John McEnroe: Serena Williams would rank 'like 700 in the world' in men's circuit play
John McEnroe has recently stated that while he believes Serena Williams is the greatest women's tennis player ever, she wouldn't be able to compete on the men's circuit. He has further stated, "if she played the men's circuit she'd be like 700 in the world."
McEnroe qualified his comments by suggesting Williams could beat some men's players because of her mental fortitude, but that he doesn't think she's athletic enough to beat the majority of men on the professional circuit. He also offered this remark: "Maybe at some point a women's tennis player can be better than anybody. I just haven't seen it in any other sport, and I haven't seen it in tennis. I suppose anything's possible at some stage."
On previous occasions, McEnroe has called Serena "arguably the greatest athlete of the last 100 years" and "the greatest player to ever play the game."
Is there any truth to John McEnroe's statements? Is there anything wrong with what he said apart from whether or not the statements are true? What were his motivations and are those motivations relevant to judgments about the propriety of making such statements?
McEnroe qualified his comments by suggesting Williams could beat some men's players because of her mental fortitude, but that he doesn't think she's athletic enough to beat the majority of men on the professional circuit. He also offered this remark: "Maybe at some point a women's tennis player can be better than anybody. I just haven't seen it in any other sport, and I haven't seen it in tennis. I suppose anything's possible at some stage."
On previous occasions, McEnroe has called Serena "arguably the greatest athlete of the last 100 years" and "the greatest player to ever play the game."
Is there any truth to John McEnroe's statements? Is there anything wrong with what he said apart from whether or not the statements are true? What were his motivations and are those motivations relevant to judgments about the propriety of making such statements?
Comments (357)
It's about as pointless as saying Floyd Mayweather would be 7000th in the world if he fought as a heavyweight. The reason why is obvious and it doesn't detract either from women or lighter boxers that they compete within their class.
I think the exaggeration of being 700th can be interpreted as insulting to females but being McEnroe we kind of understand he does not intend offence. If someone else said it, it may have been different. Despite Michael' logic (?), the actuality of such a statement is that she would not be considered the best player if she were involved in men' circuit, that is, there are certainly many male tennis players that outrank her skill. That is true. Not that she would or wouldn't be 700th exactly (again, Michael ?) but that there are a great many skilled male players over the last century.
Baden is right in saying that it is pointless.
Quoting Baden
Given historical gender roles, are McEnroe's statements coloured with a derogatory meaning that is not present in the comparison between heavyweight and middleweight male boxers?
Quoting TimeLine
What is his reputation and what role does it play in the interpretation of his comments?
No. It's just the best thing we have to assess his claim. From that we have to compare Serena then to Serena now and compare Braasch then to the current world #700.
But even then, short of having her actually compete regularly ('cause upsets happen all the time) in the men's circuit, it's probably impossible to say.
For example fastest male serve is around 260km/hr while fastest female serve is around 210km/hr in professional tennis. So that's roughly a 25% difference in speed that can be observed right there, which does end up playing a significant role in matches.
I don't have any problem with anyone having whatever opinion they do. There's simply no reason to put much weight on it (well, unless you're betting on a game and the person has a good track record so that their predictions have a better than random percentage of making you some money).
I don't know the answer to any of these questions, but I can speculate. Or at least, I can supply one interpretation of what he said, and it seems plausible that he could have meant it in this way, in which case what he's saying is not as pointless as others here think.
Given differences in average strength and whatever else may explain the average performance differences between men and women in tennis, McEnroe may have been reacting to the constant wish to compare Williams to male players. He might have been saying that it's silly and demeaning to constantly wonder how good she is compared to men. He demonstrates this with a dichotomy: she would only be 700th in the world if she were competing with men, and yet, she indisputably is one of the greatest athletes ever.
So, allegedly the best thing we have to assess the claim is evidence that is consistent with the claim. Isn't that the essence of confirmation? (Weak confirmation, perhaps, but confirmation nevertheless.)
Anything that doesn't refute a claim is consistent with a claim. Consistency isn't sufficient for confirmation.
It's not a him against her thing, I don't think, but an us against them.
That I ate cereal for breakfast is consistent with McEnroe's statements. The additional facts adduced by you are relevant to the question at issue in a manner that is confirmatory.
Yes, but not confirmation of McEnroe's statements. So, contrary to your claim here, that "the best thing we have to assess the claim is evidence that is consistent with the claim" is not "confirmation nevertheless".
We agree that consistency is not sufficient for confirmation, however you seem to be arguing that the fact that I ate cereal for breakfast is equally relevant to the issue in question as the fact (alleged by you to be "the best thing we have to judge the claim") that a professional male tennis player formerly defeated Serena.
Just to clarify, I do not claim or agree that your additional facts are "the best thing we have". I do however claim that those facts are more than merely consistent with McEnroe's statements; they provide confirmation of those statements. Confirmation does not entail that the matter is settled in favor of McEnroe.
Taking the questions literally, (1) yes and (2) yes.
Of course, if the subtext was to suggest that women are inferior, then, (1) yes and (2) no.
I'm not saying that. I'm disagreeing with your claim that my suggested consistent evidence is confirmation of McEnroe's claim.
I don't think they are. That Serena couldn't beat #203 20 years ago doesn't confirm the claim that she would only rank #700 today.
But as a person of some influence, will not others put weight on his comments, even if they shouldn't?
Is it OK to say that?
Okay, so I think we are in agreement that your historical facts have at least some relevance to the question in issue whereas my breakfast habits do not.
If the relevance of your facts is not in the nature of confirmation, what is their relevance?
I don't know if they would more than any other sports figure. And especially given that we're talking about McEnroe--it's not as if he doesn't have a history of being volatile, brazen, sometimes opprobrious.
What we should concentrate on, though, is getting folks to not take others' words so gravely.
It isn't in fact true. In marathon conditions, the gap closes. Women tend to weigh less, so that things that require less explosive force, and more continuous effort, the more body weight becomes more and more disadvantageous.
It's also even more complex than that, as "races" are often identified with particular athletic aptitudes which has more to do with the particular environment from where they come than anything else.
When it comes to dance, and figure skating and such, the only thing that differs is that they have the males do things that show greater feats of strength than the women can do, but other than that are they really better? Is being able to pull of four spins in the air rather than just three all that big of a deal?
I asked whether it's OK to say it, not whether it's true.
But your position is that men are inferior to women at sports? Or that they're exactly equal? Or that the two groups cannot be compared generally?
Isn't everything okay to say?...
My position is that comparing groups without qualification is never very informative, or accurate. It always depends on what we're talking about. Men aren't better at sports unequivocally.
Certainly is in my book/when I'm king.
It will not only be okay, but mandatory when I'm galactic supreme emperor.
Not everything is OK to say, no.
Anyway, I just think there's something interesting about the systematic denial of trivial truth. Symptomatic of something.
What trivial truth? I don't always see the obvious.
The men's marathon record is 2:02:57. The women's records is 2:17:01.
I used to run track and cross country. I was decent for a male, but would have been world class for a female. Maybe the gap closes over long distance for your average runner, but probably not as much for the elites (a 14 minute gap or around 30 seconds per mile) seems about right, and the context of this conversation is elite tennis players.
