and therefore we assign it a special place of immorality, and call it rape. — Agustino
No, it's not. Consent is part of respecting your will, which is different from dinner morality and sex morality. It is also a part of morality, but a different aspect of it. — Agustino
I see you've run out of arguments, and into speculation. — Agustino
Immorality doesn't only harm you in the afterlife, but in this life also. — Agustino
No it's not. It's not an inherent end of sex. That's exactly why masturbation is wrong. — Agustino
Ehmm, yes it does actually mean we need to treat it with reverence and respect. — Agustino
Intimacy is one thing that can only be achieved, to that same extent, via the sexual act. That's why it counts as an end of sex. Sure, you can be intimate by sharing food - but that's not as intimate as having sex. Why? Because sex is fucking more invasive, you yourself said it just a few moments ago! It's kind of pathetic how you pretend to forget what you have said, and shift from contradiction to contradiction because you want to run away from the truth.
And no, I'm not talking of "essential characteristics", but rather essential ends. — Agustino
No, because the same degree of fun achieved with sex can be achieved via other means. So that "fun" isn't essential to define sex. It's not the same as reproduction and intimacy. I told you to read Aristotle, and you should, because then you'd actually understand what essential means, and how it opposes accidental. Accidental doesn't mean that there isn't a connection between two things, but rather that that connection does not belong to the essence of the activity. — Agustino
The end of eating is providing nutrition for your body. It's NOT pleasure. Pleasure is an accidental feature of eating. Likewise for sex. And it has ZERO to do with whether something is required for living or not. — Agustino
The freedom of people is only part of morality. We're talking about the intrinsic morality of certain actions now, so stop bringing in the freedom of the people. The freedom isn't negated because action X is immoral. They're still free to engage in it, but that doesn't change the fact that it is immoral. — Agustino
Care to answer the questions? Or do you prefer to run away? — Agustino
There's no moral equivalence there. I didn't say they're equally wrong. I'm using it to illustrate a point, namely that there is an intrinsic morality of an activity which has ZERO to do with consent. So stop pretending like you don't see it, and answer the questions. It's very simple. You can either answer the question if you have a good answer, which would be able to illustrate that you are right, or you can run away, fleeing from the truth, because you don't have an adequate answer. — Agustino
False, as I've explained above. Just like pleasure isn't a valid end of eating, so pleasure isn't a valid end of sex. A valid end of sex is what is essential for sex, what sex is aimed at. It's aimed at reproduction and intimacy, the same way eating is aimed at nutrition. Simple. — Agustino
You're not subverting anyone mate, you're just running away now that you don't have answers anymore. — Agustino
In his mind, he took away my humanity, everything that I am and turned me into a disposable object and I was not allowed to get upset about that. — TimeLine
Casual sex is symptomatic of a carelessness to ones own integrity and there is no value to it other than obtaining an orgasm or a fleeting sense of pleasure, ultimately targeted by those that have built a disjunctive against reciprocal significance of love or affection. They become nothing but a body that reduces the intimacy to nothing more than a mere transaction. The dilemma here is two-fold; the impact at a macro-level as mentioned below notwithstanding the psychological and epidemiological and your responsibility as a moral agent, but if we reduce the significance of sex to become devoid of meaning, it enables a permissibility of many acts of sexual deviation including non-consensual. Such intimacy must be reciprocal both sexually and emotionally to establish meaning. — TimeLine
This is not about right or wrong on a case-by-case basis and sexual objectification is not emotional, we are talking about what is going on in your mind; what is in question is your interpretation of the types of women that exist under these particular settings. This is an objectionable point of view because it brazenly assumes and overall contributes to imagined constructs that devalues personhood. It lacks the acknowledgement of the person and such assumptions form social pressures that contribute - just as marketing and mainstream media do - to a number of psychological problems where men and women become obsessed with their appearances, getting plastic surgery or drawing on eyebrows to perfect themselves, for what exactly? You're loose moral contributes to something much greater. — TimeLine
What do you even mean the female body becomes protected in public display? Protected from what exactly? :s — Agustino
Obtaining orgasms are sometimes the only value that people want out of sex, what's so wrong about that? — VagabondSpectre
Sex is an act between people. It cannot be separated for the significance of others and reduced to a pleasure motivation. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Let's see what you said I did:The ordering of my quotations got a bit messed up, but surely you didn't forget making that comparison:
"Furthermore, if sex always involves one's whole being (as a person), is it right and loving to deny your beloved sexual fulfillment, by denying them intimacy, for example? Or do you mean to argue that you simply do not care about the actual needs of the other, but only what they say, such that if they were to tell you that their need is to be eaten alive, you would proceed to give them a hand with it?"
