Because of the way you incorrectly used it. I already made that clear. — Thanatos Sand

And in the above quote is where you misused it when you said "racial categories" when you were discussing two different ethnic, not racial, groups.

So, use the word correctly or I'm moving on. I have no time for people who refuse to use words correctly. — Thanatos Sand

That's a lie. I never did that. You were using the word "race" incorrectly and I pointed that out. I don't see how we can continue the discussion when you're dishonest. — Thanatos Sand

There are three human-constructed races: Mongolid, Negroid, and Caucasoid. There are no genetic differences/separators between these races. There are many ethnic groups within each race; they do have genetic differences between them. — Thanatos Sand

And in this regard, the postmodern is more humble and realistic in not assuming that the separation can ever be complete. — unenlightened

Kuhn never said scientific knowledge didn't progress. You need to read his book again if you ever read it a first time. — Thanatos Sand

You erroneously said there are genetic differences between the races. The Pygmies and Bantus are not different races. So, what you wrote doesn't support your claim at all. — Thanatos Sand

There is no post-modern dogma concerning science. To what post-modern thinkers and which of their theories are you referring? — Thanatos Sand

Is it worth trying to disentangle the construct from the concrete? — unenlightened

But if you think about it, it makes sense. For each value of loopOne, the whole of loopTwo needs to be completed. That's a lot more calculations than having, say, two independent loops — Agustino

int[] array1 = { 1, 2, 3, ..., n}
int[] array2 = { 1, 2, 3, ..., n}

for (int i=0; i <array1.length; i++) {
  for (int j = 0; j <array2.length; j++) {
    if (array1[i] == array2[j]) {
      playGongNoise();
    }
  }
}

int[] array1 = { 1, 2, 3, 4, ..., n}
int[] array2 = { 1, 2, 3, 4, ..., n}

for (int i=0; i <array1.length; i++) {
  if (array1[i] == array2[0]) {
      playGongNoise();
    }
  if (array1[i] == array2[1]) {
      playGongNoise();
    }
  if (array1[i] == array2[2]) {
      playGongNoise();
    }
  if (array1[i] == array2[3]) {
      playGongNoise();
    }
...
...
  if (array1[i] == array2[n-1]) {
      playGongNoise();
    }
}

I will think about it, haven't solved that one yet. But I did say:

That should preferably be avoided. — Agustino

Of course there are some situations where this wouldn't be feasible. — Agustino

That's because you have two loops nested inside each other. That should preferably be avoided. I'm not a computer scientist so I don't understand the theory very precisely, but I do know that having loops nested increases run-time significantly. — Agustino

I've used it before - it's really good for creating things that involve geometry and graphics. I've made a professional software with it for a client - and I also made a physics simulator with it for fun lol. — Agustino

By listing the first six prime numbers: 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, and 13, we can see that the 6th prime is 13.

What is the 10 001st prime number?

int primePosition =6;
float testPrime = 13;

while (primePosition < 10001) {
  testPrime +=2;
  for (int i = 2; i < testPrime/2; i++) {
    if (testPrime%i == 0) {
      break;
    }
    if (i == floor(testPrime/2)) {
      primePosition +=1;
      break;
    }
  }
}
println(testPrime);
println (primePosition);

Causality. — Agustino

These are empirical, sorry to disappoint. — Agustino

He actually did. — Agustino

Suuuuure, nobody, just several philosophical traditions :s — Agustino

Causality is actually a metaphysical not a physical category. That's why there are actually attempts, including by atheists like Bertrand Russell, to eliminate it from science altogether. You add gasoline, oxygen and a spark and you get combustion. That's a physical correlation. The causality is explained metaphysically through the natures of the elements added — Agustino

That's wrong. Metaphysics is required in the first place to make sense of any kind of physics whatsoever. It observes and categorises non-empirical first principles which we need in order to make sense of the world. Causality is one such principle that it needs to discover. Metaphysics works by establishing coherence mainly, but also correspondence. We certainly compare different metaphysics by how coherent they are. — Agustino

They do work, but the theory is false. The reason for example why objects attract one another via gravity given by Newton is false. We now know that it's the curvature of space-time that accounts for gravity, with mass having the property of bending the space-time continuum. — Agustino

"A good watch": Definition 1: A good watch is a watch which performs it's function well.

"A good watch" Definition 2: A good watch is a watch that satisfies my personal watch-standards.

"A good man" Definition 1: A good man is a man which performs his function well.