If you compare the mile record in men (3:43) to women (4:12), which is about 30 seconds, then you have the same gap, at least for world record holders.
Did you just vaguely look up "marathon records" or something? Those numbers don't say much, and are not detailed research. Here is something that I just looked up, but it is in correspondence with other research I've read, as well as my own observations and inferences based on endurance vs body weight rather than where I got the idea.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/the-running-blog/2015/jan/20/women-are-better-than-men-at-marathon-pacing-says-new-research
That men are generally superior to women at sports. Even though you said this wasn't true I wasn't convinced you believed yourself and didn't take you seriously. That's because your exception itself (marathons) was just an instance where the gap is smaller. The gap you acknowledged is what I regard as a trivial truth.
They're not, but the context is elite male/female athletes, not an average across all marathon participants, and I have run and watched enough track & field to know the gap between males and females.
Do you think it completely irrelevant that the gap between men's mile record and female's is close to the same for the marathon per mile? Do you think that elite male milers don't get within a few seconds of that mile record? Because they do. It's not a total statistical outlier.
Yes, I said that it isn't true, because it isn't very informative. It's a vague comparison. Like saying that being rich makes you "generally better" than poor people. It just sounds like a value judgment when put that way, rather than anything based in reality.
Do you have contradictory research to offer, or only anecdotes?
Want to make a bet on it?
Okay deal, but if we're shifting back and forth so rapidly between the general and highly particular to make this point, then I pick marathon swimming.
The context was McEnroe's statement, and Serena is elite.
My original post responded directly to the context of the OP. I didn't suggest that women competed with men generally or particularly in all sports, but rather conceded that entirely, gave my opinion of the subtext of it, and then wished to explain why men excel in some areas, and women in others.
I'd like to volunteer my services for the position of asshole along with Hanover, SIR and Baaaannnooo!
Fair enough. And Serena is still better than 99.99...% of human beings who have ever picked up a tennis racket, male or female.
Of course it's okay to say, not true but okay for you to say. However it is just as "okay" for someone else to make a HUGE generalization about something you are or are not.
What is said is neutral, how we choose to allow ourselves to react is another story.
Historically women didn't compete much in sports, it was not until the 20th Century that they competed in any numbers, and really only in the last half of the last Century they really became involved in sports to the extent that men were involved. I don't think men or women are physically that much different, but the culture of physical training has changed them dramatically. The Men's Olympic Marathon winner in posted a time of 2.29 in 1950.
John McEnroe might actual be able to beat Serena Williams currently:
I didn't get into that, because I didn't want to sound to conspiracy'ie, but you've inspired some references. I remember that Canada killed in the female aspects of the olympics, and they said that it was just because we spend more money on it. I saw some female soccer players complaining that they're made to play on turf, rather than real grass, when they'd never make male players do that.
This springs full circle to my original* (though also opinion, lol) post as well, the subtext is that women are not as great of a spectacle, so lets not give them our attention. It's a competition of divisions, which becomes self-fulfilling for as long as it is maintained.
Woman actually had to fight to be able to run in marathons. Not until 1972 in Boston Marathon and 1984 in the Olympics.
I believe that my rationale holds strong for why women are better at marathons, and, not to sounds paranoid, as it isn't something that is easy to prove, but I suspect that they're still structured in such a way to accommodate males, rather than females.
Well they have a lower center of gravity which means gives them better balance. I've been told by rock climbers that it is only a matter of time before women overtake them and I would certain rather watch a woman skater or gymnast or volleyball player...over a man doing these things.
As I like to tell everyone, golf and women's volleyball are the only real spectator sports.
You've been to Rome?
Yeah, if they produced sculptures of the ideal human body, I wouldn't mind. They're not doing that, they're taking pictures of actual people, for no reason as far as I can see. I certainly don't want to see Serena or any other person naked pretty much, because why would I? I do like contemplating and looking at the ideal body, both male and female, but that's different than this. It requires art to be able to do that.
Insofar as generalizations are truth-apt, the claim that men are generally superior to women at sports is true. If there were a sports competition (sport to be randomly selected) between a men's team and a women's team (participants randomly selected from each population), the Vegas odds would greatly favor the men's team. People tend to be pretty honest when their money is on the line.
But I don't care that men are generally better at sports than women. It's trivially true and uninteresting. Just like everyone else, I know to tiptoe around this sort of thing as a matter of social pragmatics and I don't plan to belabor the point much longer. I just find it interesting how people respond to this sort of claim with a special arsenal of sophistry and double speak. That's the part I'm interested in. Is it because they don't regard it as a trivial? Is it that they're actually responding to something other than the claim, like the perceived motive of the claim?
Williams photo was done by Annie Leibovitz, a very well known and well regarded photo artist.
You're not making points. You've made an assertion that you don't feel needs supporting, or arguing for, and then insinuated that you're oh so victimized for it, and everyone is all wicked for disagreeing, and while not making actual points, and speculating on motivations for disagreeing with the all so obvious, you decide that it is actually everyone that disagrees that only sees motives for disagreeing, and only responds to motives when that is literally 100% of all you've done here.
Am I victimizing you now? I do get that unbelievably frequently...
That doesn't make it art. For that matter, I think most modern "art" isn't really art to begin with. Just because someone is well regarded doesn't also mean that they're good. All that it means is that they have a good reputation. Typically, a lot of those people aren't even that good. But it's all the "social proof" that they built up which enables them to charge high prices and do work that others barely making ends meet could do just as well.
I don't feel victimized at all. Don't get worked up. You're right that I don't think the assertion requires much argument to support it - it's plainly obvious to both athletes and spectators. You agreed with it yourself by acknowledging "the gap" and providing an exception where the gap was smaller than usual. Would have been a really strange argument on your part if it were most any other topic, which again is my point.
Lots of evaluations, not any actual points. I will victimize you now. I thought you were a woman at first, but I see now that you've just been feminized through homoromaticism. What do I keep saying about irony? That's to return an evaluation, rather than a real point.
I did agree with the gap, but based on important qualifications, and with skepticism, with real significant points of real factors that I think are difficult to deny may instantiate some disadvantages -- but even without that, my endurance vs body weight suggestion I believe holds strong in all sports.
That's an understatement.
The photograph of Serena on the cover of Vanity Fair has an almost identical composition to the photo of a 7-month pregnant Demi Moore that appeared on the cover of the August 1991 issue. The 1991 photo was also taken by Leibovitz. Is Vanity Fair making some kind of statement by this?
I still don't feel victimized. Not sure why you want me to be/feel victimized.
What about the hypothetical I gave. What if you had to bet on it? You'd bet on the men's team right?
I told you that it depends, and it's based on the structure of how things are put together based on attention given and money spent (in my opinion), and also that men beat women in explosive power, but not endurance. All of this means that I'm in no way denying that men's teams would generally beat women's. What have I said that makes you think I'm denying this? What kind of point do you think you're making in having me concede this? Be direct, and stop with the insinuations.
What did you mean that you can't say somethings other than people will not like it and disagree with you? What did that mean other than that you'd be victimized? You just don't want to say that you are because I'm telling you that you are. So sassy.
