The judiciary, an entire branch of government, hangs in the balance, with the current split being a 4-4 conservative/liberal. — Hanover

Yes, because Senate Republicans have refused to even vote on an Obama nominee, once again (and I repeat) putting party before country. I would love to hear the howls of protest from the right which would ensue if Senate Democrats had pulled such a maneuver based on an invented rule of procedure in which election-year judicial nominees are not brought to vote.

Just another instance of the double standard which conservatives allow themselves: the same way that the right can crow about patriotism, and yet still support a man who denigrates the record of a war hero (John McCain), and makes misleading statements about having donated to veterans' groups, whereas if Hilary Clinton had done such a thing, it would merit an endless loop of coverage on Fox News.

The American system is a rigid two party system, and with the internal Senate rules requiring a 60% supermajority to bring anything to a vote, it will be impossible for anything much to pass. — Hanover

It's misleading to say that Senate rules require a 60% supermajority to vote on a bill. It only requires such a supermajority if the opposition party opts for a filibuster. The fact that this maneuver seems to have become increasingly common in recent years doesn't mean that it's a de rigeur fact of the Senate.

The question was why people vote for Trump. You think those reasons are stupid, but that doesn't address the question. — Hanover

No, it doesn't. I wasn't in fact responding to the OP's question, which was ably answered by others on this thread. I was responding to your post, in which you demonstrated that, like so many other Republicans, you put party before country, despite all of the declarations of being an unapologetic "flag-waving American," or whatever your motto is. (The old joke is that Democrats fall in love, and Republicans fall in line, and the Grand Old Party hasn't disappointed this time around, either, which is to say that they remain a disappointment.)

Immigration from Mexico has been zero (or negative) in recent years, so you would elect a buffoon with fascist tendencies (who's as big a liar as Hilary, if not moreso) over a competent politician with decades of experience in public service in order to address a non-problem.

Republicans: the party of absolute conformity. For all their bluster of being the "patriotic" party, they never fail to put party over country, which is exactly what a vote for Trump would be.

(BTW, I fully agree that a sovereign nation has the right to enforce its borders (in a humane fashion), but Trump has offered no plan for border enforcement which is remotely realistic. The main points of his "plan" consist of building a wall which somehow Mexico will be made to finance, and then rounding up and deporting the 12 million or so illegal immigrants who are already here. Good luck with that.)

Ah, the "straight white male" angle. You might as well throw 'CIS-gendered' in there at that point. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Sure, throw it in, as I am cis-gendered, insofar as we need a term to describe that. I'm not sure what "angle" I'm working, though. My point could have been made with any heterosexual white male, or even just a hypothetical one.

What I'm saying is that the gay lobby has 'won the culture war' (for better, no doubt). Every demographic has problems, but they manifest in different ways. The recent events in Orlando have certainly made matters worse, for gays and everyone.

I'm not sure I agree: it seems to have produced an upswelling of support and sympathy for gays.

edit, and to claim to know that x group has a particular disadvantage or advantage over the rest is to assume an omniscience no one is entitled to.

Why does it require omniscience? Do all knowledge claims require omniscience in your view (such a view would entail that one either knows everything, or one knows nothing)? Or does this particular knowledge claim require omniscience for some reason?

Gays suffer from any number of sociocultural, personal, and medical maladies at disproportionate rates: in some states they lack protection from being denied a job (or being fired from one) on the basis of their sexuality, being denied housing, etc. LGBT individuals also remain the targets of violent hate crimes, despite social progress being made. They are disproportionately represented among homeless youth, and often face rejection and ostracism from their families for their sexuality. I could go on, but suffice to say that gays (and Latino ones, particularly, as I pointed out above, and which are germane here) and heterosexuals do not have it equally easy in America.

before Sunday that grim distinction was held by a largely forgotten arson at a New Orleans gay bar in 1973 that killed 32 people at a time of pernicious anti-gay stigma. — Bitter Crank

Attempting to burn down bars full of gays is not relegated to the 1970s, it seems. One recent attempt to burn down such a bar in Seattle was committed by Libyan immigrant Musab Mohammad Masmari.

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2015/08/10/arson-hits-gay-nightclub-seattle-third-time

If not for one particular ideology, gays wouldn't really have it much better or worse than any other demographic in America. — WhiskeyWhiskers

If not for Islam, gays in America would have it no tougher than heterosexual white men, for instance? As a heterosexual white man myself, I somehow think that swapping places with a gay guy (a Latino gay one, no less, in the case of this massacre) probably wouldn't be a lateral move for me.

Actually, I'd be surprised if there even was such a thing as a pedophile forum, these days. — Bitter Crank

Oh, there is, even if they've been relegated to the "dark web." I've seen reporting on this phenomenon, and it is quite disturbing.

In East Africa, for instance, some Christian groups are calling for the death penalty for being, and acting on, one's gay sexuality. — Bitter Crank

Absolutely. And the fact that some of them are American Christian groups is all the scarier. (Such movements even seem to have at least the tacit approval of certain members of Congress.) Christianity was made to modernize by the forces of secular rationalism, forces which are considerably weaker in certain parts of the world (not that the West occupies some exalted position of ideal rationality).

