No, that was another conversation in which I also moderated at your request. — Baden

It was part of the very same conversation actually, check the messages. It was the continuation of it.

You seem to think you've been treated egregiously by me despite the fact that not only have I not moderated any of your posts, I have moderated others on your request. — Baden

At my request? You're talking as if I am your boss and ordering you what to do. Clearly you thought they were worth moderating, or you wouldn't have moderated them in the first place. The real issue is why did you moderate them only after I told you? Did you not know of their existence? If you did, why did you have to wait for my request to moderate them?

If anything where I was remiss was not getting rid of it. — Baden

Yeah you should've gotten rid of it if you really thought that. The fact you didn't proves that that's not what you thought.

As for the post, that's not the whole post. You have to quote everything. Why are you quoting half the post?? Here:

And since you quoted my post discussing celibacy vs casual sex. Well let's see... you go do your casual sex and being socially integrated until your instrument rots and falls off, your wife divorces you because you can't hold your dong in your pants and she's disappointed that you didn't wait for her - you know. That sounds like a great life am I right? That's certainly a brilliant path to take. Or wait - your wife won't divorce you, because you won't even get to marry that kind of woman. You'll marry some slut who fucks left and right, just like you. And when she cheats with your brother - ehhh not a big deal - just some casual sex. Such a person will end like Bertrand Russell - having their wife openly cheating on them and not divorcing "for the kids" - >:O shameful - Russell should have been ashamed of himself. That big head wasn't enough to guide him, clearly.

The priest on the other hand lives a life being compassionate towards others, focusing on helping them develop spiritually, being unconcerned with sex or making a family because he doesn't want to be devoted just to a small set of people, but rather to everyone who needs his help. Going to Church, counselling people on their problems, being an agent of change in their lives... Let's see, which would I rather choose? The humiliated but socially integrated Russell or the tranquil but family-less priest? — Agustino

What's low quality about this post? I'm offering an example of how a celibate life can be better than a non-celibate life, yes using some harsh language to illustrate vividly one possibility, to someone who thinks that a celibate life is stupid. So I offer an example of a possible celibate life, and a possible non-celibate life and showing how the celibate life COULD BE better - to someone who doesn't think this is possible. I haven't insulted anyone in that post, if you actually bother to read it, you see things like "such a person" - indicating that the "you" in the first paragraph doesn't refer to Hanover, but to someone who would adopt such principles that celibacy is always wrong, and casual sex has no associated problems.

And in either case, you've accused me to have more low quality posts than any other poster you can think of. Clearly it's not just that post. I imagine you must be referencing hundreds of posts.

Well clearly a post which says global warming is happening because the Earth is getting closer to the Sun because of the Sun's gravity is bullshit - because it's just scientifically false (the Earth isn't actually getting closer - and even if it was, the degree to which this would happen would be insignificant) - it's not even worth refuting! At PF that post would have been deleted in an instant, or at least moved to pseudo-philosophy, I wouldn't have to report anything. That post and the like of it should be deleted (well better would be to move them to some unmoderated section). But what does that have to do with my posts which you referenced? I never told you to moderate posts for using the word "fuck" afterall... if I had told you that, then I should've started with advising you to moderate your own posts.

Below are my arguments that have never been addressed, or have been improperly addressed (although many of them have in fact never been replied to even once):

I think this raises an interesting problem. Even the materialist and atheist Epicurus considered sex to be a natural desire, but not a need. He distinguished between three types of desire - natural and necessary desires (such as food, water, air, sleep - these we call needs today), natural and non-necessary desires (like sex, this we call a want), and artificial desires (like the desire for fame - which he claimed are empty and vacuous).

To consider sex a need is an entirely modern invention, and quite frankly it screams weakness to me from 100 miles. "woah woah I need my toy!" cries the kid. Really? I thought we're supposed to grow up and put behind childish things, but apparently not. Nobody dies from not having sex. Yet try to go without eating and drinking for a few days, and you'll see what happens.

Personally - I consider the sexual instinct, in its untainted form, to be nothing bad - like Epicurus said, a natural desire. For example, I consider it natural for someone to desire children, a family, intimacy and love. That's not a need, it is a want, although it is a natural want, as opposed to an artificial one. But this kind of sexual instinct doesn't find its fulfilment except in particular circumstances - love, and life-long commitment to each other and the children. However - these things aren't always possible, or at least aren't possible in just about any circumstance or in just about any point in time. And there's nothing wrong in living without them, because again, it is a want. The fact that it is a natural want makes no difference to this. Only the factor of necessity is relevant. It's immoral to deny yourself necessities - like food, water, and so forth. And if you think about it, by not engaging in casual sex you aren't even denying yourself anything, because casual sex wouldn't fulfil the end goal of sex anyway (neither intimacy nor children would occur). You're just recognising that at present your natural desire cannot find the object of its fulfilment. This recognition is the way you accept your sexual instinct without repression contrary to what BC and Baden think. Having casual sex would just make you feel guilty and frustrated at yourself - it would certainly not fulfil your desire. That's why it is irrational. It's not even helpful.