Is there any truth to John's statements?: Yes.
Is there anything wrong with what he said apart from whether or not the statements are true?: No.
What were his motivations and are those motivations relevant to judgments about the propriety of making such statements?: What?
Are you suggesting that he has some hidden motivation for pointing out the difference between male and female tennis athletes?
Are you suggesting that his statements are somehow improper because of his motivations?
It's uncontroversially true that male athletes have a rather large advantage in just about any sport which requires physical strength to play at a high level.
Bottom line, if people want to screech and holler about how women are just as "good" as men in most sports, then do away with the male/female distinction. Combine everyone all in one pool. But see, nobody wants that because then the truth will sit out for all to see. The horror!
Perhaps they intend to demonstrate the breath taking beauty of the form of a pregnant woman's body. Demi Moore's photo in Vanity Fair was thought to be very scandalous at the time, and it was displayed in a white paper wrapper. Far fewer will be scandalized by Williams photo, but there are some as demonstrated in this thread.
I actually second this. It does look ugly. The purpose of art is to depict beauty and ideals, not ugliness. The fact these "artists" create "art" for political purposes is simply a defilement of art. You can say something ugly looks beautiful till you're blue in the face, it ain't going to make it true. I'm never going to think that image is beautiful. You can force me to say it is for political reasons, but I'll never think so, regardless of what you do.
Now such "art" also objectifies the pregnant body, as if it was SUPPOSED to be beautiful in the first place :s Really, it's fucked up. Women don't get pregnant to look beautiful, so this is absurd beyond measure. Should pregnant women be ashamed of going around naked? Well probably yes actually, I don't see why they shouldn't. The pregnant body isn't to show off to everyone, that seems grotesque and absurd.
You're projecting all the sass. The point has to do with off-limit trivialities stifling broader discussion. I do understand that you don't see my point, but you've made it for me to anyone who does.
As I've said, I've only seen evaluations. I'm not doing it right, rather than actually being mistake or counter-factual in any way. I'm a bad boy. So so sassy. Doubly sassy.
Not as ugly as this:
Actually, I think just about as ugly as that. Both of them have no place in the public arena as far as I'm concerned, and neither are art. I think such "art" should be shunned.
Yes, but those depictions certainly did not mean to illustrate beauty. The pregnant woman's body is not supposed to be beautiful, but rather nourishing, protective and other qualities. That Serena picture actually wants to tell us that she's proud of her body - as if anyone gave a damn. She is indeed quite smug, and the idiots are paying money for this.
I remember you saying that you have a big nose, as I do.
I bet my big nose is far more beautious.
Oh, oh, I'm so triggered and harmed. Got me back for being such a big meanie. My big ugly ass nose. Oh nose!
As opposed to hominid evolution over the past 2 million years? I don't see what the athletic training would have been for most males prior to the late 19th century. Would it have been military? Or perhaps physical labor?
Anyway, tennis is relatively recent. I don't believe Serena or her sister Venus were lacking in opportunity to get on a tennis court growing up.
When I grew up, females had the same opportunity to participate in athletics as the males did, and we often played sports together on the playground. There was still an athletic gap between males and females.
It would never make biological sense to make the females more risk taking, regardless of any gaps in competence.
My point is that a woman's top time today would have won a big margin against top male runners back in the day, look at the time difference.
Makes sense. I'm only arguing that there is a physical difference that can often be seen in athletic events. This isn't a value judgement, just that it exists. It's not universal, and it varies among individuals, obviously.
True, which isn't as true for shorter distances, which lends support to there being less of a gap over longer distances.
Pretty much all athletic performances have improved since the 50s across genders.
The physical difference is one between explosive power, and stamina. Weight, and endurance. Not in every conceivable way, in every single physical competition imaginable, and not without some significant reasons that don't reduce to biology.
It's far from just a hard truth that softies and sjw just won't admit or something...
Sexual dimorphism is the degree to which the males and females of a given species exhibit different biological characteristics (I.E: color, size, strength, horns, etc...)...
For example, deer species tend to display high degrees of sexual dimorphism with the males generally being bigger (almost universally true for deer) and also the possession of antlers. (the male and female deer do lead somewhat different kinds of lives, with the male fighting against other males, and the females rearing the children).
A pair of crows however exhibit almost no sexual dimorphism whatsoever, which suits them well because they both lead the exact same kind of lives. (they "pair bond" and then both share the duties of child-rearing equally, which has caused both the males and females of the species to converge toward the same ideal parental form).
Pair-bonding species tend to have low sexual dimorphism and "tournament species" tend to have high degrees of sexual dimorphism...
Humans are both a pair-bonding AND tournament species. In some individuals there can be seen a high degree of sexual dimorphism, and in some individuals almost no sexual dimorphism is visible.
As such, there are many men who have less physical strength than many women, but when we look at the extreme ends of the spectrum of dimorphism, we see women being geared toward child rearing on one end, and males being geared toward competition on the other end.
Men and women with low degrees of sexual dimorphism will generally have an equal distribution of traits and characteristics (like a pair-bonding species which shares the responsibility of child rearing), but the outlying women will somehow be more geared toward child-rearing, while the outlying men will be geared toward competition with other men.
These outliers fill the top echelons of sporting prowess (and in beauty magazines) and explains why many men have physically bigger and stronger bodies than many women... It's all genetic!
I don't know what his motivations were. I don't know that even he understands his motivations. I do think it is a strange thing for him to be so opinionated about. Although I have to admit that the interviewer's questions were very leading. Maybe it springs from an ultra-competitive mindset, or perhaps he was just being cheeky (although to me he appears to be earnest).
I'm not exactly saying that his statements were improper, but I do think that there are understandable reasons why certain people (e.g. female athletes in general, and Serena Williams in particular) would be annoyed by them.
Serena very graciously tweeted this reply:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/serenawilliams/status/879466071404810241[/tweet]
The beauty in the photo, to me, is found in its candour about the female body. Most published photos of women depict an airbrushed, photoshopped distortion of reality.
I can tell you his statements were made in earnest. Tennis has very very competitive cultures which surround it, and while this is a part of where the "controversy" originates (the human desire to competitively compare and contrast, and the resulting dilemma when the top men are compared to the top women), it's also why there is such a clear divide in the first place (concerning tennis specifically at least).
Professional athletes in this sport pretty much get maxed out in terms of physical conditioning and the relevant skill set/mentality required to compete and win. Serena Williams certainly seems maxed out in these categories, but what limits her compared to some males is her upper limit on arm-strength.
The thing that makes Serena so dominant among women (her absolutely incredible body/strength) is the same thing that leaves her disadvantaged in a pool of the best men (many of them have stronger arms/serves/returns).
EDIT: Essentially what John said is entirely factual. Serena might do a bit better than the top 600, but likely not much.
>:O - this must win bullshit of the day. Let me guess, you're a progressive who voted Clinton - you're with HER? :D
Why do I give a damn about candour when it's ugly?! Can someone please explain this to me? How does honestly expressing something ugly suddenly make it beautiful? :s
"Oh the candour with which he talked about his open marriage, ahhh so beautiful". WTF? :s I think the brain has gone missing...