However, rather than deploying this inevitable tu quoque, perhaps let us focus on the motivations of this particular shooter. Though the facts on the ground will likely shift as more information comes to light, as it appears right now, he had sympathies with ISIS-affiliated ideologies (even supposedly calling 911 to pledge allegiance to this group before the shooting), and had been under surveillance by American law enforcement for such proclivities for some time prior to the attack. Christianity or Hinduism had nothing to do with it (even though I suspect that at least some American Christians are silently approving of the massacre, thinking it to be the "wages of sin").

Apparently the Pulse Bar shooting was the expression of at least one man's homo hatred. Does it represent any sort of trend? — Bitter Crank

I think it represents a trend of young men and women who have enjoyed the fruits of a modern Western life (no pun intended, really...) being swept up in the crazy hate-mongering of radical Islamist groups such as ISIS (the shooter was a second-generation Afghani). Your post, while paying lip service to negative religious views towards homosexuality, ignores the elephant in the room. One might name that elephant "radical Islam." The late shooter's father, while apologizing for his son's actions, was also quick to make a point which will no doubt be parroted by left-wing Western apologists in the coming weeks and months, namely that this attack "had nothing to do with religion."

I've read that the attack was praised on jihadist forums. I wouldn't know: those are the sort of things I'd avoid for any reason whatsoever, even to satisfy my curiosity (I am sometimes curious as to what goes on on pedophile forums, for instance, but that's just not the sort of thing I want in my browser history, no matter how thorough a scrubbing I can give it). One wonders how the apologists will spin this event to say that the massacre of nearly 50 innocent, unarmed gay men (who were targeted specifically because they were gay) was somehow a result of drone strikes and Western hegemony and imperialism.

I'm also aware that an Indiana man was recently apprehended with a small arsenal and plans to attend a Los Angeles gay pride event. One doubts that his intentions were pure. So, extremists come in all shapes, sizes, and cultural affiliations. It is ironic that the far-right wingnuts who most detest Muslims (whether radical or not, it seems, if the widespread enthusiasm for Trump's "ban all Muslims" plan in some quarters is any indication) are most prone to acting like them in some instances.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/california-west-hollywood-suspect-aresenal/

One now must develop one's online social skills to procreate, which, honestly, are far easier to develop than face to face social skills. — Hanover

I'm not so sure about that. Face-to-face interactions generally induce in people pressure to adhere at least tangentially to some sort of social decorum. This is not true in the online realm, where the cloak of anonymity can bring out the very worst in people, leaving them feeling uninhibited to give voice to whichever insane or hateful thought burbles up in their consciousness.

It arguably requires more maturity, discipline, and self-restraint to comport oneself in a polite and reasonable basis in an online setting than in the real world, where one risks ruinous damage to one's reputation (not to mention a punch in the face) if one acts in the manner of an internet troll.

Even cities take on geographies and histories which are diverse and multifaceted. How does one, then, evaluate a continent? — Moliere

Well, the question did pertain to Sub-Saharan Africa, which, while still a very large area, cuts down the scope of the question somewhat.

I seriously doubt that the entire plight of Africa can be blamed on Western imperialism either, which seems to be the thrust of the OP and many of the responses — Hanover

Indeed. The fact that Western nations have played an outsized role in foreign aid and assistance to Africa seems to often go unremarked-upon in these discussions. Private and public philanothropy has spent vast amounts of money in combating disease in Africa, for instance, fighting malaria, river blindness, Guinea worm, HIV, and Ebola, among others.

Is there any hope for Africa? — darthbarracuda

Much of what we acclaim about Western civ is in fact a relatively recent invention. It wasn't so long ago that belief in magic, persecution of "witches," the tortuous death of dissidents and heretics, and so forth were rampant in Western Europe, and autocratic rule was the dominant form of government. Anyone looking at Europe during the time of the Thirty Years War, the Albigensian Crusade, or the Inquisition (in all of its multifaceted cruelty) might wonder if there was any hope for Western Europe.
Perhaps African nations just needs some time to catch up?

I did confirm this, although humans will continue producing milk (well, women at least) after they give birth for as long as they are milked. It might therefore be easier to have women instead of cows be available for milk production. It's something to think about if you're a recent mother in need of work. — Hanover

I do recall that human breast milk ice cream was a thing for a while. Gives whole new meaning to the term "milk shake"...

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-12569011

Augstino, you are apparently a person who won't take "yes" for an answer. Sorry, I can't help you with that. Have a nice life.

Augustino, you're right. I see now that women were historically the equals of men (and the fact that a few highborn Roman women were puppet masters behind the scenes proves their equal status). Historically women suffered no barriers to education in the Western world (or, really, anywhere) relative to their male peers. Conquering and warmongering is not only less egregious than libertine attitudes towards sex, but is actually a desirable trait (due the feminizing and "dumbing down" of maleness in the modern world). You've won me over. Enjoy your victory.

I think if (1) women did not go to war, (2) war could break out at any moment, you too would make sure your society doesn't allow women in politics. It was just a pragmatic issue and had nothing to do with equality. — Agustino

Oh, I see! So, denying women the right to participate in politics was for their protection! (Of course, I talked about their right to vote and not necessarily hold political office, but no matter: I'm sure that denying them the right to vote was for their protection, as well. And I'm sure that denying them an education was so that they didn't worry their purty little heads with all that fancy book learnin'?).