There you go.
I'm not strawmanning you at all Aug, you've said all this shit on your own... — VagabondSpectre
There is no equating of casual sex with suicide and cannibalism up there. A comparison, illustrating how consent is irrelevant to the immorality of the underlying activity, doesn't mean a comparison between the gravity of two different underlying activities. You're really having a hard time aren't you? :sHoly shit Aug, you're really gonna equate casual sex with suicide and cannibalism? — VagabondSpectre
No, stop right there. I wasn't trying to argue that. Seems like you have reading comprehension issues. I was illustrating that breaking of consent is one moral issue (which happens both in rape and in forced feeding) and the underlying action - feeding and sex - are another set of moral issues.you were trying to argue that sex is inherently more harmful than forced feeding as a part of your argument that casual sex is inherently harmful — VagabondSpectre
A comparison of how traumatic each are is irrelevant since I never compared them in the first place in terms of their gravity. I've only said that the breaking of consent is the same, and equally wrong in both. The reasons why one of them is more wrong than the other is because on top of breaking consent is added fornication.but it doesn't apply because non-consensual sex is more traumatic than non-consensual food consumption, but non-consensual food-consumption is also more traumatic than consensual sex, which is possibly not traumatic at all — VagabondSpectre
Maybe because we value one's freedom more than we value chastity? :s Really, you're not having an easy time at all.If you still don't grasp this basic reality, answer this question: Why is sex between consenting adults not considered to be worse than kidnapping or forced feeding? — VagabondSpectre
Right, so if someone consents that the invasive action of eating them alive be done on them, then it's right to eat them alive? :s If not, then why the fuck not? Clearly NOT because of consent, so stop citing consent like an idiot.The important thing is that the person consent to the invasive action to be done upon them. — VagabondSpectre
No, they don't actually get paid less. My work is very non-invasive, and I don't get paid less either.We can say that the MacDonald's work is less invasive (and that's why they tend to get paid less) — VagabondSpectre
I never made this assumption.At this point you will just refer back to your original assumption (begging the question) god said sex is bad so it's bad. — VagabondSpectre
No, because they objectively burn and harm the skin of your body.Why are tattoo's harmful to the body? Did god say so? — VagabondSpectre
Don't give me this bullshit nonsense. Consent means that their will is broken. The additional trauma of it cannot have anything to do just with their will, cause their will is broken in forced eating too. It's the same will that is broken. In terms of consent, the same harm is done. So the additional harm can only come from a different source, not from the breaking of consent.Again, when sex is done against someone's will, it tends to be severely traumatic, that's why consent has a lot to do with the morality/impact/potential harm of sex — VagabondSpectre
Well you'd be pleased to know that I arrived at my positions on sexuality (certainly with regards to fornication) before I even became a Christian. So I think you can lay to rest your false imaginations.Well, actually, stupid people randomly decide what pleases and displeases "Him". The stupid people who either think they know "god" or pretend to speak on it's behalf sometimes try to use reason, but the assortment of centuries old moral positions found in religions contain so many stupid and retarded moral arguments that we're better off starting from godless scratch. — VagabondSpectre
I never said I'm destined for divorce :s - really is your reading comprehension that bad?You're the guy who moans that he is destined for divorce. — VagabondSpectre
That's absolutely not true, and stupid on top of everything else. Clearly I'm not promiscuous, and I'm a male, what makes you think there aren't such females? I've met quite a bunch of them actually. Maybe if you stopped hanging around in night clubs and other useless places you'd meet some too.You fear you will fail at marriage because you view everyone else as a greedy promiscuous slut who won't be able to resist cheating on you or to invest in life long monogamy the way god intended... — VagabondSpectre
Yes, that is indeed true, if we're speaking of my future wife now.When a woman has sex, "harm is done to her future spouse", (that's you). — VagabondSpectre
Probably not, for the simple reason that those women don't attract me in the first place. It would be very difficult for me to get married to someone promiscuous for the simple reason that they'd have to hide it for too long, as I wouldn't instantly marry them when I meet them.Your future wife is out there getting fucked, possibly as we speak. — VagabondSpectre
Again, I highly doubt it.Maybe she will even get pregnant (will she get an abortion and not tell you I wonder?) . — VagabondSpectre
Well Hanover right here explained the term to me a few days ago, so quite familiar I think ;)How familiar are you with the term "cuck"? (Don't answer that). — VagabondSpectre
"whiny beta male" - that concept doesn't translate to me, sorry to tell you.There's a few different political senses of the term, but a broad and main one essentially describes over-confident person who is in reality a whiny beta male whose insecurities (such as the inability to sexually satisfy their wife) winds up forcing them to make liberal compromises (such as letting another man sexually gratify their wife (ouch!)). It's used mainly because it bothers people with insecurity severely. — VagabondSpectre