Sexual selection is only one factor contributing to sexual dimorphism. Consider most bird-of-prey species: the female is significantly larger than the male, and they both contribute to the rearing of young. The adaptive significance of this difference in size appears to be unrelated to sexual selection, but instead related to a division of labor between the parents. Research suggests that the difference in size permits each sex to specialize in different prey items thus ensuring a broader pool of food items in times of scarcity.
Interesting. There is also a long history of the "battle of the sexes" in tennis (e.g. the Bobby Riggs vs. Billy Jean King match) that may still pervade the culture of the sport.
>:O >:O >:O If you believe that, you're absolutely crazy. That's just like saying I don't want my wife to have sex with other men because I'm insecure >:O
Damn some people really can't think, can they? :s Nietzsche did have a point when he wrote about some slave morality overcoming master morality and ruling society. Clearly slave morality has won! Thinking Serena's picture is ugly must certainly mean I'm attracted to her! How the slaves have inverted our values such that strengths and virtues have become weaknesses and sins...
But this is exactly my point: genetics (which evolved to suit environmental factors, such as mate selection and the necessities of child-rearing) very reliably expresses itself in the average characteristics of many animal species...
With humans, we're so in-between that we're better understood as having a genetic capacity for both extremes of reproductive strategies (pair-bonding vs tournament) and have a spectrum of individuals in-between.
So when we then look at how traits and chracteristics are spread out across the sexes, we can start by looking at the "pair-bonding" or shared-trait individuals (males and females who appear very similar in weight/height/strength etc...) and then we can look at the other segments of population which diverge toward sexually dimorphic extremes.
While it's possible for an individual female to exhibit very masculine traits (or a male to exhibut very feminine traits), the numbers statistically favor men for masculine traits and women for feminine traits.
This statistical spread is why on average at any given moment the strongest athlete will be male, and why it will be a very reliable expectation that the group of top athletes will be composed mostly or completely of men.
The sport was so much less competitive and developed when they had that match that the genetic disadvantage wasn't so hard to overcome. (there wasn't this massive pool of stand-out male specimens training for life and competing for millions).
I tried to find out if bobby smoked, all I could find was this ad:
(Bobby Riggs, top left)
Could you imagine a modern top tennis player smoking cigarettes?
Remember, I'm not saying women cannot be better at sports than men (i've tried to be very clear). Serena is better at tennis than 99.9999% of all males (or something like it), but statistically the athleticism required to be Serena-level-good will show up in outlying males more often than outlying females.
Yes, absolutely:
She's totally a LUNATIC.
Well, the scientist had lost his wife or something, and decided that he had no more reason to stick around, so he takes off and lands a couple thousand years in the future. The human race has changed quite a bit, and so has society. I don't think you would approve. Everyone is a genderless genetic clone with the same status, and there are no authorities. Nobody needs to work. Nobody tells anyone else to do anything. It's all voluntary.
Anyway, our hero happens across his bar friend who had gotten a hold of his plans back in the past and hand an engineer to make another time machine. I guess the machine was geared to go the same amount into the future. So our right wing villain was none too happy with how things turned out, and thus set about trying to teach inequality and social hierarchies to the future humans, while creating a terrorist plot to bring the whole society down, in order to restart things with hard work and inequality. Of course the villain would get to be king of the new society.
To be honest though, I wasn't much of a fan of that future either (I don't want everyone to be the same), although I disagreed with the villain of the story.
That ad is too funny.
The other factor to remember is that Riggs was well over the hill at the time of his match with King. It was perhaps more illustrative of an age vs. youth contest than of male vs. female. Even for ultra-masculine males, the advantages of superior genetics (if that is in fact the differentiating variable) diminish with age.
Hate the beach, then?
Not on closer inspection. Except maybe the outlying ones mentioned by
Right there is the elephant in the room. But that is hardly surprising since most sports were created to showcase male abilities.
So what (if anything) is the difficulty that some people will have with McEnroe's comments? Perhaps it is that he is too strident with his remarks and seemingly insensitive to some of the negative overtones.
Um, well are you saying that she's ugly because she's a black woman? If so, then I think you might be guilty on both counts.
Shirley, there are black women who are ugly, just as there are white women who are ugly. The beauty or ugliness of a woman will probably have at least something to do with her racial make up. Would one be a racist for saying so? Or a sexist?
I recommend you put the crack pipe down. I see no resemblance between myself and your villain.
I don't hate it, I just don't go to the beach to see naked people >:O . And even on the beach they're not completely naked.
My dear Agustino, are you suggesting that Serena is "ugly" because she is pregnant?
I'm suggesting that the pregnant body of a woman isn't meant to be beautiful, and yes, I don't consider that picture of Serena to be beautiful, but rather ugly. Why is it ugly? A combination of factors, including the fact that the pregnant body is used as if it were meant to be beautiful in order to send a political message. I don't consider this to be art at all.
Now there's nothing wrong with the pregnant body, it has its own symbolism and meaning to offer, but it's not in beauty, but rather in nourishment, protection, etc. I think a picture like this just defames that.
I'm not sure I understand. Judging beauty by reference to race seems obviously racist to me. How can you avoid the racism in a statement like, "that woman is ugly because of her nappy hair and big butt typical of black women"?
Do you know the difference between beauty and sexual appeal?
Yes, beauty is more general than sexual appeal. Also sexual appeal can be elicited in ways that are independent of beauty, but rather dependent on social standards.
Then what is behind your assertion that "the pregnant body of a woman isn't meant to be beautiful"?
Exactly what it says? :s
But it doesn't say. What is the teleology directing a woman's beauty?
Are you talking about physical beauty, moral beauty, intellectual beauty or what? :s
This is just a guess not an assumption so please do not take it that way but my guess is you have never contributed to the creation of a child. There are hopes and dreams created through the 10 lunar months that your partner is pregnant that enamor you with the upcoming birth of a part of you, blended with part of your partner. That actually translates to an appreciation of the beauty of a woman when she is literally carrying your baby. At times men will wonder if the pregnant woman in their home is actually the same woman he married because co-habituating a body is a pretty magnificent and creepy feeling all at the same time, something a man could never understand. But in the glow of the pending addition to your life, a pregnant woman could not be more beautiful.
So maybe it comes down to beauty is in the eye of the beholder, especially in the creation of another human but I think that pregnant women are beautiful simply because the glow of life that shows in their whole being.
No, I don't have any children, so you're quite correct about that. I certainly agree with all this, and I hope I haven't given you the impression that I don't. But all this is something very different from what that picture illustrates. I think what that picture illustrates is quite defaming of what you're saying right here, in that it obscures these elements, rather than showing them.
What about that picture is defaming?
The fact that it doesn't illustrate the non-physical beauty that you're speaking of. It's not an image which arouses in you feelings of the glow and beauty of a newly created life. Neither does it illustrate the bond between mother and child, or between mother and father for that matter.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Because Serena is doing this just to show she is PROUD of her pregnant body and isn't ashamed of showing it out in the open for all to see. It's part of a political movement aimed at normalising public displays of intimate matters, as if such things were meant to be put on public display. To me, this is quite sickening.
