Yes, and you are a person who runs away when they are forced to face the truth.

Running away much? :s And you claim I run away from responsibility - ain't that interesting now?

But I assure you, that IF I had a choice in the matter and a christian came and explained me the conditions, I would scream and say NO I DON'T WANT THIS. — Beebert

You cannot create a valid conditional around a necessarily impossible hypothesis.

Where is God justified in he holocaust? If he is behind it, he is evil. Even if he foreknew it he is evil IMO. — Beebert

A little puny ass human crying about stuff. What did God answer Job? Who do you think you are to question God's decisions? Do you think you have the wisdom required to know whether what God did was good or bad?

Where did the jews who were executed go? Heaven or hell? — Beebert

I'm not sure, only God knows what is in their hearts.

Hell according to most christians. — Beebert

No, this is just false. I don't know what Christians you met, but most Christians would not affirm this.

Now, read the article by Schopenhauer if you want. It is a good one. — Beebert

I will read it in due time, I'm a bit busy at the moment.

I refer to writings such as The sheperd of Hermas among others — Beebert

So is Christian literary writing of the same value as Scripture or Tradition?

They all take the position that if one falls away after becoming a christian, one is damned. One is not even forgiven if one asks for forgiveness. What kind of a revengeful and vindictive diety is that? — Beebert

Quite a vindictive one I'd say, but who told you that they are not forgiven? Scripture makes it clear that the only unforgiveable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and that's not because God cannot forgive it, but rather that someone who has committed it doesn't want to be forgiven anymore.

Then apparently, God is so angry at him that he will never forgive him according to the early christians. This is repulsive. This young man then has nothing to do but to wait for an eternity in an agonizing fire. I find that unacceptable and evil — Beebert

That's false.

What is the relation between predestination and election on the one hand, and God's omnipotence and omniscience on the other? — Beebert

There is no predestination and election.

If God foreknew my fate, then why did he create me if my fate is eternal hell? — Beebert

God may know, but it's still your choice. Hell will not be forced on you. You will take yourself to hell out of your own will. Perhaps you're already doing it by agonising over this.

2. What is eternal hell? — Beebert

According to Eastern Orthodox tradition of which I am a member, eternal hell is the same as eternal heaven - being in the presence of God. So if you hate God, you will experience God's Love as a burning fire. If you love God, you'll experience it as bliss.

https://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/spirituality/the-kingdom-of-heaven/heaven-and-hell

3. Why did Christ speak about an eternal and unforgivable sin without really clarifying what it really is? It has brought tremendous suffering to many in the world. — Beebert

He did clarify what it is. It is blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which essentially means perceiving the Holy Ghost to be Satan. That's what the Pharisees whom He condemned were doing - they attributed the works of Jesus, to Satan. So if when God speaks to you, you perceive Him as Satan, then you can never be saved, since you'll naturally hate God (thinking that he is Satan) and seek to run away from Him. Basically some people become so twisted by their immorality, that they perceive evil to be good - then nothing can be done to save them.

If God foreknew the fall of man, why did he create man? And if he foreknew the damnation of many, why did he create them? — Beebert

I don't know. But if you have faith in God then you can trust that God had good reason to do it.

I wouldn't mind if it were true as long as God doesn't threaten me with eternal torture — Beebert

God doesn't threaten you, rather you threaten yourself. God is Love - the only question is if you will accept that Love and not run away from it. God won't send you to hell. If you end up there, it will be because you want to be there. For example, if you're in love with immorality, then you won't want to be in Heaven.

"you have no choice in the matter. I create you. Now obey me or be prepared for an eternal fire." — Beebert

How can you have a choice in creation before you exist in the first place? :s

Only Christianity has the person of Jesus Christ, that's why Christianity is a "scandal" to the world.

May I ask you:

but the more I see how disgusting I find some christian writings(even early writings) I am starting to feel that much of it is based on hatred — Beebert

What's disgusting in those writings and what are you referring to?

But once again, when reading early writings from for example the apostlic fathers who lived in the early 2nd century, I find much of their teaching disgusting. — Beebert

What teaching is disgusting?

There, one is forgiven at maximum once. If one fails, one goes to be tortured forever. What kind of vision of God is that? — Beebert

Sure sure, but you have to first figure out what "failing" means, and also what this "eternal torture" refers to.

Then, frankly, if christianity was true, life ought not to be. — Beebert

What's the justification for this claim?

What are your thoughts? — Beebert

No religion apart from Christianity has the person of Jesus Christ. It is the person of Jesus Christ that is the centre of Christianity.

I bring God into it because that's the only other source of "why love is what it is" (with it's specific telos, etc...) that I can imagine you have in mind other than evolution (as a basis for why this telos is morally important) — VagabondSpectre

This is false. Buddhists for example don't believe in God, and yet they'd disagree that evolution alone is responsible for what love is, if you take evolution to be a purely physical process.

(Or in other words, why should our teleological assessments of "love" be taken as morally necessary to pursue or immoral to frustrate?) — VagabondSpectre

Good question, we will answer it in due course.

If only evolution designed love — VagabondSpectre

Why must love be designed in the first place?

To say that love is something more than it's physical description, from my perspective, makes a claim that begs for actual evidence (my scientific standards). — VagabondSpectre

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

Claiming that love is basically a chemical cocktail and evolution is the bar-tender is something I can back up with evidence. — VagabondSpectre

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.

So, Aristotle's soul is the actual form that humans take which can be understood by the actions/functions that they manifest. Plants have only the "nutritive soul" (where seeking nutrition and consuming nutritious material is an action inherent to the form of plants), while non-human-animals have a "perceptual soul" in addition to a nutritive soul (they perceive things, but do not understand them), and finally human-animals actually have "a mind" aspect to their soul, which is what supposedly makes us totally special and unique, and able to actually engage in complex activities which require complex understanding. A "rational soul" is the form of a living thing with nutritive, perceptual, and mind components. — VagabondSpectre

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.

So if the above is satisfactory to you, can I now tell you why I think Aristotle's teleological approach to understanding the world (per the above) is a primitive and poor basis for objective moral reasoning? (let alone critical and scientific thinking)... — VagabondSpectre

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.

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.

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.

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.

By "clear" I mean with language that is not tied to some specific (and ancient -_-) school of thought or thinker who tended to use their own vocabulary in specific ways, but also, and especially also, not using using or invoking concepts which point to very complex phenomena without at least giving a solid definition and description of what that phenomena is (for example: "emotional well being" or "person-hood") — VagabondSpectre

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.

So I really like it when premises and conclusions are clearly defined and clearly articulated. — VagabondSpectre

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.

In terms of "substantiated" all that I ask is that your premises logically follow from your conclusions (or are made highly probable by them) — VagabondSpectre

I would hope the premises don't follow logically FROM the conclusions.

If I cannot object to your premises, and I cannot disagree with the logic your conclusion employs, then I'll accept the conclusion. — VagabondSpectre

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

"Good" can be used as a adjective describing someone skilled in their profession, so yes? — VagabondSpectre

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?

And when we say "doctor" we don't mean "baker" due to an arbitrary reality of the english language. — VagabondSpectre

Yes we don't but I don't wish to talk about language, but rather the underlying concepts.

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

We're not appealing to some innate and necessary function of an immutable "doctor form", per se, we're just pointing to the common understanding of doctor when we say it. — VagabondSpectre

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.

To show that a tradition lacks evidence I would have to engage with the tradition yes... — VagabondSpectre

Okay!

I'm not the one trying to argue that it has sufficient evidence though, that's your position, and I cannot be expected to prove a negative. You're the one who in the process of arguing for the position that casual sex and promiscuity are inherently harmful eventually pointed directly to the existence of a tradition (as evidence/argument) and now again are making this explicit appeal that the existence of a tradition is reason enough to believe something is valid until someone comes along and proves that the tradition contains insufficient evidence.

This is called an "Appeal to tradition". It's a well known informal fallacy and piece of sophistry/rhetoric that humans have irrationally employed for millennia. It's employment is itself a tradition. I'm sure there's irony hiding around here somewhere...