But you see, the moderns, in order to be able to propagate the idea of promiscuity and casual sex, must make sex into a necessity - otherwise how can they claim, as Hanover does, that to live a celibate lifestyle is immoral and inferior? Furthermore, the even deeper problem is that it's not the Churches tricking people into celibacy - even the materialist and atheist Epicurus advocated celibacy for the sage.

I've been listening to this Hanover type of rhetoric almost all my life, especially when I lived in the West. A rhetoric which is actually quite blind to many of the realities of life. I don't mean to insult Hanover, but I often find this rhetoric in those who are well educated, but not very well educated - they are superficial, they see just the surface of the issues. — Agustino

Oh common, as if the whole game doesn't change if they are desires and not needs? Really Hanover. Have some dignity man. This is philosophy, not your local pub, where you can take your anachronistic and medieval views against celibacy for granted.

I mean, don't you look at sages like Epicurus, Epictetus, Aristotle, etc. and what they said about sex and celibacy? Do you really take your own self to be above all of them, such that you can denounce their views without even mounting an argument against it, by mere prejudice and sophistry? Have you made yourself into a latter day Hume? I get that you like to live your life as part of modern culture and buy into the views that the media is feeding you. You think that's normal because that's how you grew up, you're like the man in Plato's cave, you know nothing else about what's outside. And you think celibacy is abnormal because you haven't been surrounded by it, so it is alien to you and strange. Therefore you are prejudiced against it. That's very unphilosophical, and it's sad to see that your argument ended with that - mere prejudice. — Agustino

What makes men different to women regarding abstinence? :s — Agustino

People having sex is a market - for condoms, for sex toys, for medication for STDs, for abortions, for contraceptives, for pornography, for dating agencies/websites, for alcohol, etc. So what you're saying isn't the complete truth, again. People having more sex = more business of all sorts - including psychotherapy, and whatever else people need because they fuck themselves up through improper actions. The more hyped up the desire for sex is - as you are hyping it up for example - the more markets exist, and the more stupidly people behave, and so the more others can earn. Having folks in the chains of lust is a good way to sell to them. If we didn't hype up people's sex-drive, we couldn't even use sex in advertising. We use it precisely because we have gotten to the point where we've destroyed morality, and have gotten most people to give in to their lusts. And so, if they give in to their lusts, they will keep buying our products. Quite simple math. If I was a rich capitalist, I wouldn't want the common people to be free of lust... that would be fucking terrible, how I would I get them to buy all sorts of shit then?

Advertising sex as good for health is, for example, a way to get people interested in sex. Then when I advertise my deodorant, people are more interested in it, because they associate sex with something far more important than it actually is. Why? Because I have trained them to do so. And it's always easier to train people to give in to lust, than to train them in virtue. That's actually an interesting subject - why is that? — Agustino

And I could go on... However, I only do this to show how futile this is as a way of achieving apodeictic knowledge with regards to what the case really is psychologically. Celibacy has far more health benefits than sexual intercourse if the participant is ready and prepared for it, and evidence abounds, especially historical evidence. The greatest of warriors in history for example - Miyamoto Musashi for example - practiced celibacy. It's a pity that we have these big brains today who question what is backed up by all of our present and past knowledge based on some variation of the now defunct Freud schemes, and in accordance with the dominant worldview of their culture. — Agustino

Why do you presume that sex is the biological end? That's false as I've shown in the post to BC and to you which both of you haven't addressed. Reproduction and survival - NOT sex - are the biological ends. Having sex at the wrong time or with the wrong person is CONTRARY to the biological ends. There's nothing wrong with sexual desire per se, it must be ordered to its proper aims - which aren't sexual pleasure, but love and reproduction/survival. If you're having sex in any circumstance where there is neither love nor reproduction/survival benefits then you're a fool. Please refer to my previous post on these matters a couple of pages ago for more detailed explanations — Agustino

Prestige in this context isn't equivalent to social power - it's equivalent to personal strength. It has to do with, as Kant would say, respecting your own self, and to respect your own self you have to act in accordance to the dictates of practical reason. If you give in to your lusts, then you don't respect your own self, you are shameful. — Agustino

I'm not sure this is the case - I've visited and lived with monks before on Mount Athos, and there is no neuroticism there, I can assure you of that. You give me a call when you even speak with a monk, much less live for awhile with them. You sound like one my friends who thinks that the celibates (monks) have orgies when no on is looking... >:O — Agustino

I disagree. It's not sex that is of the essence, it's survival. Because it's survival there are many other considerations that go into what actions one will engage in. Reproduction (not sex, and this is important) is very relevant to survival, because on a biological level, part of us (part of our genes) will survive in our offspring. But it's not sufficient to conceive the offspring (have sex) in order to ensure the survival of those genes. Quite the contrary, conceiving the offspring at the wrong time (or with the wrong person) may lead to my demise, as well as the demise of my future offspring. So there is no natural unrestrained sexual desire, because if this was the case, it wouldn't maximise the chance of survival. That's why we've developed intelligence - to be able to judge what conditions would maximise our survival.