Yes I agree. One shouldn't desire sex with one's partner primarily to gratify themselves, but rather to gratify their partner :) . — Agustino

Good luck with that.

Yeah, you missed the point, I can see... — Agustino

Then perhaps you'd be kind enough to explain? (You do realize the difference between a valid and sound argument? No doubt you do, but I ask only because you've shown no such familiarity here.)

Killing was not the intention of conquest, it's merely a side effect. — Agustino

Yes, if only those pesky barbarians had just laid down their arms and surrendered at the first sight of Caesar's legions, much spilt blood could have been avoided. Oh, well. It's really their fault, I suppose. (One might make the argument that conquest in and of itself is grossly immoral, but I suspect you'll invoke some special pleading for that, too.)

In-so-far as it means "with deference to" I use it to express intellectual gratitude for the idea, not necessarily agreement. — Agustino

Then you are using it at odds with its accepted definition. But whatever floats your boat.

Mass killing for no reason is different than conquest. It's sad you cannot see that. I see nothing wrong with conquest. Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, etc. were impressive people. Certainly more impressive than Bill "BangYourWife" Clinton ;) — Agustino

Wow. You are just trolling at this point, right? I hope for your sake that you are. Otherwise, you are truly a moral lunatic.

EDIT: I now recall your comment in another thread that you said something to the effect of Hillary Clinton being the most immoral person you know of. So, given your above statement about Bill Clinton, I see that, in addition to demonizing sex, you also hold the requisite social conservative's irrational hatred of, and obsession with, the Clintons (funny that Bill Clinton gave the Republicans what they want with regard to a balanced federal budget, welfare reform, and a tough-on-crime bill, and yet they hate him anyway. Perhaps Sanders has the right idea: just skew left wing and say fuck the Republican agenda: they're just going to hate him, no matter what, if he's elected President).

It does go to show that you can't assume the moral standpoint and bang your feet like a child. I refuse to engage with you in any more detailed dialogue because you are a sophist. A priori you want to disprove me, you're not interested in the truth. So I don't bother much except to show you how silly you are. — Agustino

I see. So, you present no arguments, only warmed-over Kant and bullshit social conservative bromides, and then accuse me of sophistry. And I want to "disprove you a priori." I'm also uninterested in the "truth" which you assert you've presented, but for which you've presented no argument. I stand duly chastened.

The word pace is a Latin word, not an English word with a Latin root. For this reason, it’s usually written in italics when it occurs in an English sentence. It’s a form of pax, which is Latin for “peace”. Pace means “if so-and-so will permit” or “with deference to”, literally “with peace”.

None of this says that "pace" implies agreement.

Here's another one:

"used before a person’s name to express polite disagreement with what they have said"

http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/pace2

EDIT: examples of pace... https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ByIll8zCfIsC&pg=PA134&lpg=PA134&dq=pace+definition+philosophy&source=bl&ots=z3c6hIfRO2&sig=-OXtVjPFYVFX_3h6pkzyz0yzf5Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiW8oyXwoDMAhWDlQ4KHaO2D44Q6AEIWzAO#v=onepage&q=pace%20definition%20philosophy&f=false — Agustino

Pace

preposition pa·ce \ˈpā-(ˌ)sē; ˈpä-(ˌ)chā, -(ˌ)kā\
Definition of pace

: contrary to the opinion of —usually used as an expression of deference to someone's contrary opinion —usually ital. <easiness is a virtue in grammar, pace old-fashioned grammarians — Philip Howard>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pace

If married people do this, it is also wrong. When love comes first, and sex comes second, merely as a shadow, that is when it is not an experience of using someone for your own pleasure, but a completely different kind of experience. — Agustino

Yes, just as I thought: more social conservative magic-talk. If one desires sex with one's partner primarily to gratify oneself, then one is "using" another person, regardless of whether it takes place in a loving relationship, or is part of a one-night stand.

Yes Kant has stated this. It's a valid argument. Do you have any objections to this argument? We're not here to discuss whether you should accept my view or not, we're here to discuss the merits of the arguments themselves. — Agustino

Valid argument? Perhaps: you'll have to lay it out with clearly-defined premises and show that the conclusion follows in order for it to be literally "valid." In any event, I can likewise construct a valid argument:

(P1) Sex, anytime, for any reason, is morally acceptable.
(P2) Mary and Bob had extra-marital sex.
(C) Mary and Bob's actions were not immoral.

See? Perfectly valid.

Where did you get this from? — Agustino

From my general fund of knowledge about words. You may look it up, if you wish.

Pleasure has both an objective and a subjective component, and lack of either one is an imperfect, illusory pleasure. — Agustino

Well, sure, we can objectively say that so-and-so is subjectively in pleasure. It doesn't follow that they can be in error about being in pleasure (do you believe that someone can be in error about being pain?).

This is genocide - not conquest. Conquest doesn't aim at killing, but rather at expanding empires. So again, I wasn't talking about genocide. But yes, sexual immorality is worse than most other moral sins, apart from things like murdering out of pleasure, torture, etc. — Agustino

Right, because no one was killed in these campaigns of conquest. :-} In any event, "genocide" is the concerted, targeted effort to wipe out a select group of people based upon, for instance, religious, ethnic, or national criteria. "Mass killing" doesn't equate with genocide. For one thing, mass killing can be carried out indiscriminately. And thank you for reasserting your status as a moral lunatic by admitting that you hate sex more than you hate mass killing. Like I said: demonizing sex.