In other words, saying "smart people believed this stuff and it's really old so you need to show why it lacks evidence" is a fallacious appeal to my request that you explain to me why your Aristotelian teleological framework is a sound basis for a moral one, or at the very least what makes casual sex necessarily harmful. I think I've been very sporting of your constant demands that I rebuke Aristotle directly, so now maybe you can meet me half way and close the remaining logical gaps in your argument without demanding that I recite or paraphrase the meaning of the terms you employ without yourself actually qualifying them. — VagabondSpectre

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.

It ends with your personal definition of what the function of humans are. — VagabondSpectre

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?

Essentially it amounts to your own experience based assessment of how you think humans ought to live — VagabondSpectre

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

The "form" (soul) that my body "actualizes" wasn't merely created by my parents alone (they didn't design it) — VagabondSpectre

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

Evolution really gives Aristotle's teleology quite a hard time in my opinion. — VagabondSpectre

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.

Genetic mechanisms and the information they store is a much more interesting description of the form of the human body, and it's a world neither you, nor I, nor Aristotle can speak authoritatively about... — VagabondSpectre

Sure, I agree with you, but this genetic mechanism in no way negates teleology, because it is itself teleological as I've illustrated above. It just has to be to even get off the ground. Teleology just explains why a certain cause is directed towards certain effects and not towards others, which is just as needed today to account for science, as it was 2000 years ago. When we say for example that pollen particles suspended in water seem to undergo random motion as noticed even by the materialist Lucretius more than 2000 years ago, then clearly we have to attribute to something - in this case atoms - the power to produce such an effect on the pollen particle. We know this as Brownian motion in modern science today. But we must attribute only such a power to the collisions that atoms cause, and not for example the power to make the pollen particle fly to the moon. Clearly the underlying causes are teleologically oriented towards those effects.

From the original statement we started from we seem to have discussed the issues I crossed out so far:

The assumption that humans have a "rational soul" is not proven or scientific. Dividing this unproven soul into the "animal" and "vegetative" is an unsubstantiated extension of just assuming "rational souls" exist in the first place (regardless of how vague I might object the terms to be). Then comes the arbitrary moral value assumption that says the "vegetative" is more morally valuable than the "animal". 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 say this: — TimeLine

So if I call someone who is a tramp, a tramp (not to her face in this case) is that bad? Why? — Agustino

But then, earlier in your little tirade against me, you said: — TimeLine

That's not kind, that's not nice, and that's not virtuous. End of story. — Agustino

You contradict yourself constantly — TimeLine

Ok so what does the fact that I call a tramp a tramp have to do with the fact that I think some of your behaviour is not kind, nice or virtuous? :s How is that a contradiction? The only way I can see it as a contradiction is if you assume that calling an actual tramp a tramp is wrong, and that's precisely what I've asked you - if it is wrong. So you cannot answer me by the contradiction story, since that would be to beg the question.

so I am not kind or nice or virtuous when I speak, but you are? — TimeLine

When did I claim to be? :s Really, you keep making up shit, the same way you made up shit that I called you a dog. I never called you a dog - I said you were foaming at the mouth LIKE A DOG. Which was true, since you had an entire post written all in caps, combined with repeatedly insulting me for no reason by calling me an idiot, a moron, etc. Comments which by the way, you removed - good that I managed to quote them before you did. So I'm not quite sure which one of us is running away from responsibility.

is only deceptive to you and asking a multitude of irrelevant questions is as much a tactic as appealing to the 'many people agree with me' rhetoric when you attempt re-direct the blame to your interlocutor. — TimeLine

Funny that you project that on me. I'm not sure how I'm trying to get out of anything - I answered all your questions, the same cannot be said about you - you've avoided all my questions.

Several of your posts have been deleted if you haven't noticed. — TimeLine

No, only ONE post was deleted, and in my opinion that shouldn't have been deleted as I had a valid point. You tempered with your comments to remove evidence, that's not what a person with integrity does. It is true that it was quite a harsh post, but it nevertheless had a valid point.

This is not a game of who can write the most or who will give up first or who can manipulate words the best as a way to deflect any responsibility. Again, here you are contradicting yourself and you are indeed aggressive. — TimeLine

No it's absolutely not a game, and I never claimed not to have been aggressive, so why do you keep imputing shit to me that I've never said? You always do this. Always. Almost every single sentence contains a lie.

Here is a catechism from a site called 'Orthodox Europe' which is 'Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate'. There are 18 instances of the word 'sacrifice' on it, in such phrases as:

'Christ’s sacrifice for the life of the world...'

'a Cup, the symbol of Christ’s redemptive sacrifice...'

'Orthodox Tradition regards Christ’s saving sacrifice as a common act of love and self-emptying of all three Persons of the Trinity'...

'It is in this sacrifice that the love which exists within the Trinity was given and became known to humans....'

'The Local Council of Constantinople, which was convoked in 1157, stated that Christ brought His redemptive sacrifice not to the Father alone, but to the Trinity as a whole: ‘Christ voluntarily offered Himself as a sacrifice, offered Himself in His humanity and Himself accepted the sacrifice as God with the Father and the Spirit... The God-man of the Word offered His redemptive sacrifice to the Father, to Himself as God, and to the Spirit...’ — Wayfarer

I don't find this site to be trustworthy. A lot of the Anglo material isn't very good with regards to Orthodoxy, which explains a lot of the misunderstanding one finds here with regards to it.

However you miss the point that I initially made - sacrifice had a different meaning in the past, which is pretty much the meaning that Vagabond is talking about:

Jesus was the one ultimate sacrifice to god that was such a great sacrifice that it meant god could forgive the sins of all mankind (so they could achieve salvation/a blessed afterlife). — VagabondSpectre

This is where the Bible differs from myths. In myths and other ancient stories, sacrifices are made to appease the gods, and save a community (from the mimetic conflict as René Girard remarks). Thus something or someone profane - a criminal - is sacrificed, and because the community is saved through his sacrifice, he also becomes holy and pure - a hero. This is close to the old Latin meaning of sacrifice, which as I said before, is "to make sacred".

Now the Bible does carry the form of myths, however its content is anti-myth. For example Jesus is taken to be a criminal, put on the Cross, and killed, in an attempt to save the community. BUT the singular difference in this case is that everyone knows that Jesus is innocent. They no longer believe -
in good faith - that Jesus is a criminal who is responsible for the condition of their community. So the punishing of the innocent is shown clearly, and thus violence and scapegoating become impossible in good faith.

You can say that Jesus Christ sacrificed Himself to save us (& reveal the mimetic conflict) - however this "sacrificed" means something completely different. This means giving up on oneself, in order to benefit another. Jesus Christ willingly went to his death, even though He could have avoided it being God. In this sense, yes, he sacrificed himself. But His "sacrifice" has nothing to do with appeasing the gods, as the death of Jesus Christ isn't a form of penal substitution to a menacing God - contra what VS thinks, he's absolutely wrong about that. Jesus Christ is not "made sacred" through his sacrifice, nor is the Pharisaic community saved through it - but quite the contrary. The English language doesn't differentiate very well between these two meanings of sacrifice it seems.

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/morningoffering/2016/07/heresy-penal-substitution/

What is the point of asking me that? — Wayfarer

Because you have to illustrate to me how it makes someone sacred, how it appeases God, etc. if that's what you believe.

What I said was that Girard's account is naturalistic, not the Bible's. I'm not saying there's anything the matter with it on that account. — Wayfarer

Yes, I'm asking you why do you consider G's account naturalistic? G does not deny that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and the Messiah.

And I would have thought the former presupposes the latter. — Wayfarer

Why? Why is Jesus' death and Resurrection a sacrifice? It is true that Jesus died for our sins (that's why he was killed), but that doesn't mean that it's a sacrificial death. The reason why it's not is because it didn't perform the function of a sacrifice, which is at-onement of the community. It didn't bring peace, but division.

but that is immaterial for the account, which is naturalistic, is it not? — Wayfarer

Why do you think it's naturalistic? Quite the contrary, the coming of Christ is a divine revelation, not naturalistic at all...

it is commonly understood as a sacrifice. — Wayfarer

By who? The Orthodox don't typically view it as a sacrifice.

That is not what Christians believe, though. I believe you have said in the past that you are associated with the Orthodox faith - ask any orthodox Christian whether they speak of 'the sacrifice of Jesus', I'm pretty sure that they will tell you that is what their faith revolves around. — Wayfarer

No, that's actually not true at all. If I ask a fellow Christian, he will tell me his whole faith revolves around the death and resurrection of Jesus, not His sacrifice.