"Alpha" and other concepts may apply to you and your life, but certainly not to mine. There is no such thing as an "alpha" or "beta" male. You must have quite a hard time always struggling to deal with such fictive imaginations, always trying to be "alpha" or whatever. That's not even how you win at the game of marriage - you don't win by "being best in bed" as that means nothing.You will of course go out of your way to make it clear that you're not worried about yourself (you're an alpha, that's a given), but the way go on and lament how all the other men will be enslaved to divorce makes it seem like that's how you really feel about your own future. — VagabondSpectre
Again, this may be a worry for you, but certainly it isn't one for me. I wouldn't marry a hyper-sexual person who always requires to be "sexually satisfied". I don't make sex a matter of self-esteem, as you seem to do. I'm comfortable in my own skin, knowing that nature has gifted me and my future wife with everything we need to satisfy each other. So all this is your projection, you seem to think that I structure my life by the same standards that you do. If my wife is a decent, chaste and moral woman without a promiscuous past (or who at least regrets her promiscuous past), what makes you think she'd be so concerned about it and unable to control herself? If I don't have sex with her until I marry her (but I will obviously live with her before that), how will I not know about her sexual habits and ability to control herself, the same way she will know about mine? And if she can control herself while not even having sex with me, what makes you think she wouldn't be able to control herself once she starts having sex with me?insecurities (such as the inability to sexually satisfy their wife) winds up forcing them to make liberal compromises (such as letting another man sexually gratify their wife (ouch!)) — VagabondSpectre
This isn't a matter of ego-centrism at all, it's just a fact. If you think you're never harmed by the decisions of others then you're absolutely deluded, let me tell you that. We are harmed by the decisions of other people, including with regards to sexuality. And it isn't only one way that I'm harmed. If these dangerous misconceptions (some of which you're also peddling) spread through society, then we'll live in a far worse place than otherwise.I brought up what I view to be your ego centrism because you have made it abundantly clear that the personal and private decisions of other free and consenting adults bothers you to the extent you consider yourself harmed by them. — VagabondSpectre
If my future spouse is having promiscuous sex, absolutely. So what? What's your point?The way you describe sex as harmful to one's future spouse must mean you yourself are being harmed by your future wife (if she isn't a virgin) before you've even met her. — VagabondSpectre
I'd be glad if they call me a cuck, so that I may proceed to correct them, and hopefully clear out some toxic views with regards to sexuality that they themselves hold. That way, I'll make the world around me a much better place.This has a bit of the "protests too much" angle, and so you should be aware that voicing many of your points in many mainstream political circles would be met with the "cuck" retort. — VagabondSpectre
No it's absolutely not ego-centric. Ego-centric is something that I derive pleasure from, something that is selfish. There's no question of selfishness here, because what you call "my sense of entitlement and harm" is nothing but a natural human reaction, which you have perhaps repressed in your own self. Respecting yourself isn't the same as selfishness. You're really having a hard time tonight.But I am pointing out that your sense of entitlement and harm regarding the private actions of other people is ego-centric and seems like a psychological insecurity. — VagabondSpectre
Right, it's not as harmful as non-consensual sex, that doesn't mean it isn't harmful.Clearly that's not the case because non-consensual sex is deemed by society to be harmful/illegal/immoral, while consensual sex is not considered to be illegal/harmful/immoral in the same way. — VagabondSpectre
No it's absolutely not a highly relevant aspect of dinner or sex morality. It's a highly relevant aspect of the morality of interacting with others, regardless of what kind of interaction you have with them. Again, seems like you have no clue what you're talking about. You fail to see a very simple distinction.In both cases "respecting the will" of the participants is a highly relevant issue in many respects, and so trying to separate out consent from "sex morality" sounds absolutely ridiculous and as if you're totally unfamiliar with how your own ideas actually sound. — VagabondSpectre
Sorry, you've pointed out zero real problems.It's because you have an internally contradictory view of sex (warped) that causes you to A, not understand my own moral framework, and B, to jump back and forth (cognitive dissionance?) between random, varied, and inexorably contradictory positions as you try to avoid the many problems I've pointed out. — VagabondSpectre
The latter. And no, without masturbation you won't necessarily become stressed and sexually frustrated. It's something that comes with practice, given that we live in a very promiscuous and hyper-sexualised culture. You actually feel much better in many regards without masturbation.Without masturbation you will become stressed and sexually frustrated unless you have a partner who is adequately available for sex.