Now it's quite clear that a monogamous relationship is the best for myself, as well as for my offspring (the two are identical). And ideally, a strong, disciplined, cultured, and large family needs to be built around that initial relationship - such that not only my children survive - but they survive with a big advantage - ie they're left in great social positions, being leading men/women in their communities, etc. This maximises the chances of survival, from a purely biological point of view, and is best achieved if the whole family works as a single mind.

Now the problem with promiscuity is that it doesn't make sense from a purely biological point of view. What use reproducing if most of that seed is spilled and wasted, and your children are in no better position to reproduce than you yourself are? That's nonsense. Most who practice promiscuity aren't even interested in reproducing - many don't even want to have children. They just want to have the sex. That is not a natural drive at all. That's contrary to nature. Their survival doesn't benefit one iota because of it, on the contrary, it may actually be threatened. That I would define as a neurosis indeed. — Agustino

:-! facile to say, but I didn't start here exactly. Back before I had my first girlfriend I experienced this kind of desire for, I guess you could say, orgasm, and probably I did want to have sex with some of the "hot girls". It mostly manifested through watching pornography and masturbation. But after I started dating my first girlfriend, I got cured of the pornography and masturbation (because she "forced" me to stop :P ) and after my second girlfriend was never that interested just in sex anymore. In my mind, from my perspective, I simply understood that there's not much to gain from sex outside a long-committed life-long relationship, and just the physical pleasure, without the psychological isn't much pleasure anyway. I don't understand why people go their whole life without making these realisations, bound in the chains of their sexual desire. I mean common... if I can do it, how can there be folks more than double my age who are still so into their sexual desire - I see old folks running after the young girls it's so hilarious! Like is that for real? >:O That's kind of embarrassing for them I think. Even at that advanced age, when they should be paragons of wisdom, they are still worshipping at the altar of pussy. Give me a break >:O

Sexual desire has its purposes - like survival and reproduction, but to chase it as end-in-itself - that is crazy, or immature to say the least. — Agustino

Why is it preferable than, for example, to abstain from it until the long-term relationship? It seems you and Bitter Crank are stuck with Freud! Common... there's so much more to psychology than Freud, that's old news today! What's with these three level schemes? Ego, Super-Ego and id become intellect, biology, and social - my days... If I was Voegelin I'd say you two (and your papa Freud) are Gnostics par-excellence! — Agustino

But it is part of my biology to desire to have sex such that I have offspring which have the longest chance of survival, which requires that me and my woman are loyal to each other and never compromise. If I want to build a dynasty of a family and have my children dominate their social environment (thus maximising survival), then there needs to be unity, discipline and focus in the family. Otherwise, sooner or later we will all be gone. Spilling your seed randomly in the hopes that some of your offspring will survive is the way to waste it. If I care for my offspring, then I can't just pick some slut that enjoys having as much sex as possible with just about anyone - that would be a disaster! I need someone who is a master of her sexuality, who doesn't give in to her lusts.

Your assumption that I simply desire to have sex is wrong. I don't. I desire to have sex in such and such a situation and no other. Furthermore, the human organism has needs that aren't biological - just as other animals do. Why does the dog whose owner dies, why does he refuse to eat, becomes depressed, and also dies? There's things in life far more important than sex or food or survival for that matter. — Agustino

I don't have time right now, but i will soon quote you lengthy arguments that none of you have even bothered to address

Yes, because goodness is telling people they worship at the altar of pussy and using the word "fuck" a lot. No one is falling for your bullshit, Agustino. — Baden

Yeah too bad that my argument wasn't even about that. It was about the direction of rationality itself, which is always aimed at the good. Even if goodness isn't using the word fuck a lot, that has nothing to do with the argument I was actually making there. I am directed towards goodness even when I do bad, because I do the said action thinking it is good. It's a mistake in judgement that makes the difference, as I said.

All you've done in this discussion is distract from a potentially sensible debate with Question and I'm not going to let you continue to get away with that. — Baden

How about you or BC or Hanover actually even start addressing any of my arguments?