I am not familiar with Rene Girard, but I presume his account is naturalistic, is it not? Anthropological? — Wayfarer

René Girard is a Christian. He's a Catholic. His anthropology and work led him to convert and affirm the truth of the Gospels, since the Gospels are the opposite of all other myths.

As is obvious, many of those who originally followed Jesus were put to the sword for their faith. — Wayfarer

Precisely. But usually in myth, the sacrifice of the victim brought peace to society (that was Satan's lie). In this case the opposite happens - the death and resurrection of Jesus brings division, not peace in His society.

I think you're not quite aware of this Wayfarer, but sacrifice involves the sanctification of something that is profane. Sacrificium in Latin literarily means to make something sacred. This is from the previous blog post I put up:

virtually every god or hero of classical myth boasts an ambiguity of character that previous theories of myth could not fully resolve. Thus Apollo both sends plagues and restores health; Oedipus saves Thebes from a monster and then perpetrates a monstrosity that threatens to destroy Thebes.

The major theses of Girard’s theory are: (1) That, as Aristotle affirmed in his Poetics, human beings are the most mimetic or imitative of animals; (2) that the human propensity of one individual to imitate another, not only in gestures, but in appetitive interest and desire, conduces to the belligerent convergence of two or more parties on solitary objects of mediated and amplified allure; (3) that, as proto-humanity’s instinctual aversion against intra-specific aggression broke down, such mimetic convergence became an existential problem for the most advanced hominid groups, leading in one such group to a unique sacrificial crisis, in which excitation over an object became a war of all against all; (4) that the afflicted not-quite-community resolves its mayhem through concentrating the chaos of blows on an arbitrarily selected individual who therefore seems not only the cause of the riot but also the agent of its resolution. The victim is thus (5) transfigured in the new type of awareness that he creates as both miscreant and intercessor-god; he becomes sacred, and the sacred, rooted in the dissimulation of “the scapegoat mechanism,” is, as Girard asserts, the oldest of institutions.

But the story of the Gospel exposes the inadequacy of sacrifice. When Cain murders Abel, the sacrifice is shown to be evil, for it does not resolve the mayhem. When Jesus is put on the Cross, it is Satan that is killed and Jesus that is living - for the mimetic mechanism is exposed clearly for all to see, and we cannot blame the faults of society on the victim anymore, except, of course, in bad faith. You say that:

post-industrial culture simply doesn't 'get' the idea of 'sacrificial atonement' at all. — Wayfarer

And that's precisely the point Girard makes. We don't get the idea of sacrificial atonement because the idea is unjust at its core - and the Gospel exposes it as unjust and undeserved. Jesus the blameless Lamb is put on the Cross and killed - but His death, unlike the death of mythical heroes - does NOT resolve the crisis in society but rather exacerbates it. Jesus brings a SWORD:

"Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword"

The reason Jesus brings a sword is because he lays bare the injustice of the sacrifice, and therefore renders the sacrifice ineffective at dissolving the mimetic tension that builds up in society. Since the mimetic tension can no longer dissolve - there's no mechanism left for it to - society becomes more and more conflictual, since means of conflict resolution do not exist, except through repenting. Jesus has forced us to have a look at our own faces.

The idea that sacrifice ever worked was Satan's lie. Sacrifice never resolved the problems of society, quite the contrary, an innocent victim was killed to resolve the faults of society that they weren't responsible for in the first place. It was Satan's lie which kept hidden the underlying mimetic conflict, which is now completely exposed.

So the fact that we don't understand sacrificial atonement isn't showing the lack of success of Christianity - BUT ON THE CONTRARY. The fact we don't understand sacrificial atonement anymore is the profound success of Christ, which no one can deny.

Jesus is not a sacrifice. Jesus is not made sacred by His death. He was always sacred, he was never profane, therefore He could never have been a sacrifice. His death and resurrection was His victory.

To call Jesus a sacrifice isn't Orthodox, but heretical - it is blasphemy. It means to treat Christ as one of the many mythical heroes of the past - and that's exactly what Christ is not - He's the anti-mythical hero.

What the Christian faith offers in this context is the 'end of all sacrifice', i.e. the one supreme sacrifice by the 'source of all that is' of that which He loves most — Wayfarer

But the death of Jesus Christ on the Cross was not a sacrifice. This is precisely the point of the Gospels. Unlike all other myths, Jesus Christ was innocent. The sacrifice wasn't necessary. He was not guilty. Read more here (I've started to adapt your tactic to send you to other sources ;) - see, I'm learning from you):
https://orthosphere.wordpress.com/2017/04/29/truth-versus-the-crowd-in-the-work-of-rene-girard/

I said to Vagabond that he and yourself are doing the exact same thing, that is wanting rather than learning how to give and ultimately objectifying onto others your desires in different ways, and this followed what you yourself said: — TimeLine

How am I objectifying others through that statement? To objectify them would imply that I treat them as objects rather than persons, correct? That I treat them as tools, presumably for my benefit, right?

Even in this same sentence below, you do exactly what you say you are not doing, where you say you don't 'personally attack' followed by a personal attack, — TimeLine

How is telling someone they don't know what they're talking about when they make false statements, and telling them they're easily offended a case of "personal attack"?

Now my argument with Vagabond is that attraction and love to another person is about giving love and learning to understand the other person through empathy, which is formed through friendship. — TimeLine

Yeah, good, I agree. We're on the same side of this if you haven't realised.

You would not call people 'tramps' for a start, such Othering is unnecessarily aggressive. — TimeLine

So if I call someone who is a tramp, a tramp (not to her face in this case) is that bad? Why?

If you do not respect a woman that you encounter, brush your shoulders off and move on, but who knows, these so-called 'tramps' could quite simply be good women who don't fit into the category you expect of them. — TimeLine

Sure, but why do you think I wouldn't respect women I encounter? :s I referred to tramps who jump on you - that's what I actually said - so I think if they did that, according to your own logic (with which I don't quite agree by the way), they would have objectified me.

Who are you to judge? — TimeLine

Of course I will judge them by their actions. When you say I'm extremely aggressive, aren't you judging me? I could do the same - who the hell are you to judge? :s Maybe I'm a really nice guy - who are you to say I'm not? Just because I don't fit your preconceived standard of behaviour? Pff - stop objectifying me!

Do you really think I'm about to accept the burden of proving that god did not design love? — VagabondSpectre

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.

I figure you ought to prove the inverse if you want to base your own objective morality upon it... — VagabondSpectre

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.

According to you, it's what human beings are formed of, which includes capacities of the animal (sensory) and the vegetative (nutritive). — VagabondSpectre

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?

No but I hold that obscure and unsubstantiated beliefs are worthy of scrutiny before belief. — VagabondSpectre

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

What do we mean by a good doctor? Sure, someone good at healing.... — VagabondSpectre

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?

I think the following: that which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. — VagabondSpectre

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?

Now that I've answered your questions, please answer just a single one of my own: — VagabondSpectre

I will answer your question, but you won't understand the answer yet, so hopefully if we work through the questions I've asked you above, you will start to understand what I mean by this answer. So I would advise even if you disagree with the answer to refrain from critiquing it for now, so that you can begin to understand what it means. After you understand it, then you can begin critiquing it.

What makes casual sex inherently immoral/harmful? — VagabondSpectre

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

Easily offended? — geospiza

Yes, I believe that's what I wrote. What about it?

Edit: Well seems you've edited your post.

Yes, you do seem to find it easy to offend people. — geospiza

Again, I haven't insulted you. Why do you feel insulted? Can you explain that?

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

Can you please stop discussing and spewing falsity about me? There's nothing selfish about anything that I've said for that matter. Nor did I encourage treatment of women as objects, but rather quite the opposite. You should really be ashamed of yourself for letting your personal feelings towards me cloud your judgement to the extent that in almost each and every message of yours you have to say misrepresent what I say in order to be able to say something negative about me.

It was a mistake to admit it to what's-his-face because he just turned around and used it to personally attack me. — geospiza

I did not personally attack you - go back and read it again. It seems to me that you have no clue what you're talking about and you get very easily offended - that's not my fault now.