The phenomenon you are citing has more to do with status and competition than sexual attraction. Sex appeal has a very real basis in biology.
I am skeptical of this. Yes, it does have a basis in biology, but that doesn't play as big of a role as we're often made to think it does.
Do you understand the miracle of the birth of a human? I mean Dude, this has little to do with politics but rather the ability to love living life at every stage, which for a woman can include pregnancy. If you don't find it attractive and find obscure reasons to justify your perspective, you are inferring something that is just not in the picture. She and women around the world are imploring women, to accept the beauty of THIER bodies, not the ones who air brushed down two sizes to a level of anorexia that often stops the ability for the woman to even conceive a baby.
muttering.....talk about objectification at an empirical level (N)
Okay, what does this ability have to do with publicly showing your naked body while you're pregnant? :s
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Which is another stupid thing. Some women aren't physically beautiful, that's not the end of the world. It's not even a big thing. There's much more important things than physical beauty. Her "way" of dealing with this is telling them a lie - "hurr hurr you're already beautiful" - oh really? Rather than teaching them that the most important beauty consists in being virtuous, they teach them that they already have a beautiful body even while it's false, and reality will show them that it is false sooner or later, and they will be miserable, because they put their money on something that is corruptible and can be lost (physical beauty).
No one has ever had to convince me to get a boner. It's a biological response.
lololol
mods feel free to delete
It's a biological response that is culturally and psychologically mediated. You can train yourself not to get a boner, except at command (I have done that for example). What you find sexually attractive is also culturally mediated by what others find sexually attractive. If you see this smoking hot girl followed by 5 guys salivating after her, then chances are you'll be very sexually attracted to her. If you saw that girl alone, then you'd be less attracted to her than otherwise, but still attracted to her if she meets the image that society has projected of an attractive woman.
Do you have a heart in there Agustino? Holy cannoli! Who are you to suggest what is and isn't a GOOD POSITIVE movement to bring the reality to a woman's body as it morphs over life?
Well who are you to suggest the opposite? :s
And I don't understand what you mean by "bring the reality to a woman's body as it morphs over life"? Isn't her body already real as it is, why do you need to "bring the reality" to it?
And by the way, I think people like her have no heart. Because they teach girls who are not beautiful to act as if they are, and prepare them to be heartbroken and disappointed over and over again, instead of teaching them that physical beauty isn't that important in the first place, and they should find a man who values them for their moral character rather than for things which can be lost, like physical beauty.
Because there are people in this world, one that I have been interacting with for the last hour, that suggests that some men are making an active choice to keep women seeking to satisfy the objectification level that the male desires.
Is a good woman one who benefits herself, or who benefits her man? I like to go to the doctor who most benefits me, not who benefits himself, I don't know about you. So since when would it be wrong for men to be important in setting up the ideal of what a woman should be? And the opposite is also true - a good man is one who most benefits his woman, not himself. Hence the standard of what a good man is should be set by women.
Also I am a bit puzzled at what exactly you refer to by "keep women seeking to satisfy the objectification level that the male desires" - what objectification level are you even talking about?
This is a secondary effect.
I guess that depends on whether he is a man's man, or a ladies' man.
Have a good day Agustino~ I enjoyed our debate
Aren't you a part of a political movement aimed at vilifying public displays of the female form?
You find public displays of the female/pregnant body sickening, but why???
If some women find the male chest to be disgusting, should we forbid any man from appearing shirtless in public?
If some men find public displays of female ankle to be disgusting, should they be forbade showing ankle?
What exactly is the basis of your sentiments toward nudity and sex other than the discomfort you personally feel toward it?
Yes, except in the appropriate contexts, like the beach. But certainly if someone goes shirtless on the street that should be considered a problem.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No - it's just an ankle.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Because it is used to promote a nefarious political agenda, which is a problem. It's much like prostitution - it's using something that is natural and wholesome - the pregnant body - for an evil and nefarious end.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
And let me guess - the discomfort is due to my insecurity, even though I have a sexier body than most men. Sure. :-} Typical absurd progressive thinking.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No, I am part of a political movement aimed at sanctioning lack of decency in public.
Where are you getting your decisions about what's appropriate and what's inappropriate?
Why is a shirtless male on the street bad but an ankle sporting women is O.K?
Quoting Agustino
No Augustino, I wasn't going to call you ugly (you love to take the chance to bolster your self-image though :/ )... I want to know the actual basis upon which you declare certain things to be inappropriate and others appropriate. I'm not interested in how sexy you are or think you are...
Quoting Agustino
Who decides the standards of decency? Tradition? The bible? You? God?
I could pretend to be a puritan and admonish you for not condemning the indecency of an exposed female ankle. I could accuse you of having a nefarious political agenda and that all I'm doing is sanctioning a lack of decency in public...
In Saudi Arabia it's considered indecent for a women to be unchaperoned by a man, at all times (in public), so what would you say to Saudi Arabia when they accuse you of supporting sexual depravity?
Why is that man going shirtless? :s Is it because he wants to show his sexy body openly on the street? Then that's immoral and lacks decency.
Ankle sporting women aren't doing anything that is indecent.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
What kind of answer do you expect when you ask this question?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes, you could. And then I would explain to you why women showing their ankles isn't an example of lack of decency. I would say that a woman wouldn't show her ankles for any nefarious or immoral reasons - such as provoking sexual desire, showing off, etc. I would say that her showing her ankles in public would not produce any negative social consequences, but on the contrary it may be useful when it's very hot outside for example.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I would ask them why they consider it indecent for a woman to be unchaperoned by a man in public. They will probably tell me that it's either because the woman should be protected at all times because of the danger that exists from a man trying to pick her up, rob her, etc. They may also tell me that a woman who isn't with a man may be provoking for other men and may incite their lust. In the first case I'd suggest that we should use police to protect women such that they are not harassed by men while out in the street. In the second case, I'd ask them if the lust provoked in the men looking at the women is any different if she's with another man. They'd either say yes, or no. If they say yes, then I'd ask them to explain how this is possible, granted that the woman, and not the man is the cause of this lust in the first place. They might try to say that the presence of the man would produce fear in other men, keeping their lust at bay. Then I may say that we should try to produce the same fear by means of the law, not by means of requesting her to be escorted by a man at all times. And so forth.
And by the way, they do walk unchaperoned many times >:O . Saudi and those places are very very hypocritical.
Let's say that he wants to stay cool on a hot day, or just that shirtlessness is the most comfortable for him.
Is it still immoral for him to walk around shirtless? If so, why? (because someone else might find it sexy? Because he intends to appear sexy?)
(by your logic, a woman who shows ankle because they want too appear sexy is behaving immorally. You should probably look into correcting your moral reasoning here)
Quoting Agustino
Honestly, I expect really terrible answers because I know you base your position here on subjective and personal-religious emotional sensitivities
Asking you what determines the standards of decency isn't some "gotcha" or trick question; you stated that something is indecent, and now I'm asking how you came to that conclusion...
Quoting Agustino
I'm attracted to the ankles of women, and some women intentionally excite me in public by displaying their ankles to me in public. That makes ankle display immoral right?