Let's clarify though: masturbation is bad because it's pleasurable or because it's not intimacy or reproduction oriented? — VagabondSpectre
Yes, I think you should, but I have no idea how exactly you'd "disrespect" it...What about the bed upon which your parents fucked in order to conceive you, must we treat that with reverence and respect? — VagabondSpectre
Quite the contrary, I think it's you who is completely on the move back, projecting onto me your own ideas and your own worldview, which I do not share.It's because you have an internally contradictory view of sex (warped) that causes you to A, not understand my own moral framework, and B, to jump back and forth (cognitive dissionance?) between random, varied, and inexorably contradictory positions as you try to avoid the many problems I've pointed out. — VagabondSpectre
I never said sex is inherently harmful. Invasive =/ harmful.For example, you tried to argue that the morality of sex has nothing to do with consent (as if sex is an invasive procedure that is inherently harmful in and of itself), but then you went on to state that sex is not inherently immoral (and therefore not invasive/harmful?) so long as it's with your spouse. (to me this indicates some arbitrary specific standard around which you presently dance) — VagabondSpectre
Your question is bullshit. Rephrase it like "Why is sex an OK thing to do to your spouse and not an OK thing to do to a consenting non-spouse?" - well it's the way you value them ultimately. To one of them you have dedicated yourself to care for her unto eternity, and to the other, you're not dedicated to her at all, just want to use her body. That's wrong.Why is the harmful invasiveness of sex an O.K thing to do to your spouse but not an O.K thing to do to a consenting non-spouse? If your wife asked you to eat her alive, you wouldn't give her a hand would you? (protip: that last question is a red-herring) — VagabondSpectre
I've actually read all those books.You should read "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris, "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins, "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking, and if you have time "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" by the late great Christopher Hitchens. — VagabondSpectre
Yeah, if you've read Aristotle the way you read my posts I can clearly understand why you're so confused.(Spoiler alert: I've already read Aristotle but I missed the nonsensical bit that actually determined "necessary/essential ends/characteristics" to be the basis for moral oughts. — VagabondSpectre
Are you not traveling while you're joyriding silly boy?"The necessary end of bicycles is travel, therefore joyriding is immoral!" — VagabondSpectre
Nope, this is the wrong conclusion. If you ate JUST for pleasure, in other words, if you purposefully frustrated the end of eating (nutrition) then it would be immoral. That's like chewing food but not swallowing it, and instead spitting it out. Yes, doing that would be immoral precisely because it would frustrate the end of eating."The necessary end of eating food is nutrition, therefore eating for pleasure is immoral!" — VagabondSpectre
It's false that the necessary end of living is dying"the necessary end of living is dying, therefore living for pleasure is immoral!" — VagabondSpectre
Asinus! Are you not being aware when you're looking at art for pleasure?!"the necessary end of eyesight is awareness, therefore looking at art for pleasure is immoral! — VagabondSpectre
Are you frustrating the natural end by enjoying it? :s NO! It only becomes a problem if you frustrate the natural end on purpose. I can have as much sexy time as I want with my wife because I'm not frustrating the natural ends of sex, even though I'm having pleasure while having it."the necessary end of rest is to convalesce, therefore resting for pleasure is immoral!" — VagabondSpectre
First no, the necessary end of music isn't pleasure."the necessary end of listening to music is pleasure, therefore listening to gospel/hymns for religious enlightenment immoral!" — VagabondSpectre
Yes, actually the necessary end of a dildo IS sexual pleasure. And if I were to use the dildo to moralise against you, by perhaps waving it in your face, that would be immoral.The necessary end of a dildo is to be inserted into vaginas/rectums, therefore using it to moralize and condemn free agents is immoral! — VagabondSpectre
No. By that logic chewing food and spitting it out is immoral. If you eat less nutritious food, you're still eating nutritious food, so you're not frustrating the end of nutrition at all - you're not denying it.According to you masturbation is immoral because sex has essential ends of intimacy and reproduction, while pleasure is only accidental (sad). By that logic eating food for pleasure (choosing a dish for taste over nutrition) is immoral. Right? — VagabondSpectre
What makes you think God can be "straight" or "gay"? I think you're just committing a category error.What if God is gay though? — VagabondSpectre
What does being necessary to remain alive have to do with the natural teleology in question? Clearly you haven't read Aristotle very well AT ALL. And no, you can't make an assumption which you then proceed to negate.No, because intimacy and reproduction are not required to be healthy and go on living. Although, assuming that you're already well nourished, it's not harmful at all to chew and spit out food for the taste — VagabondSpectre