It would be good if your posts contained a bit more meat to them, at the moment it's full of empty verbiage, misunderstandings, strawmen and red herrings. So since you're not capable to regulate yourself and respond with due consideration, I will from now on address to you very few and specific questions, so hopefully you'll put more effort in answering them and we'll be capable to have a proper conversation.

Why bother making the juxtaposition if not to suggest some kind of equivalence between these two things? — VagabondSpectre

To illustrate that they are (or can be) both harmful in-themselves, without even bringing the question of consent into play.

So it's not the harm done to your wife that makes raping her immoral, it's that it's not "just" and "charitable"?

What in your virtue ethics makes it unjust (hint: does it have to do with consent?), and what does charity have to do with it? — VagabondSpectre

Charity involves compassion and taking care of others, if you force them to do something that's not very compassionate. The virtue of justice and charity do have to do with consent, among other things, in this specific context. However, the virtue of chastity (which is what we refer to when we call sex in and of itself immoral - has zero to do with consent).

My freedom would be restricted if i didn't have the right to have sex with consenting adults, not increased... — VagabondSpectre

Yes, but the immorality of casual sex does not restrict this freedom. We're not talking about making casual sex illegal. You said that I try to restrict your freedom - and that's false.

You mean your metaphysical assumption that love is more than it's physical description? I know, science ain't gonna help you there. — VagabondSpectre

I asked a question first. Since you say that love is JUST the chemical reaction visible in the body, the onus is on you to prove this, since a priori, it is at least logically possible, especially given our experience, that love involves a lot more than this.

You realize that all this can be brushed aside with no effort because it contains no actual evidence?

The assumption that humans have a "rational soul" is not proven or scientific. Dividing this unproven soul into the "animal" and "vegetative" is an unsubstantiated extension of just assuming "rational souls" exist in the first place (regardless of how vague I might object the terms to be). Then comes the arbitrary moral value assumption that says the "vegetative" is more morally valuable than the "animal". 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

Okay here's where I wanted to bring you. You've now said that this contains no actual evidence. Furthermore you've said that the "rational soul" is not proven or scientific. Please remember these two statements. I want you to take the questions below and provide me clear and direct answers - no evasiveness, no mocking, no nothing of that sort. Failure to do this will indicate that you're not interested to continue this conversation on a rational basis.

• What is this "rational soul" that you claim is not proven or scientific?

• What do you mean by scientific or proven in relation to the "rational soul"? Keep in mind that these words have different standards - a different standard of proof is required to show there is a tree outside your garden, compared to showing that atoms exist.

• Do you hold that only what is scientifically proven is worthy of belief?

• Do we mean by a "good" doctor a doctor who performs his function well, either in healing the ailments of the body/mind or in keeping the body/mind healthy or what do we mean? (telling me this question is irrelevant or somehow avoiding to answer it will count towards failure and evasiveness).

• Do you think you can dismiss a long philosophical tradition without even understanding its positions by just waving your hand and calling it bullshit? Something you don't understand isn't necessarily bullshit, and you have to, as of yet, show evidence that you do at minimum understand it. This is precisely the mistake Dawkins commits with Aquinas in his God Delusion.

you're necessarily drawing some sort of comparison between the harm of cyanide and the harm of sex — VagabondSpectre

Saying both are inherently harmful isn't comparing them.

Unfortunately you have failed to communicate a sensical position in regards to consent and sex. Very clearly you don't think consent has to do with the morality of sex, and so by that logic having non-consensual sex with someone must be the same as having consensual sex with them (plus some arbitrary violation of consent like being force fed cabbage). — VagabondSpectre

In terms of JUST sexuality yes. But this is not a problem. Since having sex with them doesn't involve just sexuality, it involves other virtues as well, such as justice and charity. So while in terms of sexuality there is no immorality provided that the non-consensual sex is with your wife, there would be immorality in terms of justice and charity. And since justice and charity are both more important than sexuality in terms of morals, then having non-consensual sex with your wife is immoral overall.

Really you're clearly not very well read, because Aristotelians through history have dealt multiple times with this objection that you bring up and you somehow think I never thought of :s

This is no red herring or strawman Aug, this is the messy underside of your poorly formed moral ideas. If I were you I would recant... — VagabondSpectre

No there is a strawman based on the fact that it seems your intellect isn't strong enough to be able to make the necessary distinctions or appreciate charitably the ideas presented, or if you lack knowledge, read and inform yourself.

If you have a no flyers sign and tell me not to dig a hole in your yard, but I send you flyers and dig a hole in your yard, I've breached your consent. — VagabondSpectre

No you haven't. You'd have breached my consent when you force ME to do something, not when YOU do something. In that case you've breached my right to property amongst several others, but not my consent.

If you want flyers though, and give me consent to send them to you, then the same action (sending flyers) becomes beneficial to you as opposed to harmful (consent changes the moral nature of the underlying action as it applies to individuals). If you're trying to install an in-ground pool, and you consent for me to dig the hole for it, then I'm actually doing something morally praiseworthy. — VagabondSpectre

You're equivocating between two different senses of consent.

Having consensual sex with someone is like giving them a consensual hair-cut. Both actions are not immoral because consent is involved and there is no necessary harm in the underlying actions... — VagabondSpectre

That may be true if sex were like having a haircut. But it's not. You said "it's more invasive" ;)

If so, can you explain why rape has the same moral gravitas as consensual sex + a minor infraction against someone's consent? (remember, because consent has nothing to do with the morality of an underlying action)... — VagabondSpectre

In scenario A you present one action, in scenario B you present two actions which are unrelated. That makes it impossible to compare directly.

I'm trying to escape your attempts to restrict my freedom via your crappy moral suppositions. — VagabondSpectre

How am I restricting your freedom? Since when is morality a restriction of freedom? Do you think your freedom is restricted for example because you can't eat other people? Do you think your freedom is restricted because you and others have property rights? No - actually your freedom is increased in these manners.

To be happy? (nope, because that's hedonism or something) — VagabondSpectre

It would be hedonism if happiness = pleasure - it seems you keep comflating the two, you can't even keep your mind straight mate. What's wrong with you?

Love is in fact a chemical cocktail. It's not a metaphysical or transcendent "force", it's a physical state of mind, and it was created and refined by evolution, not by god or some objective meaning of life. — VagabondSpectre

This is your assumption. You have yet to prove this, and let me tell you - science ain't gonna help you, because this is a METAPHYSICAL assumption.

In other words, the existence of love doesn't demand that we orient the entirety of our moral frameworks around it. — VagabondSpectre

It actually does, if you understood it.

Why are you allowed to frustrate one of the two necessary ends of sex?

Is there some kind of "satisfy at least one teleological end of an action and you're not immoral" rule?

I'd say that makes no sense according to your logic. If you're frustrating EITHER end you're doing yourself harm (by your logic). — VagabondSpectre

Yes, now you actually bring up something valid - took you a long time guessing and stabbing in the dark to put your hand on something that may be problematic. Not all Aristotelians would agree with me here, but basically here's my argument: Human beings are formed of a rational soul, which includes capacities of the animal (sensory) and the vegetative (nutritive) souls (ALERT: these are Aristotelian terms with clear definitions to which people who understand the definitions would agree, please don't cry about God) but adds to them the capacity for will and intellect (personhood). Granting that what differentiates human beings from animals is superior and greater (will & intellect), it follows that if it's necessary to sacrifice a telos that belongs to the animal and vegetative parts of the soul in order to achieve a telos that belongs to the human part of the soul then such is moral. Under this reasoning, if it's necessary to sacrifice reproduction, to achieve intimacy, then this would be moral, since (sexual) reproduction belongs to the animal part of the soul, while intimacy belongs to the uniquely human part of the soul. Another reason why promiscuity isn't immoral in animals, for them the telos is just reproduction, so they're not doing anything immoral, for promiscuity is something that hurts the uniquely human telos of intimacy. That's also why you're immoral if you have promiscuous sex aimed at reproduction - but it would be a lot less immoral than if you were to just have promiscuous sex while frustrating both intimacy and reproduction.