Quoting Agustino
The appearance of an unchaperoned (but fully burka-d) female is apparently indecent exposure according to Saudi men. They're attracted to the sight of a lone female and since females know this, for them to appear unchaperoned in public is to intentionally and knowingly provoke sexual desire (let alone to expose their faces).
A woman appearing in Saudi Arabia without a man is like a woman appearing in your town without a top or bra.
The distinct problem here Aug' is that what you deem to be sexually provocative is down to your own subjective and learned sensibilities. Some women would actually like to walk around topless for comfort reasons, but because you find breasts so sexually provocative suddenly their display becomes immoral and nefarious. So far the only actual qualifier you've offered is "intending to be provocative", and if we were to use that as a standard to determine indecency, then make-up of any kind, any decorative hair-styles, any clothing which flatters the human form, (basically any overt aesthetic display by men or women) can be viewed as an attempt to provoke sexual desire (aka, immoral and nefarious). Similarly, any unintentional instance of sexual provocativeness (a woman walking around naked because she likes being naked) therefore is NOT immoral or nefarious (because there's no intent?) Of course not right? It's still immoral because if you're forced to see a nipple then.... Reasons...?
If you grew up in a nudist colony you wouldn't look at a woman's breast and have an instant reaction. In similar fashion you are not affected by the sight of ankles in the same way what a man from the 18th century might have been.
You pretend to have insight about what's moral on this subject but all you're doing is tracing existing taboo lines.
I would hazard to say that public sex acts are indecent, but I would not include brief kisses (even between men) under the description of a "sex act".
If god didn't describe nudity as shameful in Christianity, might you assent to this position?
Staying cool on a hot day requires clothing. Many people believe this idiocy, but actually the body creates an exchange environment located between the body and the clothing. This is one of the primary ways of the body to regulate its own temperature, so clothing actually helps. That's why in the Middle East they go fully clothed for example, even though it's scorching hot. And it does actually feel cooler if you walk like them.
So this is a stupid reason. It would be time to educate him.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Okay, highly unlikely.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No. But again we need rules. Rules can't cover ALL cases. If they cover most cases, that's good enough.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes she would be, but (1) I doubt most women would seek to appear sexy just by showing ankles, and (2) a rule cannot cover every possible case, there will be exceptions which bypass the rule, and that's fine. All it needs is to cover most cases.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I've explained to you very specifically for that particular case, and there was no reference to subjective and religious reasons by the way.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
You still haven't answered my question. What KIND of answer would you expect? Can you give me an example of the kind of answer you would expect?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No. That's your problem you are so darn attracted to them, most men aren't.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
That's absolutely false. I haven't seen any women in my town appearing without a top or a bra, but when I was in Saudi a couple of years ago, I've seen PLENTY of women going unchaperoned in their huge ass malls.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yeah, a very tiny percentage of women.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Don't be stupid, I haven't said any of this garbage. Stop strawmanning.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
The fact you think that some things are indecent are proof enough. Why are sex acts in public indecent? It will be so fun watching you give the same reasons I have given now sweetypie.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes, I clearly would. I got most of my moral values before I became a Christian actually. And contrary to what my society was pushing me towards as well.
>:O Yeah, it's useful you've specified the color ;)
Again, one specific case is not basis enough for making a rule out of it. You seem to be ignoring this fact.
No, I'm not. There are lots of similar cases like that - enough to make rules.
1. When you see a guy with his top off on a hot summer day, you can't be sure of the reason, and so you can't be sure of whether or not you'd approve or disapprove, so you shouldn't be too quick to judge.
2. Even if he's doing it for sex appeal, so what? Stop being a prude.
Why does he want to appeal sexually and attract attention?
Quoting Sapientia
Depends on the circumstance.
I don't know. That's his concern, not yours. Why don't you ask him? That'd be funny to watch, actually.
Quoting Agustino
When can you be sure if he's just some guy on the other side of the street minding his own business? If he's good looking and seems confident?
I would if I met him. But for now you might have to supplant for him. Clearly it concerns me, that's why I'm asking him.
Quoting Sapientia
I don't understand your question?
The man informs you that his robes are at the cleaners. He shrugs and continues walking.
"Would you like to play again?"
Quoting Agustino
The man informs you that he doesn't like scratchy fabrics and that he cannot afford silk. He shrugs and continues walking.
"Would you like to play again?"
Quoting Agustino
All I really want is even one well founded and useful rule that is persuasive to me. I mentioned in another thread that you would be hard pressed to draw clear and useful lines when it comes to this subject, and perhaps it's becoming clear as to why.
Why should even the sight of a man's penis be inherently nefarious or immoral? What are the precise grounds upon which we decide to forbid their public display? (and how long before we stop caring and mystifying/immoralizing/obsessing over genitalia as a society due to our steady over-exposure?)
Like someone who grew up in a nudist colony, seeing tits, a vagina, or a penis becomes like seeing an elbow or an ear.
I hesitate to even bring this up because I would rather not pretend that anti-promiscuity social-engineering is a concern of mine, but people who grow up in nudist colonies, so far as i know, are somewhat able to disassociate genitals in and of themselves from other human qualities which arouse them. To such a man, merely seeing a woman naked might not be arousing whatsoever, but if that woman were to show genuine interest him then he might actually begin to be aroused and view her in an explicitly sexual manner. Isn't that somewhat wholesome?
Quoting Agustino
I'm not looking for "rules", I'm probing for the root of your moral condemnation of certain behavior. You're now confirming that indecency = attempt to be sexually provocative.
Quoting Agustino
By defining indecency as an attempt to be sexually provocative (rather than instances of individuals actually being sexually provoked (to avoid the ankle dilemma?)) you have essentially shoved your subjective (and perhaps religious reasons) into this one odd postulate that I will attempt to convince you is flawed.
Quoting Agustino
Well, arguments that I might accept would be based on some kind of harm caused by an action that justifies actually forbidding it on a societal level (a "moral" exchange of freedom for security). What I expect are answers like "somehow the human body is inherently sinful (re: God)". Essentially asking you "who decides the standards of decency" is rhetorical; it's designed to make you confront your internal appeals to whichever authority and to see how from a different perspective it might seem arbitrary. I never expected a convincing answer...
Quoting Agustino
And yet, women can be essentially arrested for not being chaperoned in public, by law. I'm sure some women get away with it in the malls, but how extensively have you traveled in SA?
Quoting Agustino
So they're not being indecent or immoral or nefarious by walking around naked then right? Because they're not intending to be sexually provocative, right?
Quoting Agustino
Well, let's see: "Why is that man going shirtless? :s Is it because he wants to show his sexy body openly on the street? Then that's immoral and lacks decency."
Maybe it was unintentional, but your use of the terms "because" and "then" seems to indicate argument structure:
P1: attempting to be sexually provocative is immoral
P2: (if) going shirtless is an attempt to be provocative
C1: going shirtless is immoral and lacks decency
How is this a strawman?
Quoting Agustino
I know why the politico-sexualization of the pregnant female body sickens you (friggin politics, amiright nudge? nudge?), but what I apparently still don't understand why public displays of nudity are inherently immoral/indecent if not "because of the intent to be sexually provocative". If that's not your position, then please remind me of your reasons.