So God can be nothing else but the Good? Why call Good God, then? — Heister Eggcart

Because I am drawn to Goodness. Goodness is the end in-itself, that for which we do all things. Reason is directed towards goodness - we do things because we think them to be good. Even the criminal does things because he thinks them to be good. He's not a criminal in-so-far as he does things which he thinks good (he's actually a saint in-so-far as he does that), he's a criminal only in-so-far as he's mistaken about what actually is good - it's a mistake of judgement, not one of reason in other words. Because reason functions in this manner all by itself, we only have being in-so-far as we seek goodness; and we lack being in-so-far as we're mistaken in our judgements. But it's important to note that we can't ever be fully mistaken so long as we're still rational. So long as we're rational, we'll pursue the good - whatever we identify the good to be. So in-so-far as we do that, we always have some being. It's all about clarifying judgement, and therefore realising what the good most fully is. If someone thinks the good is killing people, then he's making a mistake in judgement, and he will reap the rewards of what he has seeded - suffering and pain - failing to find his fulfilment.

Because God is Good, God has Being.

Ah, so you define God, not God, whatever God is. — Heister Eggcart

I'm saying that I simply wouldn't consider that whatever to be God if He is not Good. If God, whatever God is appeared in front of me, and God wasn't good, then I wouldn't consider Him God.

Why worship at all? And I still am not sure how you've come to know precisely what God is and is not. — Heister Eggcart

God cannot be evil by definition. That's simply part of what we mean by God. If God were evil, then that would be no different than there being no God at all. Literarily it would be indistinguishable from the scenario where there is no God, but there is an all-powerful and cruel evil demon as in Descartes' dreams. Power itself isn't sufficient to count as what we mean by God.

If God were some cruel and evil demon, who enjoyed torturing his creation for no purpose at all - would God be worth worshipping? Is a tyrant, the dictator of North Korea for example, worthy of worship? If no, then why not?

Who says all this is God? — Heister Eggcart

If this isn't God, would God be worth worshipping?

Why can't God be evil? Who defines God? — Heister Eggcart

Because God is deserving of worshipping. God is deserving that you angle your whole life towards Him. If He were evil, instead of good, would he be as deserving? What makes God deserving of worship? Is it his might and power? Or is it his love and goodness?

I actually agree with you here :P (*goes off to write the event in the calendar*)

I don't know, do you know the mind of God? — Heister Eggcart

If he orders you to do evil, would he be God? Would God be God if he were evil? Isn't Goodness part of what makes God God?

Why not? — Heister Eggcart

Would God assign you to do evil? Do you think God has prepared thorns for you?

I'm going to take a Buddhist/Stoic turn here and argue that a person who has mastery over every one of their desires is, by all means, a Sage or has attained perfection in self-mastery. Nothing could bother such a person. — Question

Hmmm... I think this needs to be qualified in some way, and I find it to be more Stoic than Buddhist personally... Buddhism is more about the extinguishing of and limiting of desire (similar to Epicureanism) than the right-ordering of desire (I take Stoicism and Aristotelianism to be more about right-ordering). Certainly being imperturbable is a very good thing. However, there's two ways, largely, to achieve this. One could be imperturbable by limiting their desires, and focusing all their joys in the very basics - as Buddhism or Epicurus would advocate, or one could be imperturbable by understanding their real and true desires, and then seeking to fulfil only those desires which are possible to fulfil at the time being (Aristotle, Stoicism, Aquinas, etc. would advocate this). For example - I can seek to fulfil the natural desire of love and intimacy in a relationship all I want, but if the circumstances don't make this possible right now, all my seeking will be pure suffering and being perturbed at worst, and at best, they'll end up in failure. But if I understand this, then I will not seek it unless it is ready-to-hand, in front of me, guaranteed. I prefer this equanimity which is always at rest, but always ready to move, than the equanimity that results from the limiting of desire.

What are your views on these two ways of achieving a state of imperturbability?

How does this distinction make a difference in the context of my post? Suppose I said "desire" and not "need," how'd you've had responded? I get there's a critical difference between want and need, but in this context, your objection seems pedantic. — Hanover

Oh common, as if the whole game doesn't change if they are desires and not needs? Really Hanover. Have some dignity man. This is philosophy, not your local pub, where you can take your anachronistic and medieval views against celibacy for granted.

I mean, don't you look at sages like Epicurus, Epictetus, Aristotle, etc. and what they said about sex and celibacy? Do you really take your own self to be above all of them, such that you can denounce their views without even mounting an argument against it, by mere prejudice and sophistry? Have you made yourself into a latter day Hume? I get that you like to live your life as part of modern culture and buy into the views that the media is feeding you. You think that's normal because that's how you grew up, you're like the man in Plato's cave, you know nothing else about what's outside. And you think celibacy is abnormal because you haven't been surrounded by it, so it is alien to you and strange. Therefore you are prejudiced against it. That's very unphilosophical, and it's sad to see that your argument ended with that - mere prejudice.