"A good man" Definition 2 : A good man is a man that satisfies my personal "goodness/morality" standards. — VagabondSpectre

I actually do mean definition 1 in both cases. A man who performs his function well is a moral man. That's what Plato illustrated if you read, for example his Republic, or if you read Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics. — Agustino

Not at all, my moral argument from teleology holds that we all, as human beings, have the same telos, which is by no means "average", but quite the contrary. Our telos is what human excellence itself would be. — Agustino

but rather that morality is a mutually shared/cooperative agreement that we generally figure out based on what makes us both happy/unhappy — VagabondSpectre

This is demonstrably false. A cannibal may look for a victim who wants to be eaten. It would not be moral for that action to happen, even though they both share the same values and would think they are profited from it. — Agustino

note: the controversial sentiments of a few people aren't sufficient for my standards of moral argument. The values which I do base moral arguments on are the most universally shared values available — VagabondSpectre

This is false, and a form of argumentum ad populum, which is a fallacy. — Agustino

You're now moving goalposts again. If you can recognise their concepts as being concepts of love instead of something else, then they clearly do share commonalities. — Agustino

Sorry, science isn't in the business of deciding on metaphysical questions. Science just had to find predictabilities and understand how one thing is associated with another. Science is in the business of identifying correlations. — Agustino

Gravity being nothing else than the apple falling to the ground when you drop it, I understand. That's just a predictability that you observe in the world. — Agustino

Yes of course they affect ability to think/feel so what? That doesn't mean that ability to think/feel doesn't also affect the physical brain - gasp - it does! It's called neuroplasticity. Glasses affect your ability to see, but so do your eyes. — Agustino

I think you are. — Agustino

>:O >:O >:O Good one, you must be one of those people who does metaphysics while they're thinking they're not doing it. — Agustino

Even if you had all the pieces of the puzzle you would STILL not be able to assume that, since it's a matter of metaphysics, not of physics. — Agustino

ORGANISMIC ACTIVITY >:O >:O - sounds like a soul to me! In fact PRECISELY like a soul, for the soul also is an activity, and not a thing ;) (don't forget forms are act, matter is potency) — Agustino

No it hasn't. All that has been demonstrated is that objects in the Universe we have observed seem to currently attract each other. There's no statement there about this happening in the future, why it happens, or whether it even happens outside of what we know as the visible Universe. And in fact it's worse - things are actually not even attracting, so we postulated this weird dark energy that we don't have a fucking clue what it is. Maybe just our understanding of gravity is wrong. That's what my money is on actually. Einstein overcame Newton, and someone will overcome Einstein. That's science - always looking for more and never reaching an end. — Agustino

That's scientism at its best. No we have a piss poor understanding of our emotions, and the like in all truth. A large of the so called understanding we have is culturally mediated and only valid in certain cultures. — Agustino

There are two issues here. The statement "a moral man is a good man" uses a different and colloquial meaning of the term "good" that the statement "my watch works good" employs. The "goodness" of a moral man has to do with what I believe to be moral in the first place while the "goodness" of a watch has to do with how well it performs it's function. This is known as equivocation. — VagabondSpectre

That's false. We're looking for objective morality, and we have shown that a good doctor is objectively one who is good at healing, where healing is the doctor's function - and objectively so. A good man also depends on his function, in similar manner.

There is no equivocation between the terms, the terms good have the same sense in both phrases. It's funny how now you're all backpeddling and moving goalposts - soon you'll be falling off the pitch! — Agustino

So what if I can't convince you? That means I wouldn't be right? :s That's certainly a very strange way to establish what right and wrong is. But clearly when you run out of other means, you appeal even to those!

But alas, you can sleep well, it's not my purpose to convince you in particular that casual sex is wrong. I've done my purpose in this thread by educating you on Aristotelian philosophy, so that at least you understand the basics correctly and see the motivations behind the distinctions Aristotle drew. Maybe you'll come to your own conclusions later. — Agustino

I've been fascinated by the Cold War.

I find it incredible that the U.S. and the USSR essentially played a zero sum game and maintain a bluff of potential absolute annihilation with each other over almost 50 years. Brilliant minds like John von Neumann and many other unmentioned names designed a situation that assured the consequences of war too costly to undertake. The amount of, I don't know what to call it, steel nerve required to maintain composure during such tense and volatile times astonishes me. What's even more astonishing is that we purposely stalled progress on ABM technology to maintain the precarious balance of power during that time, which I see as a cause for the anxiety of rogue states acquiring nuclear payload deliverability. It's another topic but had we advanced ABM technology, I don't think we would have seen as large of a threat as we see today with countries like Iran and North Korea developing ICBM deliverable nuclear payloads.