As far as "public sex acts" go, there's actually some issues which can be raised against it which cannot be easily raised for nudity (in and of itself).
We can both agree that naked butts in public transit seats is a bad idea, but it's possible for a man or woman to stand naked on a public sidewalk and not leave behind any evidence that they were there. Most sex acts that I know of in fact produce a certain amount of fluids, and so in so many cases and situations sex in public would be harmful on the grounds of hygiene alone. But let's talk about sex acts which don't leave behind any humors, and which have the only characteristic of being a display of sexual intimacy. Such an act, (such as "dry sex" on a bus), might be seen as indecent by many, but on these grounds alone we cannot say it's immoral unless we're prepared to say that it becomes moral if the average person doesn't find it to be indecent. The reason why what I would describe as a "sex act" would be immoral for display in public is that witnessing them can be psychologically harmful to children. It's something they're not equipped to understand and I think we can both agree we would rather live in a world with such security for our children rather than the freedom to have sex in public for others.
Basic nudity isn't something children are incapable of understanding though, and as I argued previously someone who grows up with regular exposure to the genitals of the opposite sex (such as in nudist colonies) just winds up losing explicit sexual interest in genitals themselves (in exchange for things like personality). Men like you and I might have a hard time thinking straight if a very attractive woman suddenly exposed herself in our presence, but isn't that our problem and not hers?
>:O
"Excuse me, Mister. Why do you want to appeal sexually and attract attention?"
Quoting Agustino
But it [i]shouldn't[/I] concern you.
Quoting Agustino
I'm trying to ascertain whether this is more of a hypothetical thing or whether you actually go around judging people, and if so, under what circumstances.
As far as I can tell so far, it's to do with the immorality of promiscuity itself, up to and including the way in which it is leading to the destruction of the west through the erosion of traditional Western monogamy.
Why not? Who decides this you? And where have you taken this from, out of your ass maybe? :P
You're saying it shouldn't concern me as if this was all so self-evident. So quit playing games, because it clearly isn't all so self-evident.
Quoting Sapientia
That would be hard specifying, it would require a lot of writing. Of course I do - when I see indecent behaviour I do judge it.
Because it's no big deal, and yes, me, just as you decide otherwise. I'm a liberal and you're a prude.
Quoting Agustino
I don't doubt that you go around judging what you take to be indecent behaviour. My point was, in what we were talking about, how can you be sure? And my suspicion is that there are times where you can't be, but you do so anyway, because you're judgemental.
>:O
His concern is more political. If it considered acceptable to show the naked body in media, if such displays are considered to be wonderful, then the publicly naked body is no longer to be something to be morally feared.
Worse, the naked body of women becomes protected in public display.
In this instance, the concern isn't so much about sex, but the celebration of public nudity is politically associated with people who advocate for permissive sexuality.
If we respect the publicly naked body, for example, he won't be able to attack women Slutwalk march for going topless. Instead, will be celebrating (in a non-sexual sense) the beauty of a bodily display. His political options become more limited. He can't just denigrate everyone he wants for being publicly naked.
Serena is showing neither genitals nor fully showing breasts in the image you apparently find so morally appalling. You would see at least as much at the beach.
Having said that, I do tend to find celebrities' apparent needs to share everything with the public, and the public's tendency to lap it up somewhat disgusting, but more for aesthetic, than for moral reasons. This is also reflected in the 'minor celebrity' phenomenon of people sharing images and anecdotes showing mundane details of their lives on social media. " Look, this is me at the beach!" I do find that disgusting as well.
Yeahh...wow...really...???
I thought maybe you were being sarcastic, but now I'm not so sure...I honestly can't tell if you're being serious or not. Am I deficient in some way? :)
But, in any case, I want to make it clear that I'm not at all condemning social media as such, just signaling my distaste for certain common uses of them.
Edit: not knowing who Gloria Steinem is I googled. She doesn't seem like a phony at all, so now I guess you were not being sarcastic.
I'm pretty sure I had heard of her, and probably read a little about her at some time (but I read so much) since the writing about her and her face was somewhat familiar to me. But she obviously wasn't familiar enough for me to instantly know who you were referring to.
I can only applaud that kind of thing. Much more of it is needed. I am aware that a great deal of horrendous violence is perpetrated behind closed doors, and mostly by men. It's actually heartbreaking...and is that for all concerned!
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Sapientia
Based on observations over several years, it is apparent that some (many? all?) of our philosophers here have body issues, and that some have mixed their personal hang-ups into their morality.
First in line we have Agustino wondering why someone wants to appeal sexually and attract attention. Agustino: You are Exhibit A in the Case of the Prudish Philosopher. Why are people prudish? Because they have a problem with being an embodied being. One suspects they have rejected their own body, and then generalized this rejection to others. If they thought being a body was really a good thing, they would celebrate it instead of constructing barbed wire fences and visual screens around it.
People who are physically and mentally healthy NATURALLY want to appeal sexually to others. It's NORMAL. As it happens, some screwed up people find a shirtless male as risqué as a topless female. Maybe where you come from that is so, but I doubt it. At least in many places, the male torso isn't as eroticized as the female torso. Exposed and eroticized torsos (of either sex) bother people who are uncomfortable with eroticism.
Then we have Sapientia suffering from the heat (of the UK -- not to be confused with the heat of Alabama) in his black polyester-cotton mix T shirt because his abdomen isn't adequate.
Sapientia: For your own good, (and as a sign to the rest of humanity) take your T shirt off and walk down the street--insouciantly--regardless of your less than perfect Rectus Abdominis muscles. Maybe you are 3 pounds over weight, maybe you haven't done your usual 500 sit ups, or whatever... Tough. As you are is just fine. You don't have to measure up to some ideal of physical shape. (Of course, you can if you want to, but there is no point of dying from heat stroke in a black T shirt because your six pack is fading.)
The Philosophy Forum really should arrange a 2 week meet-up at a nudist colony so everyone could, once and for all, get over these body-neuroses.
Get naked and get over it, once and for all.
Well I believe you haven't read all of my posts, otherwise you would understand that I said that the image is ugly, and justified the ugliness based on the fact that pregnancy is used to drive a political agenda through the picture. This, I believe, is immoral. And no, it has nothing to do with the beach. People at the beach aren't driving political agendas by their nakedness, nor do they stay with breasts out, only covered by the palms of their hands.
Quoting John
Yes, I very much share some of those feelings.
Again, to whom? To you? It clearly isn't one to you.
Quoting Sapientia
No, a conservative isn't a prude. I didn't suggest you should not show your sexy six pack to your wife, of course you should, she should enjoy that. But only she. (well people at your gym can enjoy that too, or the beach, etc. but certainly not the street).
Quoting Sapientia
Nobody can be sure of anything, so what's your point? :s We shouldn't judge things just because we can't be sure? Our judgement should take into account the uncertainty.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
What do you even mean the female body becomes protected in public display? Protected from what exactly? :s
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Yes, it's a way to spread propaganda.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Wow wow wow, slow down please. Why should we "attack" women who go on the Slutwalk march?