"consent has nothing to do with the morality of the underlying action", and because "I value them as a person, want to be intimate, reproduce, and express my love for them through the act of sex" (let's assume that I even marry her at a shotgun wedding, which also isn't immoral because "consent has nothing to do with the underlying morality of an action"), then how could this instance of rape possibly be immoral? — VagabondSpectre

You clearly don't understand. No it doesn't have to do with the intrinsic morality of the underlying action, but it DOES have to do with the morality of the human interaction that is presupposed by the underlying action. So even if the underlying action were moral, you can still commit some wrongs through the interaction (by for example imposing your will by force on another).

These are Aristotelian distinctions, which you don't seem to be capable to make even though you've read Aristotle (or so you claim). For example, there is talk of X being wrong in-so-far as it is considered in itself - this wouldn't include consent in the case of sex for example. But there is also talk of whether or not X is wrong (tout court), which would include other considerations apart from just the underlying action in and of itself.

I mean, you're the one who stated that cannibalism is always immoral but acceptable in some cases. I'm the one who is suggesting that it is moral (or not immoral to be specific) in some cases, such as in the case of survival necessity. — VagabondSpectre

No, it's never MORAL to murder or eat other people. It may be acceptable simply because it is the lesser evil - for example someone tries to murder you, and you kill them first. That's not moral, but it's acceptable, simply because it's the lesser evil for you.

I don't actually subscribe to the idea that some actions are in and of themselves immoral. I think that depends on intentions, circumstances, and in some ways outcomes. — VagabondSpectre

Right everyone does this. Distinctions exist at the intellectual level, not in reality. If you read some Aristotle, you'd actually know this. Again - the reason why your comprehension is so terrible is because you don't even have the basics clear. I'm not gonna educate you in logic and metaphysics now.

"Pleasure from eating is fundamental to human psychology. The drive to seek pleasure is just as fundamental as the drive to avoid pain and to stay alive. — VagabondSpectre

It's questionable whether there even is such a drive as seeking pleasure for its own sake. Furthermore, "pleasure from eating is fundamental to human psychology" is very questionable.

How does not getting married and not reproducing NOT frustrate "the necessary teleological ends of sex" (per your definition)? — VagabondSpectre

Because I don't undertake an action that frustrates those ends. I'm staying in my natural state - not marrying, and not reproducing - in other words not doing anything. I'm not taking any action which frustrates those ends. Not doing anything doesn't count as doing something that frustrates it. I don't die if I don't have sex, so there's nothing frustrated about my being or about my sexuality (as I've shown before).

Stop saying that consensual sex is in any way morally equivalent to suicide and cannibalism, and stop suggesting that consent has nothing to do with the "underlying morality of actions" (especially with reference to sex). — VagabondSpectre

I never claimed consensual sex is morally equivalent to suicide and cannibalism. You're strawmanning again and this is becoming very painful to discuss because of your ignorance of what I'm actually saying.

People don't generally begin a romantic relationship with the primary purpose of helping to cure the other person's imperfections. — geospiza

Does my sentence which you quoted say the opposite somehow? I don't see it.

I made no such admission to telling the "white lie" — geospiza

And?! Did I say you did?

I said only that there might be good reason to withhold disclosure of one's fantasies from others in some circumstances. — geospiza

Yes - that and the examples you gave are the problem.

I urge you to try it and report back on your experience. — geospiza

I did try it, it went very well. Not exactly with your fantasy (I never had that one), but rather with porn viewing. I told my girlfriend when I was 16ish (can't remember the exact ages), and she helped me get over it.

I don't understand why you wouldn't be honest - if the other person dumps you, that's good, you got rid of a son/daughter of a bitch who didn't love you to begin with, and who wasn't willing to help you overcome your moral defects and become a better human being. That's good in my books, and it should be good in yours too. You want someone who cares about you and is willing to be there for you and help you through difficulties, someone who you can be open with. And you want them to be the same with you too - open so that you can help them when they struggle with something, not afraid that if they tell you whatever you will break up with them or I don't know what. That's not a normal relationship where one of the partners fears that the other will break up with them if they are honest, that's a very abusive one, where people are in it just because they can get something from the other through deception, not because they actually love and care for them and are willing to help them become better people.

so please avoid attribution of either the "white lie" or the "full disclosure" to me personally. — geospiza

What do you mean avoid attribution? You yourself said it. And I absolutely do think you need to be educated if you think that hiding your fantasies about other people from your partner is a "white lie". It's absolutely not a white lie.

allocate blame in response to an honest admission. That speaks to your character. — geospiza

Yes it does, I'm trying to educate you not to do that to your loved one, because it would be very very bad for both of you if you did that. It's better to be honest if you have that fantasy, and discuss it openly, and work through it with your beloved rather than hide it from her through your "white lie", which isn't actually that white at all. If you repress it like that, it will just ruin your relationship or get you to do something that you regret.

Explaining why his behaviour is immoral is coming at him with a pitchfork. — TimeLine

No that's absolutely not coming at him with a pitchfork, you don't even know what you're talking about. A pitchfork implies violence (or certainly the threat of violence) used to get someone to behave a certain way, and no I haven't done that.

And I certainly wouldn't mind if someone wanted to discuss my behaviour being immoral, I have no problems with that.

Just to let you know: — TimeLine

Yeah give me a break. There's a difference between narcissism and a normal and adequate self-respect and self-esteem which takes into consideration your situation. If you consider yourself such that you're willing to sleep with just about anybody, there's something wrong with your self-esteem.

And who are you to speak when you say the following: — TimeLine

The one who knows myself and my body better than you do, clearly.

This is what you are refusing to discuss because you are trying to defend yourself from Aug who is coming at you with his pitchfork and torch; set that aside, we are talking rational ethics. — TimeLine

Keep quiet with your bullshit. Where have I come with the pitchfork? Did I say that sexual promiscuity, etc. should be illegal or what? Identifying an activity as immoral isn't coming with the pitchfork, as I'm not trying to get him to do anything by force. I'm just discussing with him, and explaining why his behaviour is immoral.

You should mind your conversation with Vagabond without discussing me.

I envy him because it is a nearly ubiquitous male fantasy to have an endless stream of desirable sex partners. The only good reason I can think of to deny it would be to protect the feelings of an exclusive partner (i.e. a white lie). You're not my exclusive partner, so I'm not going to lie to you. — geospiza

Well that's certainly not my fantasy. Do you think I'm lying to you? And no if you were to say that to your exclusive partner it wouldn't be just a white lie, it would be quite problematic because you're being dishonest about your intentions and how you feel about her. And that's actually very serious, you will never be capable to have an intimate relationship with someone if you'll keep up this dishonest behaviour.

Why would you want an endless stream of desirable sex partners? Give me a reason. An actual rational reason. If you say sexual pleasure, then you have to explain to me how that sexual pleasure benefits you.

As for why it's not my fantasy... well let's see, I work out, I have a sexy body that I'm proud of, why would I want some tramp to enjoy it eh? :s What you give diamonds out in the street for free, or what's wrong with you? No self esteem? No self-respect? I want to have sex with a woman who deserves to have sex with me, and I with her, in a committed married relationship, not with some random tramp from the gym or the night club that jumps on you >:O What the hell is wrong with people these days... You think I'm some sort of tradable commodity that she can have for one night or what? :s >:O

As far as I can tell, Vagabond is reaching more grapes than all of us put together. — geospiza

As far as I can see he has utterly failed, that's why he cannot even get married for fuck's sake - he himself admits that he would fail, what more evidence is required to see that he is someone who should be pitied, just like in the Buddhist story, and not someone to be envied. He cannot reach up to the goods that are available to those more moral than him, and so he resorts to drinking away his sorrow in empty pleasure. Personally I don't admire losers.

Different people want and enjoy different things, and to think that there's just one proper and correct sex life is misguided. — Michael

You haven't proven this. I have given reasons for supporting my views, a whole truckload of them if you bother to read through my conversation with Vagabond. However it's getting a bit boring since he has done absolutely zero to refute any of them. He prefers strawmen and red herrings.

The analogy that can be drawn is "if someone wants to have consensual sex with you, it's wrong to have sex with them in the same way (or by some degree of comparison) that giving them cyanide to kill themselves is wrong. — VagabondSpectre

No the analogy absolutely can't be drawn that way. The analogy compares the logic of the situation, NOT the gravity of the offences. Only someone like you can fail to see this. The analogy points that the underlying logic is the same. In the case of giving them cyanide, their consent doesn't make that action moral. Neither does their consent make the action of sex moral. Now, what the fuck does any of this have to do with which action is worse? :s Are you that incapable of comprehending what you read?!