So, with the rather recent collapse of the Soviet Union in human history and with it the threat of mutually assured destruction, are we in a better situation today to enjoy a safe future? — Question

If such was the case, then perhaps our happiness too would revolve around how well we use our hardened heads, so yes, I don't see why not. — Agustino

Sure, but then differences are never so big such that we don't recognise someone else's description of love, are they? The mere fact we recognise someone else's description as a description of love, shows that our different experiences have commonalities. Furthermore, you're speaking of love in a very narrow sense (simply erotic love), but love is much larger than this, and even erotic love presupposes charity (love of neighbour) - for your beloved is always first your neighbour and only secondly your beloved. — Agustino

I don't think you can make this argument. This would be a metaphysical, not a physical argument. Love is correlated with the state of the physical brain, that's what we do know scientifically, but to go beyond that would be to overstep the boundaries of science. — Agustino

And equally compelling evidence comes from people like this man: — Agustino

Yes, you are correct! But your misunderstanding is in thinking that Aristotelians disagree with you, they don't. Distinctions are matters of the intellect and they don't exist as distinctions in reality. The functions which the intellect takes to be separate are actually one thing in reality — Agustino

Right, but even so, it does not lack scientific evidence, which is what your initial claim was stating. So that claim is false, we can clearly discard it. — Agustino

The test is simple. Do people have such capacities? If they do, then it is clear. It has a lot of predictive power - we rely on that predictive power even in this discussion. For example on prediction is that you have will and intellect - if you didn't, I wouldn't be trying to have this conversation with you. — Agustino

This is not true. Metaphysical categories, such as forms, aren't just placeholders, they are absolutely essential to give a final account of reality - a metaphysical account - above and beyond physics. Whatever the ultimate level in physics happens to be, we must still account for why that level is such as it is. And to do that, we'll have to make an appeal to its nature - to its form. It simply has such a nature so as to have such properties. If we don't do that, we cannot explain why it does have the properties that it does. And this is true regardless of what ultimate physical constituent we land on. — Agustino

It still is true today - quarks display these mysterious qualities - as does quantum mechanics as well. Why should it behave the way it does rather than another way? It's just as mysterious today. — Agustino

This is actually false. It has never been described by fundamental and elementary particles. Physicists think it can IN PRINCIPLE be so described, but it has never actually been done. — Agustino

Clearly it's not just the body, because the same body can also be a dead body, which is not animated at all. So something - the form - which we would describe via a process in the brain most likely - is so responsible — Agustino

This is false. You cannot assert a causal link based purely on correlation. For all you know, idealism could be the case, and everything is thought, and indeed then neurons firing in sequence are the result of thought (though not of your thought, or conscious thought that is) — Agustino

This isn't so simple, because what counts as being violable must be determined, via an argument as well. — Agustino

:s gravity would in no way count as a first principle. — Agustino

Okay, so it seems that so far you agree that we describe something as good if does its function well, and a moral man is a good man. Thus to determine what a moral man is would be equivalent to determine what a good man is. So, since we appeal to the function of a thing/person to determine whether they are good in a certain context (like for the watch, hairdresser, doctor, etc.) it seems quite intuitive that we should appeal to a man's function in order to determine whether he is a good or a bad man, and thus whether he is moral or immoral. — Agustino

But in the past, you werequite obnoxious about morality being dependent on teleology, in multiple instances, here's one of them: — Agustino

And finally comes the assumption that the telelogical hierarchy of necessary ends of these realities constitutes a sound basis for objective moral reasoning. This is just bullshit predicated on bullshit... — VagabondSpectre


You even called it bullshit, but it seems to be quite reasonable now. You seemed to say that we can't establish what man's ends/functions are, which may be true, but that doesn't invalidate the claim that morality must be based on teleology (if it is to be based on anything at all), which we have just shown to be true. So by your own words now you admit that it isn't bullshit at all, and it's not a silly assumption to make at all, but quite the contrary, it is dictated by the very logic we have so far pursued. So I think you should retract that statement. — Agustino

No, this isn't what I asked you to retract. I asked you to retract your definite statement that there is no evidence. Not that you do not see that there is any evidence. That is an entirely different thing.