When I give you a hypothetical scenario to show you that the celibate priest can have a better life than the socially integrated man you proposed in your views, you refuse to answer and say that's stupid. Really - these tactics are shameful. When things don't go your way, you stop playing. That's not nice. You're doing precisely what the thread title says - idolising sex. You've made yourself a God out of it - you worship it, you NEED it, you can't live without it, and anyone who wants to live without it is crooked and sick. You complain about the celibate priest worshipping at the altar of God, and yet you worship with your tongue at the altar of pussy.

I'd like to murder people, because that's what I think is virtuous. — Heister Eggcart

No Sir, but that can't be the role God has created for you, can it?

Since when is sex a "need" instead of a "want"? — Question

I think this raises an interesting problem. Even the materialist and atheist Epicurus considered sex to be a natural desire, but not a need. He distinguished between three types of desire - natural and necessary desires (such as food, water, air, sleep - these we call needs today), natural and non-necessary desires (like sex, this we call a want), and artificial desires (like the desire for fame - which he claimed are empty and vacuous).

To consider sex a need is an entirely modern invention, and quite frankly it screams weakness to me from 100 miles. "woah woah I need my toy!" cries the kid. Really? I thought we're supposed to grow up and put behind childish things, but apparently not. Nobody dies from not having sex. Yet try to go without eating and drinking for a few days, and you'll see what happens.

Personally - I consider the sexual instinct, in its untainted form, to be nothing bad - like Epicurus said, a natural desire. For example, I consider it natural for someone to desire children, a family, intimacy and love. That's not a need, it is a want, although it is a natural want, as opposed to an artificial one. But this kind of sexual instinct doesn't find its fulfilment except in particular circumstances - love, and life-long commitment to each other and the children. However - these things aren't always possible, or at least aren't possible in just about any circumstance or in just about any point in time. And there's nothing wrong in living without them, because again, it is a want. The fact that it is a natural want makes no difference to this. Only the factor of necessity is relevant. It's immoral to deny yourself necessities - like food, water, and so forth. And if you think about it, by not engaging in casual sex you aren't even denying yourself anything, because casual sex wouldn't fulfil the end goal of sex anyway (neither intimacy nor children would occur). You're just recognising that at present your natural desire cannot find the object of its fulfilment. This recognition is the way you accept your sexual instinct without repression contrary to what BC and Baden think. Having casual sex would just make you feel guilty and frustrated at yourself - it would certainly not fulfil your desire. That's why it is irrational. It's not even helpful.

But you see, the moderns, in order to be able to propagate the idea of promiscuity and casual sex, must make sex into a necessity - otherwise how can they claim, as Hanover does, that to live a celibate lifestyle is immoral and inferior? Furthermore, the even deeper problem is that it's not the Churches tricking people into celibacy - even the materialist and atheist Epicurus advocated celibacy for the sage.

I've been listening to this Hanover type of rhetoric almost all my life, especially when I lived in the West. A rhetoric which is actually quite blind to many of the realities of life. I don't mean to insult Hanover, but I often find this rhetoric in those who are well educated, but not very well educated - they are superficial, they see just the surface of the issues.

Could you give us a sample of advertising "sex as good for health" or "a way to get people interested in sex"? — Bitter Crank

Please refer to the article from Forbes that Baden has linked :P

We are not conditioned to be interested in sex (at least between the ages of 15 and 45). — Bitter Crank

Yes we are, because if we weren't, sexual advertising wouldn't work. We first need to be made to think sex of any kind is a great great thing, only then can we mindlessly start pursuing it. It's not just that we think sex CAN be a great thing - that arises naturally in us. We naturally think sex can be a great thing in love and marriage when it is directed towards intimacy and children. But that sex outside of those circumstances can be a great thing - that doesn't arise naturally. That's a perversion of our sexual instinct.

Let me put it this way. It would be strange to love a woman romantically and not want to have sex with her. Sex definitely has a role and purpose in human economy. But outside of those conditions, it malfunctions; it loses its purpose. The sexual instinct, in its natural and untainted conditions, isn't end in itself. It's a means to some other end. What is that end, tell me BC?

Tinder or Grindr facilitates sexual partner finding, but it doesn't give people the idea to have sex. It doesn't need to. — Bitter Crank

Yes they do - they also advertise for themselves.

Based on earlier testimony, we have already determined that you have no competence to pontificate about people's sexual behavior. — Bitter Crank

No, based on my earlier testimony we have determined that I'm not a sex-crazed freak, and therefore have all the right to encourage others to become more rational about their behaviour, and stop harming themselves in stupid ways.

A charlatan who'd rather appease his desires of sex and procreative ownership than angle himself fully toward God. — Heister Eggcart

>:O But certainly God must be happy in my happiness no? He made man and woman one for the other didn't he? Why would God have made sex possible if it wasn't meant to have some role to play? I've spent time with monks but the thing is, the vocation of being fully angled toward God isn't for everyone. God made a few like that, and the rest of us not so. It's important to distinguish which one you are. If you are capable of devoting yourself entirely to God, that's great! But not everyone has to live in such a way - it's not an imperative for everyone.