Nope. You are wrong. The vast majority of people who have ever lived believed women to be MORALLY equal to men. And I don't agree with any other equality between the sexes other than moral equality. Again, proof that your understanding of history is very shallow, and comes only through the lens of the moderns. — Agustino

Sweet Jeebus, man, do try to keep up: you appealed to what the "vast majority" of people in history would have found appalling, and then used that to buttress your claims about sexual morality. I replied that the vast majority have people who ever lived would have blanched at equal rights for women, and you reply with the non-sequitur that they believed that women were morally equal. So, these morally equal creatures were apparently nonetheless unworthy of equal property rights, equal voting rights, ability to get an education, etc. You continually point out how lacking my historical knowledge is, but you don't realize that even if you were historically correct about views on sexual morality, it does nothing to prove your claims.

What does GDP/capita being greater have to do with sexual permissiveness? :S — Agustino

Look, I'm happy to talk to you, but if you can't even recall your own questions from two posts ago, then there's nothing I can do for you.

It does because it uses them as means to a (selfish) end. That is using them as an object, because only objects are used as means to ends rather than as ends in themselves. — Agustino

More argument by assertion. I suspect we just have clashing intuitions on this matter. I am prepared to be bowled over by the force of your reason, but all you offer is warmed-over Kant. So, why should I be prepared to accept your view of sexual morality?

(Of course, I can reply that married couples can also use each others' bodies as means to an end, but then you'll invoke some social conservative magic-talk about marriage being a "complete sharing" of oneself with another, so that one married partner is not really "using" the other, etc. See, I've seen all of this before.)

Simple. Joy is not merely a subjective state, but also an objective state, pace Spinoza, Aristotle, etc. As Spinoza put it, joy is man's passage from a lesser to a greater perfection. If no such objective passage happens, then the joy in question is illusory, a mirage. — Agustino

You do realize that "pace" means you're expressing a contrary viewpoint? Anyway, pleasure is most definitely a subjective sensation. One can no more be in error that one is in pleasure than one can be in error that one is, say, in pain. Again, you are simply asserting what people ought to enjoy rather than acknowledging what they do enjoy.

Sexual licentiousness is worse in moral terms than centuries of warmongering and conquests. — Agustino

Wow: so mass murder and subjugation of entire populations is less egregious than consenting adults doing what they want in the bedroom. Ding ding ding! We have crazy person liftoff.

I can add the moderns too. Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein... need I list more for you? :) The fact that you refuse to admit that most of human beings who have ever lived would be horrified at your lack of sexual mores is just you being intellectually dishonest. It is a true fact, whether you want to admit it or not.

Yes my argument is that you should not assume that you are right and demand evidence by stomping your feet when 90%+ of mankind who has ever lived has disagreed with you. You should at least have the decency to be humble and if you think you have a case try to make it. — Agustino

This would seem to be an argumentum ad populum. The vast majority of people who ever lived would probably also have been appalled by equal rights for women: that doesn't make it wrong.

Any evidence that the ME is less than successful because it is sexually repressive? In fact, Europe has made its biggest advances in the Renaissance, not exactly the most sexually open period :) . — Agustino

Are you serious? Are you unacquainted with, say, the misery of life under the Taliban? Would you care to pit, for instance, the per capita GDP of Afghanistan against that of Western nations?

There are books written about the role of morality in the collapse of both empires. Do you want me to provide you with a few? — Agustino

Sure, I am very interested in books that offer evidence that a decline in sexual morality brought down the great empires of the world. I just hope they offer more than post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning.

What's unreasonable about it? — Agustino

For one thing, they command obedience to an imaginary character named God. And a character who is petty, cruel, and childlike in many ways (drowning all of mankind because it's grown sinful? Really? Stone to death disobedient children? Really? Don't waste my time with this foolishness.)

Original sin is not a doctrine of Christianity? To have no idols is not a doctrine of Christianity? To have no other gods before God the Father is not a doctrine of Christianity? Do you even know what you're saying? And I have shown what those doctrines mean. — Agustino

You do realize that there are different denominations of Christianity, which differ in some aspects of their core beliefs?

And assuming that the above are doctrines of Christianity simpliciter, how is any of that reasonable?

In which case they are deceiving themselves. — Agustino

How can one be deceived that one is enjoying oneself?

*facepalm*. If they enjoy that which is not good, they are neither ethical nor moral.

Desire for something other than the good is immoral — Agustino

This just begs the question (if you mean "good" in an ethical sense).

If you do not consider human beings worthy of the dignity of being treated as ends in themselves and not as means to some (selfish) end, then I am sorry for you. You have just lost what is the most important thing in life, which makes all other things worth having: virtue. — Agustino

Yet more bullshit invocations of "dignity." I don't regard that using another person's body for sex provided they consent debases their dignity, so saying that I don't consider humans worthy of "dignity" is nonsensical.