By your logic someone who has enjoyable and casual sex but then force fed cabbage has been equally harmed as someone who has been raped but then not force fed cabbage, right? — VagabondSpectre

Read what I wrote above before peddling this stupid strawman for the 1000s time

If I breach your consent and mail you flyers and solicitations, I've breached your consent, and I've also infringed on your relaxation (a small but tangible harm). How big of a moral wrong is it that I've breached your consent? (hint: the gravity of breaching consent has something to do with the gravity of the underlying harm). If I breach your consent by digging a 30x30x10 foot hole in your front yard, then I've breached your consent and presumably caused substantial damage to your property. — VagabondSpectre

No, you haven't breached my consent, you've violated my property and a few other rights, not my consent.

So someone who is raped has their consent breached (one unit of consent-harm) and is harmed by the casual and consensual sex (one unit of sex-harm). So the person who gets raped likewise has (one unit of-consent harm) and (one-unit of sex harm). — VagabondSpectre

:s

So if you have sex with someone who consents to have sex, you would be doing something immoral to them like if you were to eat someone alive who consents to be eaten alive? — VagabondSpectre

No, if by like you mean a comparison of the gravity of the two offences. However, if by like you mean that they share the same logical structure, sure.

But, MacDonald's workers often burn their hands on the hot equipment, so I guess that makes MacDonald's work immoral, even though they consent. — VagabondSpectre

No, because burning their hands isn't involved in the work, it's something accidental. That's like me somehow getting injured by having sex with my wife - that doesn't mean the sex is immoral, because that's an accident, not something that belongs to the activity in itself.

Obviously the pain of tattoos is not significant enough for people to care about, so why is a moral issue? — VagabondSpectre

Because you cannot have a tattoo without injury the body, but you can work at McDonald's without injury.

It's this kind of confused thinking that will get you to say that rape is the same as casual sex combined with leaving sooner than your partner wants you to (i.e, after sex).

Sex is had in both cases and consent is breached in both cases. Right? — VagabondSpectre

No, consent is only breached when you actively force someone to do themselves against their will. If I do something that doesn't match what someone else wants me to do, that's absolutely not breaking their consent. Breaking their consent is forcing THEM to do something they don't want to do, typically through the use of force. You have a bit more studying to do.

I think when you explained that "freedom to stay married" is like "the freedom of a slave to escape", I cannot be blamed for reading in-between the lines despite your constant protesting that you yourself are not at risk. — VagabondSpectre

Oh yes, you can absolutely be blamed for assuming something that's not true. Just because something is the case for society at large is no indication that it is the case for me.

Peddling the idea that you and society are harmed when your warped morals pertaining to sex are breached behind closed doors is a very dangerous idea because if enough people really believed it they would probably go around enforcing it, just like your bible says to do. — VagabondSpectre

We only need to enforce it culturally, not legally - that would be a good thing, it would save a lot of people from suffering and pain. Certainly better than allowing you to enforce your idiocy culturally.

But if your future wife is out there having consensual sex right now, she's harming you. If you could magically communicate with her, you would probably tell her how badly she has emotionally injured you. That's selfish by my standards... — VagabondSpectre

No, that's probably not what I would tell her, because remember that she's harming herself first and foremost. So I would most likely seek to understand her and help her overcome whatever emotional and self-esteem issues are pushing her to do such a thing to herself, and help her become more independent and moral.

But she knows that, and she just wants me to use her body, and she just wants to use my body, and I know that, and we're O.K with that, because we want to have fun, not dedicate ourselves to each-other forever...

So why is it still wrong? — VagabondSpectre

Because you're harming each other.

are not perceived by everyone in the same way and are often not considered to be harmful at all — VagabondSpectre

That doesn't mean they're not objectively harmful. Someone may not perceive cannibalism as harmful. So what? Does that tell me cannibalism is not harmful? This is a very stupid objection that people don't all agree. Who gives a fuck what they say? I don't. I just care about the truth.

So you do realize that much of your psychology and emotional behavior is geared directly toward you successfully impregnating a female? (including for instance, why you wear clothes that you think look nice (INDECENT!)) — VagabondSpectre

No, that's actually not true. If my behaviour was directed towards successfully impregnating a female I'd donate my sperm to a sperm bank and impregnate thousands of females. Clearly I'm not very keen to do that. Their idea that everything we do is directed toward impregnating a female is extremely naive and short-sighted, and disregards the human component (as opposed to the animal) of our being.

Your instinctive desire to bond for life with a female is the result of a particular evolutionary strategy where you ensure the spread of your own genetics by putting in work and effort along-side a partner in the rearing of the children that your biological sexual urges caused you to create together. — VagabondSpectre

That it also has an evolutionary role, there's no doubt about it, but to assume that the evolutionary role is everything about it, that's naive. There's a lot more reasons why I want to bond for life with a female, some of which have little to do with offspring.

"Love" is actually a chemical cocktail designed to cement a long term attraction between two individuals which have been intimate, which subsequently causes them to stick together and cooperate in the rearing of the children. — VagabondSpectre

There is no doubt that love has chemical effects that are detectible in the body - but to go from that and say that that's all what love is, that's the height of idiocy, excuse my words. That's called jumping to conclusions to say the least.

Why then do you pretend that biological imperatives such as "have sex, impregnate a woman, and fall in love" should be the basis for moral arguments like "It's our moral duty to get married, have kids, and stay together". Who or what does your morality serve? Evolution? — VagabondSpectre

My morality serves all ends of the human being, including their biology. But biology isn't the only issue. We're much more than our biology.

So I take it you think the use of contraceptives is immoral because it frustrates the "necessary end" of sex? — VagabondSpectre

For the most part yes, but it depends. So long as it doesn't frustrate the other purpose of sex (intimacy) I'd have no issue with some forms of contraception.

So I guess if you love someone, value them for who they are as a human being, care for them as a person, and want to use sex as an expression of your love for them, then raping them is not immoral. Because consent is not relevant to the morality of sex, remember? — VagabondSpectre

Are you an idiot or what's the matter with you? How can sex be an expression of your love for them when you rape them? Can you please explain this?

If it's acceptable than it's not immoral. — VagabondSpectre

No, there is no logical connection between something being acceptable and not being immoral, so you're drawing this link based on empty air.

You're currently celibate with no children. You're being immoral right? — VagabondSpectre

No because I'm not actively doing something that frustrates the ends of sex.

Dildos are themselves inherently immoral though because their existence frustrates the necessary ends of sex right? — VagabondSpectre

True, but this doesn't change their purpose.

We've been over this before Aug: pleasure/pain contributes to happiness/unhappiness. — VagabondSpectre

Yes, happiness does involve pleasure, however to affirm idiotically as you have that someone will be happy because they experience pleasure is stupid beyond measure.

So "not reproducing" and not "getting married" is immoral? — VagabondSpectre

No, since you're not actively doing something to frustrate the ends of your sexuality.

Or is it just immoral to touch yourself for pleasure because you're misusing the necessary teleological ends of your penis?

(it's my penis and I'll do with it what I want to thanks) — VagabondSpectre

Yes that is immoral. You can do whatever you want with your penis, that doesn't mean it's good.

The rest of your post is blabber, red herrings and strawmen so I won't bother. When you have something more significant to say, you can let me know.

Even if we assume there is a singular final cause of everything — geospiza

Did I tell you to assume that? No.

I mean part of me is definitely jealous of all the sex you are evidently enjoying. — geospiza

Tell me, what is the meaning of this Buddhist story? :s

Suppose, Māgandiya, there was a leper with sores and blisters on his limbs, being devoured by worms, scratching the scabs off the openings of his wounds with his nails, cauterising his body over a burning charcoal pit. Then his friends and companions, his kinsmen and relatives, would bring a physician to treat him. The physician would make medicine for him, and by means of that medicine the man would be cured of his leprosy and would become well and happy, independent, master of himself, able to go where he likes. Then he might see another leper with sores and blisters on his limbs, being devoured by worms, scratching the scabs off the openings of his wounds with his nails, cauterising his body over a burning charcoal pit. What do you think, Māgandiya? Would that man envy that leper for his burning charcoal pit?

in fact I think that if I had gotten married, since I've changed so much since then (in ways I like) that I would probably be drowning in a regretful marriage and wind up in divorce court — VagabondSpectre

Here is a guy who has ruined himself, and has deprived himself of the goodness of marriage - a guy who by his own admission would fail in marriage because he has filled his mind and soul with vicious habits that would stop him from benefiting from marriage. To envy this guy, is like envying the miser who has deprived himself of friendship to acquire gold.