Each one has a role to play in this world. That's what the monks have taught me. You must seek out your role and play it virtuously.

Wow. That got stupid faster than expected. — Hanover

Great excuse not to deal with matters when they get real, not merely some "casual sex" in a beaker isolated from the rest of life. Sure it's difficult in real life. It's not that easy to walk the talk. There are costs to social integration - sometimes it's not worth paying the price. And you laugh maybe, but look at that divorce rate. I wish you luck beating the odds of your social integration mate, you'll need it.

And since you quoted my post discussing celibacy vs casual sex. Well let's see... you go do your casual sex and being socially integrated until your instrument rots and falls off, your wife divorces you because you can't hold your dong in your pants and she's disappointed that you didn't wait for her - you know. That sounds like a great life am I right? That's certainly a brilliant path to take. Or wait - your wife won't divorce you, because you won't even get to marry that kind of woman. You'll marry some slut who fucks left and right, just like you. And when she cheats with your brother - ehhh not a big deal - just some casual sex. Such a person will end like Bertrand Russell - having their wife openly cheating on them and not divorcing "for the kids" - >:O shameful - Russell should have been ashamed of himself. That big head wasn't enough to guide him, clearly.

The priest on the other hand lives a life being compassionate towards others, focusing on helping them develop spiritually, being unconcerned with sex or making a family because he doesn't want to be devoted just to a small set of people, but rather to everyone who needs his help. Going to Church, counselling people on their problems, being an agent of change in their lives... Let's see, which would I rather choose? The humiliated but socially integrated Russell or the tranquil but family-less priest?

I have a background framework. I understand that it is good to be kind to people and bad to be needlessly cruel to them. I'm a capable moral agent who understands moral norms. And yet despite this understanding I cannot see how celibacy is morally superior to casual sex. — Michael

Morality doesn't involve just being kind to others and not being cruel to them.

A priest who has abandoned his sexuality under the false doctrine of the church and who has given up a family and the meaningful relationships that flow from embracing that sexuality is a lesser person than a person actually engaging in the world and occasionally (gasp) having casual sex. — Hanover

Why?

Suppose you're terribly wrong here and that the need for sex and the satisfaction of that need is a more mature response than a person who has successfully repressed that need. Suppose your premise is utter nonsense, that elimination of or simply lacking sexual urge is unrelated entirely to virtue, morality, maturity or any superior power? That does seem to be your underlying unsupportable premise.

It strikes me that those who go without are either (1) misled religiously, (2) asexually constructed, or (3) socially incapable. Advocating chastity therefore arises because you either (1) wish to convert others to your religion, (2) are incapable of understanding sexuality due to your own asexuality, or (3) are trying to justify your own social limitations. — Hanover

:-} And suppose your premise is wrong? Suppose it is nonsense to say that giving in to your lusts is morally superior to being celibate?

Listen mate, the fact you maybe can't hold your dong in your pants isn't our fault. It's your fault for not cultivating the virtue of chastity.

Exactly. And I don't have a reason to believe that celibacy is morally superior to casual sex. — Michael

Yes but you need to have a background framework which makes this conclusion reasonable - such as you have knowledge about your house, with regards to not believing there is a cat in your kitchen.

It can be. I don't need evidence that there isn't a cat in my kitchen to believe (and claim) that there isn't a cat in my kitchen. — Michael

But you do have evidence in your knowledge that you don't have cats in your house + neither do you have a reason to believe that one could have gotten in. So you do have evidence - namely your knowledge about what is (or should be) in your house. The framework against which you judge - that is the evidence (which of course you built from experience etc.)

But if you must know, when it comes to meta-ethics I'm an anti-realist, combining emotivism, prescriptivism, nihilism, and relativism. I interpret your claims as being of the realist bent, and moral realism doesn't make any sense at all. — Michael

Ah good, now we're getting somewhere. Explain this more please.

Because it is false. — Michael

Ah so you do have knowledge about it. Why do you think it is false? Not having reasons to believe it isn't sufficient to hold that it is positively false. So what are your reasons for holding it is false?

I'm guessing it has something to do with your Christian faith. Either that or, based on some of the things you've said before, a naturalistic fallacy. — Michael

How is this possible granted that I became a social conservative before I became a Christian?

I've given you the reason. I have no reasons to believe that celibacy is morally superior to casual sex. — Michael

Okay so the reason is simply that you don't know, so you're afraid to say it is so for fear of making a mistake, when you don't in fact know what the case is. If this is so, why are you saying my statement is false, instead of asking me what reasons I have for holding it as true?

You might as well ask why I don't think that eating apples is morally superior to eating oranges. To claim that it is is completely unjustified, as is the claim that celibacy is morally superior to casual sex. — Michael

So are you, or are you not able to give a reason why you hold your position? In the former case, I'd like to hear it. In the latter case, then I'll ask you to agree that as you have no reason for holding it, to do so is irrational.