By their nature. As for arguments by assertion, isn't that what you've done in every single post in this thread? i've given you multiple concrete examples, and you have failed to provide anything but generalities about some repressive societies, who knows which, doing worse than some permissive societies... really... get a grip. — Agustino

Yes, and I gave a "concrete" example about how the embrace of Christianity brought down an empire. See, fallacious post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning cuts both ways. You also ignored my rejoinder that the centuries of warmongering and conquering apparently don't constitute a "moral decline" in your eyes, but sexual licentiousness does. Are you prepared to make that claim? Otherwise, you shall have to look elsewhere for the causes of the decline and fall of the Roman empire.

And yes, I will match your generalities with generalities of my own. I will counter your low-quality evidence with low-quality evidence of my own. Up your game, and I will respond in kind.

You have an obsession about demonizing sex dont you? So you think Jesus, Buddha, Epicurus, Spinoza, Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, etc. all demonised sex? All these vastly intelligent men demonised sex, and you, the great intellect of mankind, are the only one who can appreciate sex. Give me a break, and stop embarrassing yourself. — Agustino

This seems an appeal to antiquity and authority. You will notice that the most recent philosopher on that list lived in the early modern era. Why might that be? And no, I don't have an obsession about demonizing sex: I only point out that you demonize it.

Yes it was the harems. Read the fucking book. Why did I give it to you? So you stare at the cover page? If that's what you do with books you'll never understand anything. And don't read only a part of it, read all of it. — Agustino

Uh, what? You gave it to me, and I'm staring at the cover? Are you feeling well?

Yes it is characteristic for those who are blind, and yet arrogant, to think that they can distinguish advancement from regression. Too bad that the greatest minds who have ever lived have, almost unanimously, disagreed with you. Literarily everyone. Theist and atheist alike. Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Lucretius, Spinoza, Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus, etc. But of course, you, the great genius of mankind will tell us what is proper about sex, and naturally assume the moral highground in your speech. What arrogance. — Agustino

This is just more appeal to authority and more ad-hom. Don't you have anything to offer besides dead philosophers and social conservative bullshit bromides? Arguments, please.

Examples please. I can't talk with nonsensical generalities like these. Which societies are you referring to. And yes, I do have reams of statistical data to counter your naivete - the whole of human history, and the greatest minds who have ever lived. You should talk less, be more humble and read more. — Agustino

You can start with the Middle East to look at sexually repressive societies which are less-than-successful.

I must have missed this reams of data you offered. You gave weak, ill-founded assertions about the Roman Empire, and then yelled at me about some book about the Ottoman Empire which you once read. How is this "data"?

No, it shouldnt apply in such cases. — Agustino

I agree.

That's your opinion. People may also think they are nourishing their bodies when they are dreaming that they are eating and feeling the taste of the food, but in truth they are not. — Agustino

Yes. So? They may still be enjoying the experience. The fact that they're not actually nourishing their bodies has nothing to do with it.

Their mere claims that they enjoy it are not sufficient to objectively sustain the assertion that it is in fact good for them.

I see. So, they believe they enjoy it, they have a sensation of enjoyment, they may say that they enjoy it, but they don't really enjoy it? This reminds of that quote from The Simpsons, when Moe says something to the effect of, "Rich people aren't happy: from the day they're born until the day they die, they may think they're happy, but they're not really happy."

Incidentally, I never said that sex was good for people (though in some ways it may be: it is, for instance, a good cardio workout, it's fun, etc). What is enjoyable or pleasurable needn't be "good" for a person. I enjoy beer and pizza, but I can't for one moment pretend that it's good for me (that, of course, doesn't imply that it's unethical to eat beer and pizza).

That is wrong, because it means they are not respecting each other's bodies for what they are meant to be. It does not give full dignity to the other human being OR to yourself. The fact that you think otherwise does not change this objective fact. And it just serves to prove how you think of other people as objects, and think that this is fine so long as they accept it. How disgusting. — Agustino

Ah yes: vapid invocations of "dignity." Yet another bullshit social conservative trope. (I don't mean to pick on you, but I see this rhetorical strategy in social conservative talking points distressingly often: simply say that "dignity" of the human person necessitates your desired course of action or state of affairs, and voila, opposition melts away without the need for all of that pesky argument and intellectual disputation. (Steven Pinker's essay "The Stupidity of Dignity" is an artful takedown of this strategy)).

"Meant to be" by whom? This seems an argument by assertion. And, to boot, you toss in an ad-hom about me being disgusting or some such thing.

I don't. It's your hatred of religion which seems to make you think that a man has to be religious to think there is such a thing as sexual morality. — Agustino

I don't necessarily hate religion (though I do strongly dislike some aspects of some religions, a dislike which might rise to the level of hatred in some cases). And, no, one needn't be religious in order to demonize sex, but it helps.

The collapse started prior to that, with expanding harems, people treated more and more poorly, growing separation of the ruling class, sexual promiscuity, etc. there have been books written on the subject, I can recommend you a few titles (Macfie's End of Ottoman Empire was a good one!). The problem with people like you is that you don't actually know much history, but your mouths are big, and you talk loud, and naturally assume the moral high ground. You have displayed no understanding of the importance of sexual morality in your post, quite the opposite, you have displayed quite a crass moral blindness. — Agustino

So, harems and sexual promiscuity brought down the Ottoman Empire (or at least contributed to its cause), in addition to a melange of other factors that you toss out? Riiight...it was the harems.