Here's a guy who, because he can't reach to the grapes anymore, says they're sour, and wants everyone else to forgo the grapes because he has done so.

And what's more, he says I'm a cuckservative, but lo and behold he thinks he's a conservative because he has had casual sex with friends with benefits. I'm not quite sure who the cuckservative is, but it certainly ain't me.

2. Casual sex is not different (as sex) than sex with the "proper" partner. — Bitter Crank

False.

3. Sexual activity bears certain risks, no matter what the intentions of the couple or either individual.*
4. When men and women appear in a bar and behave (dress, actions, speech, etc.) as if they were interested in sex, then their behavior should be taken at face value.** — Bitter Crank

True.

5. Desiring and obtaining abundant sex with willing partners is not abnormal or deviant. It's what healthy people do, unless otherwise occupied — Bitter Crank

This is again false. Even the Communists, in practice, considered sex outside of marriage immoral.

Now, desiring and obtaining abundant sex with the person you love and are committed to is absolutely not abnormal, and it is what healthy people do.

Now please watch: Vagabond will post here another massive post that will be full of red herrings and strawmans ;)

I don't understand what you are driving at here. Some things happen for a reason in the sense that they are pre-meditated by a rational agent. Other things happen for a reason in the sense that they perform a function. Still other things happen for a reason in the sense that they are caused. Reasons can be proximate or ultimate, singular or plural. Yes, some [all?] things in nature happen for a reason, but reasons come in many different flavours. — geospiza

:s This is not what I'm saying. I agree with Aristotle's view that all things have 4 causes that are required to fully explain them: material cause, formal cause, efficient cause, and final cause. Without final cause we cannot explain the wholes that are formed by the parts, and so these teleological explanations are absolutely necessary.

Nature is ingenious, but it proceeds by trial and error. — geospiza

What do you mean? Yes there is trial and error in nature. But there is also established procedure.

Nature is wonderful, awe-inspiring and inventive, but it is also an ongoing work in progress. — geospiza

This doesn't mean anything. The mere fact that it's working so well is awe-inspiring. The fact that it gets better, adapts itself, and improves itself - the fact that it can do that in the first place is also awe-inspiring.

It is uncontroversial that the heart and the vascular system together perform the function of circulating the blood to and from the extremities of the body. — geospiza

So then at least some things in nature do have reasons for happening?

The reason for this is not as easy to state. — geospiza

This is irrelevant, since the teleological explanation functions as part of the full explanation that can be given for the heart and the vascular system.

Nature is complex, sophisticated and, at times, beautiful, but by no means does it perform optimally. Nature is imperfect, as we are imperfect. Nature may reflect the divine, but it is not itself divine. Beware of idolatry in your views of nature. — geospiza

The strange thing though is that Nature is a lot more perfect than you imagine it to be. That's what's really surprising. It's not the mistakes of nature, which are so rare in comparison to what it gets right.

Sounds like a fantasy now... in fact it sounds like true communism, where the "workers" own everything necessary for production and there are no authorities. — Lone Wolf

I disagree, in true communism there is no private property. Distributism is based on private property, and maximising access to private property for everyone. When Karl Marx wrote about Capitalism, his real point was that Capitalism will inevitably end up in Communism, as the common man will, more and more frequently, be deprived of access to private property, and will effectively have nothing to let his descendents inherit. That's where we're actually headed at the moment...

you are taking such a hard line that you will no doubt perceive me as an adversary. — geospiza

How is it a hard line? This is absolutely the standard line on sexuality that has been taken by all major religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.) including most of the philosophers of the past.

This embodies an overly simplistic view of nature as a rational agent. — geospiza

Do things in nature have reasons for happening as they do? For example is there a reason for your heart pumping blood around the body? :s

That is not to say that there isn't or couldn't be a rational agent behind nature, but nature itself is rather clumsy and inefficient. — geospiza

I see quite the opposite! Nature is fantastically well organised and developed, quite the opposite of clumsy and inefficient. My gosh, I wonder how you can even claim that Nature is inefficient. Just imagine how every day your body does thousands, if not millions of tasks that are needed for your survival, and it does them perfectly and in harmony most of the time. Sure there are errors, but the errors are the exception, not the rule. Nature is so beautifully organised, that one is moved by merely regarding nature towards worship of the divine.

However, the basic human desire for sex is non-negotiable, and the denial of our sexuality has led to its own fair share of misery. — geospiza

I agree, but listen to this. You don't have a natural desire for JUST sex, and if you don't clarify what this desire actually is, and how it relates to different parts of your psyche, you'll never figure out what will fulfil you, and what you actually want. Most people don't even know what they want. So the irrational indulgence of sexuality is just as bad as its irrational repression. The point is that you need to figure out what will satisfy your sexual nature as a human person.

In the context of readily available sex, behaviour that is purely devoted to procreation and intimacy would certainly require an impressive amount of discipline and will power. — geospiza

Are you purposefully misinterpreting what I wrote? There's nothing wrong with having sex for pleasure, so long as at least one of its essential aims isn't frustrated. And no, this doesn't actually take a massive amount of discipline and will power. The fact you think it does only demonstrates that we live in an age that is excessively promiscuous with regards to sexuality, and where people have been led to think that it's some crazy amount of self-discipline and willpower that is required to abstain from immoral sexual behaviour.

Sex is aimed at a plurality of ends, but let's be honest: at its most basic the goal of sex is the satisfaction of a biological urge. — geospiza

No that's not the aim of sex. I've explained a billion times why not. Nature did not give you sex to satisfy an urge. Rather it gave you an urge to satisfy what? Procreation and intimacy.

Sex is not a rational activity in the sense that people generally do not deliberate about whether or not it is something they want to pursue, but rather they are driven to pursue it, often without reflection. — geospiza

That's a problem for many people, and it leads to a lot of unhappiness. They should deliberate about it and consider it.

One would not necessarily have more economic freedom as one cannot guarantee product superiority or better marketing ability. — Lone Wolf

Sure, but then economic freedom has little to do with product superiority and better marketing ability. Economic freedom simply means being able to earn a living by yourself, without having to rely on external aid such as jobs, etc. In a distributist system, people wouldn't be concerned with money - money would no longer be a main concern as it is in capitalism - rather people would be concerned with family, culture and other such things much more.

So distributism negates the logic of capitalism that everyone necessarily wants to make more money, and that greater production is always good. Greater production isn't necessarily good - we only need as much as we need, and not more. So instead of greater production and increase in profits, the goal is increase in economic freedom. This is also different than communism, because communism eliminates economic freedom in order to ensure equality. Distributism doesn't seek to ensure equality, but rather economic freedom for the largest number of people possible.

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

Let's see what you said I did:

Holy shit Aug, you're really gonna equate casual sex with suicide and cannibalism? — 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? :s

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

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.

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

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.

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

Maybe because we value one's freedom more than we value chastity? :s Really, you're not having an easy time at all.

The important thing is that the person consent to the invasive action to be done upon them. — 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.

We can say that the MacDonald's work is less invasive (and that's why they tend to get paid less) — VagabondSpectre

No, they don't actually get paid less. My work is very non-invasive, and I don't get paid less either.

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

I never made this assumption.

Why are tattoo's harmful to the body? Did god say so? — VagabondSpectre

No, because they objectively burn and harm the skin of your body.

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

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.

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

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.

You're the guy who moans that he is destined for divorce. — VagabondSpectre

I never said I'm destined for divorce :s - really is your reading comprehension that bad?

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

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.

When a woman has sex, "harm is done to her future spouse", (that's you). — VagabondSpectre

Yes, that is indeed true, if we're speaking of my future wife now.