It seems that all you can do to refute my statements is to say no. That ain't good enough mate.

Hmm I actually didn't know about that one (that it wasn't hit by a plane). I'm referring to the two main towers. I will need to think about that.

Better in what sense? Morally? Again, no. — Michael

But they are morally better than folks who give in to their lusts. Proper relationships are a different game, we're not discussing that here. We're discussing casual sex vs celibacy. Certainly celibacy is infinitely superior from a moral point of view. Why would you hold they're not morally better? I'm actually curious, why would you say that?

I haven't seen that exact one, but I've seen similar. Now the reason why I don't buy the controlled demolition argument I will illustrate below. Here's the things we know for certain:

1. Plane hits WTC, there is fire on the floors around where the plane hit and a big hole in the building.
2. The building ultimately falls, straight down, collapsing upon itself.

Now notice that in the facts, there is no independent evidence for explosives being placed in the building. Explosives are at best a deduction from (2). Now my argument is that if we find a way to account for the collapse based solely on the facts, without appealing to additional elements (such as explosives through the building) - then that hypothesis is preferable for its simplicity, until and unless we have independent evidence for explosives (this fits in with the idea of Occam's Razor in philosophy). I have produced a mechanism which can explain the collapse given just the two elements of evidence we have. I'm unaware of any independent evidence for explosives. Thus I will prefer that hypothesis, because there is no independent evidence to give sufficient reason for hypothesising explosives, nor are explosives necessary to account for the facts.

Consider also that placing explosives through the building would have been a complicated procedure, especially considering the number of people that were and worked in there. Overall, while it is a possibility - I doubt it. I wouldn't be willing to bet on it.

Advertising is all about selling products--one of which is not sex. The sexual allure promised for the many products advertised is limited to the product. It doesn't, it shouldn't, extend to actual sex. That would defeat the whole bait & switch purpose of advertising and selling. — Bitter Crank

People having sex is a market - for condoms, for sex toys, for medication for STDs, for abortions, for contraceptives, for pornography, for dating agencies/websites, for alcohol, etc. So what you're saying isn't the complete truth, again. People having more sex = more business of all sorts - including psychotherapy, and whatever else people need because they fuck themselves up through improper actions. The more hyped up the desire for sex is - as you are hyping it up for example - the more markets exist, and the more stupidly people behave, and so the more others can earn. Having folks in the chains of lust is a good way to sell to them. If we didn't hype up people's sex-drive, we couldn't even use sex in advertising. We use it precisely because we have gotten to the point where we've destroyed morality, and have gotten most people to give in to their lusts. And so, if they give in to their lusts, they will keep buying our products. Quite simple math. If I was a rich capitalist, I wouldn't want the common people to be free of lust... that would be fucking terrible, how I would I get them to buy all sorts of shit then?

Advertising sex as good for health is, for example, a way to get people interested in sex. Then when I advertise my deodorant, people are more interested in it, because they associate sex with something far more important than it actually is. Why? Because I have trained them to do so. And it's always easier to train people to give in to lust, than to train them in virtue. That's actually an interesting subject - why is that?

Had the chance to stay at Mount Athos and you left, lmao. — Heister Eggcart

Why? >:O For someone like me, going there is good for spiritual regeneration, but not to stay there completely.

And... as for pink ploughing, why not join me? :D

How long did you live with them? Details, please. — Bitter Crank

Around 2 weeks. It was a very nice experience, I'd go there again sometime.

It strikes me that a culture that drapes their women in heavy clothes to hide their sexuality and that enforces gender specific roles suffers from far greater sexual obsession than mine. — Hanover

No they suffer of a different kind of problem than your society, that much is obvious.

And if you imply that I think women should dress in heavy clothes to hide their "sexuality" - you're very deluded. First of all, clothes have nothing to do with sexuality. A woman can dress fully covered and still behave sexually in her flirting, etc. Really, this is so tiring to deal with, it's hardly even worth refuting. When you bother to form some coherent argument, give me a call.

Second of all - I don't think women should dress in heavy clothes and cover everything. There's a difference between decency and covering everything you know... Decency - perhaps you should remember that conservative virtue.

Has your prosthelsyzing brought you any converts? — Hanover

:-d Why would I need or want converts? I am just investigating the prejudices that others have, and outlining the mechanisms by which they are enforced in the current social milieu. I think you should be worried if you call yourself a conservative and you don't see a problem with current Western society with regards to sexuality. The fact is, it's a pity - you're not even standing up for real Western values - it's folks like me who are doing that. You're standing up for an ideological virus that has infected modern culture and has run our civilization amok towards destruction (you should ponder the meaning of that 50% divorce rate, the rising out-of-wedlock birth rate, and so forth). You should read up on what the Ancients who lived in the West thought about, that virtue called chastity for example. You may then find something interesting about the real Western culture which is currently buried in this rubble of hedonism and progressivism.