One thing that is important in this discussion if it is to be productive is that we each stick with what we have said. If we start moving goal posts, and changing what we say, etc. we'll get nowhere. You said something, and we've just shown that it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. If you meant something else, that's all fine and good, but you must agree to retract what you first said. — Agustino

Well this is very quaint, because if we are to go by shared experience, then I think we'll have to conclude the very opposite of what you do in fact conclude. As I have illustrated, most large societies that have ever lived have been quite conservative with their sexual norms - certainly more conservative than we are today. — Agustino

And if we do, then you'll remark that the number of large civilisations (to take into account population) which have held to conservative sexual standards, far outweighs the opposite. Sure, there were tribes here and there who lived nude, and who didn't think casual sex immoral. But then virtually all the large religions of today have a very conservative sexual morality, and we're talking even atheistic religions like Buddhism now. So if we are to take mankind's experience as a whole, I'm afraid we'll have to conclude that casual sex is immoral. — Agustino

This is all fine and good, but it would of course depend on what you mean by being free of oppression. I do want to be free of oppression, but what I consider oppression may not be oppression to you, and inversely, what you consider oppression may not be oppression to me. So it's still not very simple, even though we do agree fundamentally that we want to be free of oppression - but what we mean by this is actually different, and our superficial agreement would only hide this. — Agustino

Indeed, but we have managed to isolate genes, and determine that certain genes for example lead to higher risks of certain diseases — Agustino

Certain thoughts and intentions are immoral, and wanting to have sex with a woman and approaching her on that basis is one such inherently immoral/un-virtuous thought — VagabondSpectre


Yes. Now, that we have established this, can we move forward? What I am interested in is not whether mutually consensual casual sex between two single adults is immoral (which is a case-by-case situation that depends on a number of factors), but this very assumption that enables one to assume the right to approach a woman with the sole intent of having sex with her. This objectifies the woman - turns her into an object or a thing - that who she is, what she thinks, what she has done etc., are all irrelevant as you yourself have confirmed. When your objective has been fulfilled, her as an object is no longer necessary and she becomes disposable. — TimeLine

Don't contradict yourself. Was it not you who said:
This is what I mean by not wanting to have to consider everyone's emotional well-being — VagabondSpectre — TimeLine

Friendship itself enables the opportunity to experience mutual care and trust and other duties that are constitutive of a relationship and this relationship draws two close enough to begin a teleological purpose and where one becomes motivated by concern and affection for their said-friendship. This shared interest in one another' well being enhances the experience of empathy, because they begin to share a genuine bond and a shared sense of what is important. — TimeLine

When two people who lack this friendship or said-bond are in a relationship based on mutual need rather than empathy and love, it always results in unhappiness. There may exist deception and lies, blanketed by an external show that is bound together by social or perhaps even familial expectations. — TimeLine

To pursue a sexual relationship preceding friendship would mean that you are not seeking to form this bond or that you desire to learn more about and experience the person. This is wrong and why any sexual relationship should be initiated only after forming a friendship. — TimeLine

I only intend to approach women with sexual interests in mind in reasonable settings, such as a club setting, although circumstances can make this a bit of a grey area (i.e, body language)). — VagabondSpectre


A 'grey area' is not good enough. You should be concerned about the intent itself and the formulation of categories that hastily generalise. — TimeLine

Why must love be designed in the first place? — Agustino

And there is actual evidence, namely our experience of love. — Agustino

No, you cannot back that up with evidence at all. You cannot show that love is just a chemical cocktail, you yourself have just admitted this. Maybe what you want to say is that you can back up with evidence the fact that the experience of love involves the release of certain chemicals within the body, but that is an entirely different story. Correlation does not necessarily entail a causal link. — Agustino

Okay, I don't think you have the right understanding of what a soul is in Aristotelian terms, but for now we'll work with yours. So you say that a "rational soul" is the form of a living thing with nutritive, perceptual, and mind components. You also say that "the actual form that humans take can be understood by the actions/functions that they manifest". So if the form is understood by the actions/functions they manifest, then clearly the test to determine the existence of the form is to see if they manifest the respective actions/functions that the respective form would entail. But previously you said:

The assumption that humans have a "rational soul" is not proven or scientific. — VagabondSpectre

I believe that it's time to retract this statement, since we have shown that forms are understood by the actions/functions they manifest (just like atoms would be understood by the actions/functions they manifest) and we do know that human beings have nutritive, perceptual and mind components - we know it from direct observation. — Agustino

No it's not satisfactory. Substances per Aristotelian ontology are composed of form & matter - hence the doctrine of hylomorphism. This isn't a very controversial thing, since both matter (potential) and form (actuality) are required to have an actual, real substance.