Your future wife is out there getting fucked, possibly as we speak. — 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.

Maybe she will even get pregnant (will she get an abortion and not tell you I wonder?) . — VagabondSpectre

Again, I highly doubt it.

How familiar are you with the term "cuck"? (Don't answer that). — VagabondSpectre

Well Hanover right here explained the term to me a few days ago, so quite familiar I think ;)

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

"whiny beta male" - that concept doesn't translate to me, sorry to tell you.

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

"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.

So no, the reason why I'm not worried about myself isn't because I'm an alpha (or other such bullshit), but rather because I trust my capacity to judge people and determine people who have good moral qualities and wouldn't marry me because they want to have sex with me or think I'm good in bed, or people who are promiscuous and have an abnormal love for sexual intercourse.

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

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?

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

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.

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

If my future spouse is having promiscuous sex, absolutely. So what? What's your point?

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

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.

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

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.

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

Right, it's not as harmful as non-consensual sex, that doesn't mean it isn't harmful.

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

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.

If consent is what makes an underlying activity moral or immoral, then why the FUCK is eating someone alive not moral if they give you their consent huh? Stop pretending you don't understand this simple analogy. There is much more to morality than your consent. And this is proven to anyone reading this, beyond any reasonable doubt. Consent alone cannot describe the morality of underlying activities, but rather the morality of interactions with people, regardless of the nature of those interactions. But the underlying activities are also relevant to determine the moral relevance of the entire situation.

And no, trying to separate consent from sexual morality is absolutely fine. I DO separate consent from the morality of cannibalism, why shouldn't I do the same for sex, and all other activities? :s These things must be judged separately.

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

Sorry, you've pointed out zero real problems.

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

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.

Just strictly sexually, masturbation is probably the worst sin. But overall it's preferable to fornication because fornication isn't just a sexual sin, but also a sin against charity and justice. So yes, if people cannot be chaste, they should definitely resort to masturbation rather than another activity.

What about the bed upon which your parents fucked in order to conceive you, must we treat that with reverence and respect? — VagabondSpectre

Yes, I think you should, but I have no idea how exactly you'd "disrespect" it...

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

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.

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

I never said sex is inherently harmful. Invasive =/ harmful.

Yes, sex with your spouse is inherently good. Why? Because it is a relationship of love, where you give infinite commitment to each other, the kind of commitment that two human beings deserve to share in.

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

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.

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

I've actually read all those books.

(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

Yeah, if you've read Aristotle the way you read my posts I can clearly understand why you're so confused.

"The necessary end of bicycles is travel, therefore joyriding is immoral!" — VagabondSpectre

Are you not traveling while you're joyriding silly boy?

"The necessary end of eating food is nutrition, therefore eating for pleasure 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 living is dying, therefore living for pleasure is immoral!" — VagabondSpectre

It's false that the necessary end of living is dying

"the necessary end of eyesight is awareness, therefore looking at art for pleasure is immoral! — VagabondSpectre

Asinus! Are you not being aware when you're looking at art for pleasure?!

"the necessary end of rest is to convalesce, therefore resting 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 listening to music is pleasure, therefore listening to gospel/hymns for religious enlightenment immoral!" — VagabondSpectre

First no, the necessary end of music isn't pleasure.

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

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.

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

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.

What if God is gay though? — VagabondSpectre

What makes you think God can be "straight" or "gay"? I think you're just committing a category error.

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

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.

Yes you would be harming yourself, because eating food is required to go on living, intimacy and reproduction are not. — 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.

No, because "has reproduced" or "is in an intimate monogamous relationship" are not required for health or happiness, while "is well nourished" is. — VagabondSpectre

Who says they're not required for happiness? You? I disagree.

Cannibalism isn't always immoral, sometimes it's necessary for survival — 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.

It's the context, the circumstances, reasons (things like consent) — 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?

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

Same for casual sex. It seems you enjoy your double standards.

Wanting to eat someone isn't exactly a crime, but if you steal a body to eat we will arrest you for that — VagabondSpectre

And will the person in question be charged with just theft or more? And why?

but if you eat the dead co-pilot because you will otherwise starve, most people would forgive that — VagabondSpectre

Right, so the activity is inherently immoral, such that it requires forgiveness even in those limit cases you quote. I agree ;)

If you convince someone to agree to be eaten, we will basically arrest you both on the grounds that you're both insane. — VagabondSpectre

Sorry to tell you, being insane aren't grounds for arrest. Try again please.

Why don't we arrest two adults who have consensual sex on the grounds that they're abusing and harming one another? — 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.

It's because consenting adults are capable of having sex without actually abusing or harming one-another — VagabondSpectre

So people are also capable of insulting each other without harming one another right? :s
>:O

Food is aimed at pleasure too though. Pleasure from eating is a fundamental end of eating — 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.

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

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.

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

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.

Humans don't purposefully get thirsty, they just get thirsty. Drinking a cold liquid then becomes inherently pleasurable. — 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.

Holy shit Aug, you're really gonna equate casual sex with suicide and cannibalism? — 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:

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

No mention of cannibalism and suicide here.

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

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.

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 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.

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, 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.

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

Right, exactly.

Because it's more invasive, it's more important to have that consent. — 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.

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

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.

If I have consensual sex with my wife, it's not an immoral activity right? — VagabondSpectre

Yes it's not. Why not? Because the underlying sexual activity isn't immoral, and you respect her will.

But if I have non-consensual sex with my wife, it's rape. — 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.

Doing actions upon people who do not want those actions to be done upon them constitute moral infractions against the afflicted party. — VagabondSpectre

Sure, but that's NOT because the underlying activities done to them are immoral, but rather because you infringe upon their will.

Can you honestly not see the relationship between personal rights, consent and force? — 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.

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)

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

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.

And what if both parties go away from the glory hole happy with the exchange? — VagabondSpectre

Irrelevant.

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, 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.

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

Yes, and it's absolutely morally wrong to harm another knowingly, even if they accept this through their will.

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

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.

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

Yes, a scientific foundation is exactly what you lack, that's why you can't even distinguish properly between different aspects of morality.

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

: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).

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.

Do you think that women should be obligated to save themselves in case you wind up being their future spouse? — 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.

Everyone else is free to live the way they want to live despite your ego-centrism. — VagabondSpectre

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!

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

No, that's not what I'm saying.

Sex without consent is rape. — 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.

Consent is a part of "dinner morality" just as it's a part of "sex morality". Please tell me you realize this... — 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.

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

I see you've run out of arguments, and into speculation.

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

Immorality doesn't only harm you in the afterlife, but in this life also.

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

No it's not. It's not an inherent end of sex. That's exactly why masturbation is wrong.

Just because sex was the original act which caused our inception doesn't mean we need to treat sex like some sacred domain. — VagabondSpectre

Ehmm, yes it does actually mean we need to treat it with reverence and respect.

"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

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.

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

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.

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 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 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

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.

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

Care to answer the questions? Or do you prefer to run away?

"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

Answer the damn questions...

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

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.

Pleasure is just as much a valid end of sex as is reproduction and "unity"... — 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.

On an unrelated note I've come to realize that I severely enjoy subverting you through music: — VagabondSpectre

You're not subverting anyone mate, you're just running away now that you don't have answers anymore.

Another conclusion I have drawn is that the standard of living remains mostly unchanged long term for the poverty stricken because of this circle that is being ran around with no end in sight. The purchasing power ratio of the currency remains roughly the same also. When they demand higher wages, then they are forced to pay prices directly proportionate to the rate of increase in wage. And in hopes of finally gaining the upper hand, they again plead for higher wages, only to be slapped in the face with higher prices or joblessness, and the circle continues on and on.
Thoughts? — Lone Wolf

I quite agree with you. It's never going to be possible to be really well off from a job (excluding people who fight to reach very high up the corporate ladder). Nothing we can do can change that. Ultimately I think we should be switching to an economic system that favours small independent producers and entrepreneurship, much like Distributism. That can guarantee economic freedom for a lot more people.

Both of you. — Heister Eggcart

Interesting opinion, however if you try you cannot cite one proper insult addressed to TL from me, yet her comments:

Listen, you moron — TimeLine

Idiot. — TimeLine

projecting your own obsession, clearly there is something wrong with you. — 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 )