And, in addition to post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning, you accuse me of historical ignorance and moral blindness, more ad-homs. What you call moral crassness, I call moral advancement away from a harmful, Puritanical viewpoint which demonizes sex and the pleasures of the body in the name of morals and virtue.

I also note that you ignored my observation that modern societies which are the most sexually repressed also seem to be the least successful by a number of metrics. However, this is only a vague impression on my part: you no doubt have reams of statistical data to counter my naivete. I look forward to seeing it.

It's relevant to show that Christianity's doctrines are reasonable :) (and in fact, if they weren't reasonable, I would not agree to them in the first place) — Agustino

Right...my point being that nothing in that post pointed to Christianity's doctrines (which would those be, by the way?) being reasonable.

So men should have no right over the child compared to the woman just because they do not hold the child in their body for 9 months? That's unfair, sorry to tell you. A woman cannot have a child without a man, and therefore, she should not be able to decide to kill a child without the man's approval as well. In fact, if any one of the two partners objects, the abortion should be strictly illegal. — Agustino

I didn't say they should have no say, but I should think that the person who assumes the greater risk and greater burden should have the greater say. Would your last statement (my bolding) apply even in cases of rape or sexual coercion?

You seem to be under the impression that I think of sex as something evil. I don't. I think sex is one of the best things available to man. It's just that in order to truly enjoy it, people must be in committed relationships, devoted to one another and growing in intimacy together. If they are in that position, I would encourage them to have as much sex as possible. I have outlined this here many times before, as well as my reasons for holding those beliefs (namely that people who engage in promiscuous sex harm themselves and their own psyches first and foremost). — Agustino

Another baseless claim. People can (and do) fully enjoy sex even when not in committed relationships. Sex can range from a one-night stand fling for fun from a multi-decade, committed, monogamous relationship. You present no evidence of what people do enjoy, you're just telling them what they should enjoy. And while you may not regard sex as "evil," you do regard it with moral opprobrium when it doesn't occur in circumstances in which you approve.

Sorry to say my friend, but I actually love sex, I don't dislike it :) . At the same time I also respect women and other people, and do not look to use their bodies as means to an end, but rather treat them as ends in themselves. — Agustino

Sometimes people use each others' bodies just for fun. Kantian protestations aside, there's nothing wrong with that, in my opinion, provided both partners are willing.

We have reasons to believe, a priori even, that moral decline will likely lead to social decline. Why? Because moral decline, including loose sexual behavior, leads to social conflicts, jealousies, alienation, etc. But this is not everything. If you study the history of other great empires, including the Ottoman Empire for example, you will see a similar trend towards the end. I have no reason to believe Christianity is the cause of social decline on the other hand. None a priori, none a posteriori. — Agustino

We have no reason to believe that: you simply regard sex as sinful, and so it's plausible to you that sexual immorality was the cause of these societies' decline. In fact, the most sexually repressed societies in the modern world seem to be among the least successful.

And this "great empire" nonsense is just more of the socially conservative bullshit that I called out earlier: there's zero evidence for it, but they repeat it anyway (and it's of a piece with the similar claim that all societies which have embraced homosexuality have collapsed). The Ottoman Empire, for instance, collapsed in the wake of WWI: what did sexually libertine mores have to do with it?

The best you can possibly offer is post hoc ergo propter hoc-style reasoning, which I did with Christianity and the Roman Empire. You have nothing to counter this.

Which post? My response to BC or to you? — Agustino

Your response to me, above, which contained religious bromides.

No I said people who want to have their cake and eat it too are on the fringe of immorality, and it was referring to women and abortion: — Agustino

You do realize that women are the ones tasked with actually bearing children, right? Given that they're investment isn't equal, I don't see why both partners should get an equal say.

Yes sexual morality is a very important part of morality and it did play a major role. When sexual morality declines it is a sign that people are no longer motivated by anything in life, and so resort to base pleasures not knowing what else to do. Life has become too easy for them. — Agustino

Or perhaps it just shows that people are not bound by overly prudish mores which demonize sex as something evil? What evidence do you have that sexually libertine people are "no longer motivated by anything in life," other than your general dislike of sex?

You have to demonstrate more than a correlation to prove causation my friend. It may be as you say (I don't have anything against the idea a priori) but I just have no reason to believe it at the moment. — Agustino

Yes, that's entirely the point: you say that a decline in moral values in the Roman empire led to its downfall, and I counter by pointing out that its decline also sharply followed its embrace of Christianity as a state religion, which is just as likely an explanation (which is to say, not very likely).

You commented on my post so I just replied back, no more point than that. — Agustino

Right...but my question was regarding the content of your post. What was the point of any of it?

How do I understand them? I don't believe you understand how I understand moral values. As I said many times, I don't consider homosexual sex in and of itself a particularly harmful vice. Much more serious is sexual promiscuity, whether in homo or heterosexual relationships. — Agustino

You said that homosexuality is "on the fringe" of immorality (or was it just plain ol' heterosexual promiscuity that you were objecting to?).