The form of the living body, as Aristotle writes in De Anima, is known as the soul. The form of the body has nothing to do with the shape of the body. Rather, the soul is the principle by virtue of which the body is a living body, instead of a dead body. The soul is not some ghosty thing which has the shape of the body, and leaves the body upon death to go up to heaven, or whatever you may have imagined when you made the silly statement that there is no scientific evidence for the soul. — Agustino

Now forms give the matter that they govern the powers that it has, and only those powers. Forms are absolutely necessary to explain the behaviour we notice in matter. Take the simplest particle, the quark. Why does it have the behaviour that it does, and not some other behaviour? Clearly to explain this we have to postulate a principle which governs its behaviour. Even if, via the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle that behaviour happens to be somewhat random, we still require a reason why it's random, and not non-random — Agustino

Also think about genes. You say that genes are responsible for the features that we have. So why do genes have such powers? This is more besides the point, but you have to understand why Aristotle postulated forms in the first place. — Agustino

Now - we have discovered that the soul is the form of the living body, and together they constitute the creature in question. If either the soul is gone, or the living body is gone, then we cannot have the creature. Once the creature dies, the soul disappears or dies - and the body stops being ANIMATED (Anima = soul). That's why, for example, Epicurus the atheist and materialist believed in souls - he, unlike Aristotle, thought that the soul dies with the body.

Now a rational soul is distinguished by the powers it gives the respective body. Namely all the powers the vegetative soul has (nutritional, reproduction, etc.), all the powers of the animal soul (locomotion, sensory, etc.), and in addition to those, will and intellect, which are uniquely human powers (as far as we know). There's nothing primitive about Aristotelianism, in recent years in fact it's been coming back very strongly in philosophy of science. — Agustino

Okay. So then that seems a bit contradictory to me because on the one hand you do not want to stick to the very well defined philosophical terminology of Aristotelianism, but at the same time you want to avoid the vagueness that exists in other more colloquial terminology. — Agustino

How do we go about choosing correct premises? A conclusion is only as good as the premises, but mostly because the premises already contain the conclusion. But clearly we decide on the premises before we decide on the conclusion. Therefore it is at least logically possible to get to the conclusion without any premises, right? Certainly it's not the argument that will decide what the truth is, for the argument always presupposes premises, and premises always presuppose some other source - other than arguments. — Agustino

Your objection to my premises can always happen - it's not constrained by anything, except your honesty and your experience. — Agustino

Okay I see. So then I think you'll also agree that a good watch is one which tells the time right, a good hairdresser is one which does your hair right, and a good eye is one which allows you to see well, correct? — Agustino

Would you agree that a moral man is a good man? — Agustino

But would you agree that if anyone, regardless of who they are, understands what we mean by doctor, then they will also understand that a good doctor is one who is good at what we mean by healing? I'm trying to talk about the underlying concepts now, not about whatever words we use to refer to the concepts, so just checking if you're still with me. Because concepts are objectively related to each other in a certain way - such as doctor with healing. — Agustino

Right, so I think you should retract the statement that there is no evidence for the tradition, since quite clearly you do not wish to prove a negative. So we can cross this one out. — Agustino

So if I say that the function of the heart and the cardiovascular system is to pump blood that is my personal definition, and no more true than saying that the function of the heart and cardiovascular system is to stare at the moon? — Agustino

Well it's quite peculiar that you complain that my morality is based on experience, on what is yours based? — Agustino

Your body cannot actualise a form, rather a form actualises your body, and together they make the substance you consider to be "you" — Agustino

Okay, so let's see, why do you think evolution is opposed to Aristotelian teleology? I think that quite the contrary, evolution requires Aristotelian teleology to make sense. If you think about it, a certain combination of genes produces a certain effect. Clearly it seems that specific genes are directed towards producing a certain range of effects, which is exactly what modern molecular biology is discovering. If specific genes weren't directed towards a specific range of effects, then evolution wouldn't even get off the ground, because everything would be chaotic. One day gene X caused blonde hair, and the next day the same gene would cause purple hair! So natural selection would have nothing to select from if there wasn't this underlying teleology. — Agustino

I am going to do my best to avoid most of the nonsense that you write and try to find the best parts of your argument, because it is clear that you are a broken record incapable of thinking beyond your little world and that somehow writing lengthy posts would enable you to present yourself as an authority on this subject when, by your own admission, you have stated that you enjoy such argumentative tact. I personally find that distasteful. — TimeLine