Anyway, goodluck in your conservatism - conserving the virtue of sex before marriage and promiscuity! Russell Kirk would certainly be proud of you sunny! ;)

So given the importance of sexual behaviour in evolution, it is no surprise that it is surrounded with strong moralistic and complicated (evolved) emotions/feelings. — Emptyheady

As I've explained, having no sex before marriage allows one to have a potentially stronger bond with their partner ceteris paribus, and therefore allows the creation of a strong family which can dominate the social milieu and thus ensure the greatest likelihood of not only your genes surviving, but actually thriving. Because it's of little use to spread your genes, if most of those are likely to fail to survive - that's an idiotic strategy. Monogamy and no sex before marriage originate in our biology - unless you take the dim-witted view of biology as all about sex. It's not all about sex, it's all about survival and reproduction (where sex is merely a part of that). But if you notice - nobody bothers to discuss this, and other criticism I've illustrated here:
http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/44803#Post_44803

To me the silliest thing is that those people who love to be promiscuous hate having children, many of them don't even want to get married! In what way are they even fulfilling their biology? >:O They prefer to point fingers and say how I hold religious motivations, and that's why I believe so and so, but they forget that I became a social conservative before I became religious, and even if I was an atheist, I would be a social conservative. Then they prefer to repeat "Oh you haven't proved anything!" as if they expected some logical proof, the kind of proof one would give for the Theorem of Pythagoras. The only truth in this matter is the broadness of your explanatory framework and its simplicity - in other words, the more your explanatory framework can explain, the more likely it is to be true. That's how we judge psychological theories. It's about their explanatory power. And the sex-centered model just fails to account for large parts of human behaviour, human biology, and actual reality - not as we find it culturally conditioned.

Having lived in a Buddhist country for almost 10 years, I've had plenty of contact with monks. — Baden

And? How did you find them?

"Future studies should address whether abstinence has a causal role in promoting healthy behaviours or whether women with a healthy lifestyle are more likely to choose abstinence." — Michael

Yeah at least I gave articles sanctified by respected medical journals not articles for stupid people from forbes. Of course, any scientist who respects himself will not jump to conclusions (unlike stupid Forbes journalists, and the quasi-scientists they quote). I hadn't actually read that Forbes article, but now that I had a look I'm utterly disgusted how, for Heaven's name, that can pass for science >:O

"But is there such a thing as too much sex?

The answer, in purely physiological terms, is this: If you’re female, probably not. If you’re male? You betcha.

Dr. Claire Bailey Claire Bailey of the University of Bristol says there is little or no risk of a woman’s overdosing on sex. In fact, she says, regular sessions can not only firm a woman’s tummy and buttocks but also improve her posture."

>:O Look! I actually can't believe my eyes. All the feminist propaganda. Just look at it. Men can have too much sex (but women can't have too much sex - which is contrary to the MEDICAL study I shared). And sex improves their posture! My days >:O

"Women who abstain from sex run some risks. In postmenopausal women, these include vaginal atrophy. Dr. Winch has a middle-aged patient of whom he says: “She hasn’t had intercourse in three years. Just isn’t interested. The opening of her vagina is narrowing from disuse. It’s a condition that can lead to dysparenia, or pain associated with intercourse. I told her, ‘Look, you’d better buy a vibrator or you’re going to lose function there.’”

(not only do they not run risks in fact, they may actually have benefits as my medical article suggests) So the doctor measured the opening of her vagina >:O and compared it with previous measurements! And then, he recommended her to buy a vibrator - what a pervert! >:O

Please this is enough. I can't read this shit >:O I actually thought Baden had provided some serious evidence before I actually opened it now. I hadn't even bothered to check until now, I took him on his word.

Your entire position seems to be based on what I'd say is a fallacious moral system (Christianity, I'd wager). — Michael

:-}

Baden's article is a reflection of a culture obsessed with sex, and a culture which idolizes sex, exactly as the OP states. A culture which seeks to BREED AND PRESSURE people into having sex (and seeing them as SICK if they don't - health becomes the dangling carrot to get the fools on the train). There can be no better proof for it than such an article. I can't understand how any normal and sane person can even stand to read something like that, much less give it credence. This sexual obsession is really a cultural disease of the most perverse kind - that people salivate feeding on "reasons to have sex" so they can hide their immorality behind rationalizations. I can't believe that folks actually take this seriously.

It seems to be you who is obsessed with sex. I dont notice it in the streets, because its normal to me. To have sex is just a playful act to me, but it seems to be you who gives great importance to sex because you notice it everywhere and even make a topic about it on a internet forum. — Nop

Yeah, just a playful act, you probably have it with your mother also right? >:O