Yes, because you'd be harming your body, even if you didn't die. You don't have to die for something to be harmful.Yes you would be harming yourself, because eating food is required to go on living, intimacy and reproduction are not. — VagabondSpectre
Who says they're not required for happiness? You? I disagree.No, because "has reproduced" or "is in an intimate monogamous relationship" are not required for health or happiness, while "is well nourished" is. — VagabondSpectre
That doesn't mean it's not immoral, it just means it's acceptable in some circumstances because it's a lesser evil. Much like masturbation is for many people.Cannibalism isn't always immoral, sometimes it's necessary for survival — VagabondSpectre
No, not consent. But rather things like are you married to her (read, are you devoted to her for all eternity)? Do you care for her as a person? Do you value her for who she is as a human being? Is sex an expression of your love for her, or a selfish means of using her body to achieve pleasure for yourself?It's the context, the circumstances, reasons (things like consent) — VagabondSpectre
Same for casual sex. It seems you enjoy your double standards.We don't allow people to take their own lives generally because their reasons for wanting to do so are irrational/temporary/psychologically disturbed. — VagabondSpectre
And will the person in question be charged with just theft or more? And why?Wanting to eat someone isn't exactly a crime, but if you steal a body to eat we will arrest you for that — VagabondSpectre
Right, so the activity is inherently immoral, such that it requires forgiveness even in those limit cases you quote. I agree ;)but if you eat the dead co-pilot because you will otherwise starve, most people would forgive that — VagabondSpectre
Sorry to tell you, being insane aren't grounds for arrest. Try again please.If you convince someone to agree to be eaten, we will basically arrest you both on the grounds that you're both insane. — VagabondSpectre
Why don't we arrest you for being rude and disrespectful? Well, because we don't always punish immoralities legally. That doesn't change the fact they are immoral though.Why don't we arrest two adults who have consensual sex on the grounds that they're abusing and harming one another? — VagabondSpectre
So people are also capable of insulting each other without harming one another right? :sIt's because consenting adults are capable of having sex without actually abusing or harming one-another — VagabondSpectre
Why? Just because pleasure is associated with eating? That is not sufficient to qualify it as a fundamental end of eating. Just because most people choose food they enjoy eating? Again, that's irrelevant.Food is aimed at pleasure too though. Pleasure from eating is a fundamental end of eating — VagabondSpectre
First you have not illustrated that it's a nightmare. Second of all, it has zero to do with sexual repression, and the fact that you say that really tells me that you don't know what you're talking about. Repressing sexuality is very different than simply expressing it in the circumstances when it is appropriate. You're just throwing this word around, and it seems you have no clue what it means at all. So please, have a look at what Freud for example wrote about repression. Repression isn't simply being a celibate. A celibate doesn't repress their sexuality generally, but rather they sublimate it, which is very very different. You have very little knowledge of this, perhaps because of your stunted development due to your overindulgence in sex amongst other things.Even if I were to assent to your intrinsic purpose oriented teleological-moral nightmare of a confused and sexually repressed religious perception of the world — VagabondSpectre
No it's absolutely laughable how you think you could object that way, and it just illustrates your complete ignorance of the matters at hand. You're conflating pleasure and happiness. The two are not the same. The drug addict may feel pleasure, but we wouldn't call him happy.I could still object on the basis that evolution endowed us with pleasure attached to sex and eating because happiness is an essential end of human existence, and therefore we actually eat (and fuck) to be happy. — VagabondSpectre
If someone stares at you and invades your personal space, then they're in the wrong. Merely approaching you and speaking to you however isn't something I would expect you to be upset about. — VagabondSpectre
"Careless to one's integrity" is just as meaningless to me as half the crap Aug as been writing... Obtaining orgasms are sometimes the only value that people want out of sex, what's so wrong about that?
You employ a slippery-slope argument and suggest that sex for pleasure (as opposed to love?) will eventually lead to non-consensual sex (rape), which seems like a rather negative and presumptive view of things. Sex for pleasure is less satisfying than sex with an actual romantic lover, sure, but making casual sex out to be inherently harmful (especially along vague and subjective lines like "integrity") is just unsubstantiated prudishness. — VagabondSpectre
I don't devalue person-hoods by approaching women in bars. — VagabondSpectre
Give me a break, I just wanted to get laid, and I've had plenty of satisfied and unoffended customers. — VagabondSpectre
"Lacks acknowledgement of the person"... Give me a break and explain what you mean by this... Please... — VagabondSpectre
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.