This is historically false. There was a small ruling class who embraced libertine sexual mores in different periods of Roman history, but definitely not the average citizen. — Agustino

You claimed that a "decline in moral values" brought on the collapse of the Roman Empire. Given that this was in the context of sexual morality, I take it that that was what you were referring to. If not, you'll have to specify exactly which "decline in moral values" you're talking about, as apparently centuries of warmongering and conquering didn't quality as such a decline.

I don't understand why you consider Christianity and reason to be opposed to one another. Personally I don't. I see reason in the teachings of Christianity. For me, for example, original sin is a concept that describes the world. First it describes the tendency of all things to decay (second law of thermodynamics) and secondly it describes the statistical tendency of human beings to choose wrong over right. I see nothing superstitious about this for example. And like this with many of the other doctrines. — Agustino

Fine. But Rome embraced Christianity as its state religion, and then collapsed about 150 years later (after having existed for over a millennium). Therefore, said embrace was a cause of its decline. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

Kudos to PayPal for cancelling it's operations center plans in NC. — Bitter Crank

I know this is way off-topic, but for the love of god, people: "its" is for the possessive. "It's" is a contraction of "it is." I give non-native English speakers a bit of a pass on this, but you're from the American Midwest, where English is the lingua franca (sort of). >:o

The destruction of moral values was the beginning of the collapse of the Roman Empire as well — Agustino

I just wanted to respond to this point, which, I'm sorry is utter bullshit, and a fanciful far-right talking point (along the lines of "every society which has embraced homosexuality has collapsed"). Whatever drove the Roman Empire to collapse, a decline in "moral values" (as you understand them) was likely not among them. Rome was a conquering, warmongering empire: it is nonsense to claim that it was suffused with "moral values" until such time as it embraced libertine sexual mores.

Rome embraced Christianity as its state religion, and then collapsed about 150 years later. So, perhaps it was Christianity which brought about its collapse. That being the case, we should ever strive to expunge this foolish superstition from public life in the United States, and instead base our laws and private moral judgments on a foundation of reason.

I'm arguing for merit based wealth. To the extent you object that wealth has not been distributed based upon merit, I'll join in your objections. — Hanover

Right. The way that Trump "merited" the money inherited from daddy. I'm sure you've heard the analysis that Trump, for all of his bluster about being a great "dealmaker," would have been better served financially to invest in an index fund than to have engaged in all of his wheelings and dealings.

I'm all for a meritocracy, but Trump's greatest asset is his own ego and self-promotion, not in making "deals." Only on those bases does he "merit" anything.

http://www.moneytalksnews.com/why-youre-probably-better-investing-than-donald-trump/

First the demographics were "very different," and now you cite an article saying that the Republican group is "slowly-shrinking." I'm well aware that the demographics of the country are not the same as they were in 2000, but they're not that different. Obama and McCain were mostly neck-and-neck until the financial collapse, so Obama's win may have had as much to do with incumbent party fatigue and Main Street's anger against Wall Street than anything to do with diversity, especially given that Republican-controlled state legislatures have thrown up roadblocks to voting in some minority communities.

I'm also aware that Hispanic people have larger families, but the fact remains that immigration from Mexico has been negative in recent years.

Again, not totally sure what you're referring to. "Across the board"? In what demographics? There are more Hispanics, but even that factor may be overblown, as there has lately been net negative immigration from Mexico in the last few years.

How so? Because there are a few more Hispanics in the country? What of it? (The demographics weren't "very different", whatever it is you're referring to.)

The Republican party has moved so far to the right that it is incapable of winning a general election. — Thorongil

Apparently you weren't paying attention to politics from 2000-2008...

There's no more reason to look for blame for the existence of Trump than there is for looking for blame to explain the existence of Sanders or Clinton. I'd vote for Trump over any Democrat. In truth, I see the existence of Sanders as better evidence of the sorry state of affairs than the existence of Trump. — Hanover

What sorry state of affairs would those be? The fact you don't view the rise of Trump as a problem and that you'd just cast a party-line vote for whatever nutjob the GOP coughs up says volumes about you and the fact that people just pull the lever for whatever their party is. And the fact that you can't see that Sanders and Clinton are infinitely more qualified for the presidency than Trump would be speaks volumes about you as well.

(I also love that you would buy into the fact that the woes of lower-middle income whites who favor Trump has anything to do with Obama.)

There is very little chance of a Republican winning the presidential election, so their likely obstruction will prove a futile waste of time as always. — Thorongil

Neither of the Democratic candidates in this election strike me as being particularly automatically electable on a nationwide basis. I don't think that a woman or a socialist Jew are exactly guaranteed to sail through the general election. And many Republicans who now intensely dislike, say, Cruz or Trump, will likely hold their nose and vote for either them over Hillary or Bernie. When it comes down to it, party purity and self-interest will trump (no pun intended) the best interests of the nation for those voters.

In terms of party self destruction, did anyone notice that the mid-term elections resulted in historic Republican gains in the House, Senate, state legislatures, and state Governor offices? It took a GW to create an Obama and an Obama to create a Trump. — Hanover

The GOP has no one but themselves to blame for Trump. The GOP has for years railed against "elites" and Washington "insiders," and inculcated an anti-intellectual streak. Now that the largely white, low-education, low-information, mid-to-low income voters who normally fall in line with the establishment candidate (provided he talks about Jesus enough and pretends to be a cowboy once in a while) have fallen for the crackpot media star because he spouts the fact-free, xenophobic, populist rhetoric that gets them fired up, the GOP establishment is panicking. The GOP is getting what it deserves.