This is the last time I am going to say this to you. I am NOT talking about individual, case-by-case situations. I am talking sexual morality. Do you understand that? It is not harmful to them - we are not discussing a problem of ethics - I specifically wrote it is about the person' intent, what you think, how you perceive. You keep on going back to the same thing, hence the broken record. — TimeLine

It is the other way around; through friendship one becomes morally conscious, they begin to experience empathy. And as I will reiterate (again :-d ) that seeking a genuine bond with a man does not suddenly mean that I am averse to sex, so I would appreciate your coercive subtleties to be kept to a minimum; was it not you that said that you should not be concerned about the emotional well-being of women? — TimeLine

I didn't speak about God at all. So why are you bringing God in? I've asked you to prove merely that love is JUST a chemical cocktail and nothing more. It's not a black and white thing. If love isn't just a chemical cocktail, that doesn't mean God exists, so don't be scared. This is not a trap. I'm just asking you an honest question. — Agustino

And don't you need to prove your point if you want to convince us that love is just a chemical cocktail? Or do you expect us to fall down before your great wisdom in blind acceptance? That sounds quite like what you project on religious people to tell you the truth. It's quite hypocritical to hold others to standards you don't hold yourself to. — Agustino

What does that mean? I didn't ask you to recite what I said, I asked you what it means. You say you're familiar with Aristotelian tradition, so please go ahead and explain to me what exactly a rational soul is. What is this thing that human beings are formed of? — Agustino

Okay, I agree. What would you say "obscure" and "unsubstantiated" mean? How do you make a belief "clear" and "substantiated"? — Agustino

And would you agree that we mean someone good at healing, instead of good at baking pies, because we appeal to the function of the doctor, and so we consider a doctor to be a good doctor when he performs his function well? — Agustino

Right, and I agree with that. But to claim that this tradition is presented without evidence is quite silly - even on an a priori basis, some of the brightest minds who have ever lived have believed it. To really make that claim you must first show that you understand that tradition, and show that it lacks such evidence, something that you haven't done. To be able to do that, you'd have to engage with the tradition, do you agree? — Agustino

The fact that it necessarily frustrates the telos of intimacy of sex. — Agustino

the object is disposed of and replaced. — TimeLine

Love at first sight is also load of garbage, because the fact is that your intention to pursue a romantic relationship should always follow friendship. — TimeLine

You and Aug are both doing the exact same thing in different ways, that is you are seeking for entirely selfish purposes based on what you want, but through friendship one develops empathy, which enables one to give love and so you no longer desire that type of gain and turn that narcissism away to feel care and admiration for your partner. They are no longer an object but a person and when this is reciprocated a genuine bond is formed and thus one begins the process of a romantic relationship. — TimeLine

So yes, it is immoral to approach a woman with the intention of pursuing a sexual relationship, unless this follows you approaching a woman with the intention of getting to know them as a friend. — TimeLine

To be morally conscious - which is established by friendship - is the language that enables empathy and thus ultimately love, the cognition and capacity to connect to the external world and identify other people. You thus consciously experience the world, otherwise you are doomed to remain trapped in your own limited cognitive framework, unfeeling and mindlessly controlled by your instinctual drives and an environment that dictates how you should behave. If your environment endorsed rape, would you do it? Or having sex with a prostitute who may have been kidnapped and forced into sexual slavery? Or be in an unloving relationship because you attain social praises?

Without morality, you are a mindless drone, a non-person. — TimeLine

You thus consciously experience the world, otherwise you are doomed to remain trapped in your own limited cognitive framework, unfeeling and mindlessly controlled by your instinctual drives and an environment that dictates how you should behave. If your environment endorsed rape, would you do it? Or having sex with a prostitute who may have been kidnapped and forced into sexual slavery? Or be in an unloving relationship because you attain social praises?

Without morality, you are a mindless drone, a non-person. — TimeLine

I think you may be having some trouble being philosophical. It was rather tedious reading most of what you wrote because clearly you fail to understand what it is that I am attempting to convey, as proven below: — TimeLine

VagabondSpectre wrote: "Strictly speaking, your notion that approaching a woman to find out if she's interested in sex is immoral because if she's not interested then she and society yata yata yata are harmed is like saying that it's immoral to make eye contact with any other human being because they might have some sensitivity that renders eye contract a traumatic experience for them. —


Timeline wrote: :-|

VagabondSpectre wrote: "Sexual objectification" isn't the same as whatever "devaluation of person-hood" is. I don't suddenly forget that sexy women are people too because I talk about their body as if I'm attracted to it... — VagabondSpectre


Care to explain your logic here? — TimeLine