"Liberals" and "conservatives" might be able to agree that strengthening the bonds that tie individuals together into community (everything from work to worship of the gods) is a good idea. However, the more the communities are impoverished by a legislative and corporate unwillingness to invest in the warp and weft of social life, the more people there are who have no bonds with one another, and then, the more crime. — Bitter Crank

Several scholars have written about the decline of so-called "social capital" in the United States in recent decades (Robert Putnam in Bowling Alone and Charles Murray's Coming Apart are two examples which come to mind).

However, with regard to your post specifically, I'm not sure that the relationship between poverty and crime is as cut and dried as some might think (indeed, some will just cite "poverty" as a cause of a community's degradation, as if that single word encapsulates the entire situation). For instance, national crime rates have continued to drop, right through the Great Recession.

You also seem to be saying that the depressed state of a depressed community is explainable wholly by external factors, such as "legislative and corporate unwillingness to invest" in them. You will notice that this says nothing about the behavior of people who reside in the community, and their contributions to said community's decline or depression. For instance, one sees many references to the dire state of "inner city" (i.e. majority black and/or Hispanic, usually) schools, and how the community and government has failed to serve these poor children. However, it is less often said that these schools' problems usually go beyond infrastructural, institutional, or financial problems, and that the rampant behavioral problems of the children themselves are very often at issue. Cities such as Baltimore have some of the highest per-capita spending per pupil, and yet still lag behind academically. Perhaps we can start talking about the parents' failures?

No doubt that pragmatics play a role in every political ideology and there are few true ideologues anywhere, but to the general proposition that the right is less principled than the left, I don't think it holds. — Hanover

You are quite hung up on insisting that the right acts out of "principles." I don't deny that (and, so far as I can tell, no one else on this thread does, either). But members of ISIS are also acting out of certain principles when they saw off prisoners' heads on videotape. Stalin and Mao acted out of certain principles. What of it? It is those principles you raised which I'm here examining and critiquing.

The general thought by the left of those on the right is that they are either (1) wealthy and greedy and only trying to create policies that protect their advantaged state, or (2) poor and stupid and have been duped by the #1s into supporting policies that are against their interests.

It's no more logical to criticize a poor conservative for voting against his interests than it is to criticize a rich liberal for voting against his interests. In either case, the vote is being cast because the person thinks it's the right thing to do, not because it may or may not put more money in his pocketbook (assuming he's a guy with a pocketbook).

Or because the largely white, rural poor which favors the GOP has been misled by demagogues to think that the source of their woes lies with Muslims, illegal immigrants, gays, and God-hating liberals.

A rich person who decides to give up a little money he probably won't even know is missing is not equivalent to a poor person who harms himself economically with his vote; there is an asymmetry there.

Or course I don't want poison in my water. The slippery slope works both ways: Should we deregulate to the point of immediate death or should we regulate to the point of putting everything under shrink wrap to the point of immediate death. The truth is the that the right and the left are on a sliding scale, with the right wanting less regulation and the left wanting more. The terms "right" and "left" describe the relative positions of location on a spectrum after all.

So, being on the right, you agree that some environmental regulations are meant to safeguard the welfare of human life, contrary to your above claim that the right doesn't believe that some such regs are meant to protect humans?

We all agree that the death penalty should be applied to the guilty. If we limit it to cases where there is positive DNA support, and admission of guilt, and videotaped evidence, would you support it? I think not. That is to say, your objection isn't fear you've got the wrong person, your objection is that it simply is counter to your sensibilities. In fact, if I removed your every objection (racial, economic, etc), I still think you'd object. You're standing behind rationalizations and pretense, and that is the objection of the right to your objections.

I don't support the death penalty in most cases, because I don't believe that the state should be in the business of meting out such punishments. I am hiding behind no "pretense" whatsoever: if you think that I am shy about expressing my viewpoints, then you obviously have not been reading my posts over the years as closely as I've been reading yours.

As I said above, even if one supports the death penalty in principle (e.g. many conservatives), one cannot defend its use in practice due to the dysfunction of our legal system, the epistemological problems of identifying the guilty (especially given the number of defendants who have been sentenced to death only on the basis of that most flimsy of evidence, namely eyewitness testimony), etc. You agree that the death penalty should be applied only to the guilty, but clearly many innocent people have languished on death row, and would likely still be there (or even dead) were it not for the intervention of the Innocence Project and other organizations.

Sure, if the typical person advocated the death penalty because he thought that someone else would not kill for fear of being killed, then he'd be a consequentialist. I really don't think that's why folks want the death penalty. I think they'd tell you that they don't care what happens as a consequence of the guy's death; they just think he deserves it. I will agree, though, that the typical person (right or left) hasn't sorted out the distinctions between consequentialism and deontology, but religious positions tend heavily toward deontology as a whole.

I can't speak for what "folks" think, but I can say that the deterrence justification has been invoked many, many times in support of the death penalty (including by GW Bush, a certain former gov. of Texas). I don't deny that considerations of desert factor in (indeed, some juries have explicitly appealed to Biblical principles in advocating for a convicted murderer's death sentence), but deterrence is a consequentialist notion.