But the real question is should we have women going topless marching through our streets, and breaking down our standards of decency? No, I think we shouldn't. Nor do I think we should respect dangerous propaganda which aims to legitimise forms of sexual immorality. Rather, we should speak against it, and educate people of its dangers.
Quoting Bitter Crank
No, I don't think I'm prudish at all BC, it seems you picked that meme from Sapientia. I don't think there's anything wrong with showing your body in the right circumstances. There is however something wrong with purposefully looking to be sexually attractive.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I do celebrate it, I have no clue why you'd think I don't. At the gym and in the right places. With my wife when I will get married eventually. And also by currently being a celibate - that's also a way to respect and celebrate my body, by the way. Freudians are really behind aren't they?
Quoting Bitter Crank
No I don't think it's normal at all. I want to be sexually appealing to the woman I love, not to any random woman on the street, that's silly now. Why would I want that? :s
Quoting Bitter Crank
I was speaking about decency there.
Quoting Bitter Crank
No, I'm not "bothered" by seeing it at all, it's just that it's not decent, and it would be better if it didn't happen. If I see a smoking hot woman walking by, I'm really not that interested anymore, as I would be when I was a younger boy :P - I really feel no need to be. But if I were to love that woman, that would be a different question...
Yes, and your retarded man clearly has only one pair of robes...
Quoting VagabondSpectre
That is persuasive to you I cannot guarantee, but that there are reasons for holding such a belief, that I can provide you.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
We will always care about it because people are born with a sense of decency, that has to be then overcome through education.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes, you can add to that attempt to show off.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I see no attempt in your post so far, so hopefully I expect to see this in some future post.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes, indecency harms the person who is being indecent.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
So witnessing and passing by potentially infectious penises which swing from side to side isn't dangerous and psychologically harmful for children? :s
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Maybe you would have trouble, but I have no trouble at all. This is a common occurrence for me. Attractive women don't attract me much anymore. People can train themselves to stop being enslaved by the cultural instincts that society breeds in them, especially when these instincts are immoral.
Isn't this like when you tried to claim that babies are born with a desire for god?
Babies aren't born with any knowledge about decency; they're born naked and will happily piss, shit, and vomit on you.
If a child gets raised by a pack of dogs, they act like a dog. Do you honestly believe that humans are born with biologically pre-programmed ideas?
Quoting Agustino
You previously stated that if a women tries to be sexually provocative by showing her ankle then she is behaving immorally...
All you have done is stated that "attempts to be sexually appealing are immoral" but you have not justified why (beyond some insane fear mongering of the collapse of western society that is clearly fueled by your passion for religious conservatism and your hatred of liberalism).
And you wonder why others call you a prude... Sexual attraction is a natural part of human life Aug, get used to it. By your standards any woman who makes sure she has good posture is an immoral whore.
Quoting Agustino
How?
Seems to be that being sexy hasn't harmed Beyonce or Madonna. In fact I think they profited from it.
What harm are you taking about?
Quoting Agustino
Infectious penises?
[hide]
Nobody is flailing their infectious penis around. You have a really wild imagination... If you're really that paranoid, just remember that if someone comes at you with their infectious penis, you are permitted to defend yourself...
Regarding children, generally the mere sight of genitalia isn't likely to confuse them or lead to any increased risk of actual harm. Anything is possible, but the biological differences between genders in and of themselves can be as uncontroversial as learning about elbows, knees and toes.
Exposing a child to a sex act however is something that they won't be able to understand, nor will we be able to adequately explain it. We don't want children thinking or worrying about sex for a host of reasons, foremost among them being their own health. Merely learning the difference between girls and boys however is something that most children naturally wonder about, and teaching them about that difference isn't very risky for parents to do...
It's quite possible (even probable) that your emotional response to exposed torsos led you to view it as indecent and (if carried to far) immoral--rather than morals being the reason for your emotional response.
Okay, how is this possible if I have no emotional response at all to exposed torsos, especially for man? Growing up this was a VERY common sight for me. There's no emotional reaction. I still think it's wrong.
Baloney.
If there is one thing that infants don't have, it's a sense of decency. It takes education (and screwed up experiences) to develop warped values--or values which aren't warped.
Like I TRIED to claim? :s
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes, however those ideas do require other factors in their environment to be actualised. And I'm not sure that if a child gets raised by a pack of dogs he will act like that pack.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes. So?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Attempts to be sexually appealing are immoral because they (not all the time, but most often) involve the desire to use others (and their traits/bodies) for your own satisfaction. Using other people is failing to treat them with the dignity they deserve as persons, objectifying them, and mistreating their spiritual nature. There's your reason, now go walk the dog.
You might add that so treating other people also demeans your own self.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Depends why she intends to have good posture. If she intends to have good posture in order to attract other men to her and use their wills/bodies, then yes, that would be immoral. Most often though, women don't have those intentions when having good posture - they just want to be healthy and comfortable.
So yes, sexual attraction is part of life, and I have no problem with it IN THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
They profited from it financially, but finance is relatively unimportant to other ways in which they have been harmed.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
The harm takes the form of neglecting their human nature, failing to actualise their potentials for a lot of things, amongst which relationships (that's why Madonna isn't even married anymore, because who could be married to such a person, except maybe someone equally bad) - and also failing to uphold their dignity.
Keep digging.
Thinking something is wrong may be only the result of educated morality. If you think tax fraud is immoral, then that is probably the result of educated morality. But because sexuality is central to our personality and physical development from infancy forward, (and one doesn't have to cite Sigmund Freud for support) the morality of all things sexual are probably strongly influenced by experience and emotions.
Also, you are presumably straight, so you probably wouldn't find a male torso arousing. But still, too much nakedness (uncovered breasts! Oh, no! Save us from concupiscence!) is immoral.
I doubt this is the case (that sexuality is central to our personality, etc.). Some people seem to WANT this to be the case, but I doubt it. It's certainly true for the people who have bought into this idea however - their life does seem to be all about sexuality.
Sexuality is important, like all other factors of our existence, but not the absolute central bit. Our values seem to be a LOT more central than sexuality, and values do determine one's stance on sexual issues to a large extent.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Typical of Freud, when something doesn't fit the theory, it's a problem with the person (they're repressing something) not with the theory :-}
I didn't say it's immoral btw, I said it's not decent. They are a bit different, lacking decency is not ALWAYS immoral. Decency is a matter of social norms that we expect to hold ourselves accountable to in order to foster a more moral (and predictable) environment. So for example a man walking without a shirt on in the street will be indecent, but not immoral unless he's doing it to (1) show off, or (2) to sexually attract others. The social norms though are indeed built on objective moral standards.
No, sexuality isn't the sin quo non of human development. Sexuality, along with physical development, cognitive development, personality development are also central. The importance of sexuality derives from our physical embodiment. What the child experiences first are the pleasures and pains of physicality. Sexuality is central to our development because it is such a strong, evolved drive, common to many other species.
Most animals don't have the cognitive ability to screw up their off-spring's sexual development. It just unfolds and that's that. Humans, on the other hand, do have the cognitive ability to screw up the sexuality of their offspring (and much else), which they do with regularity and aplomb.
Quoting Agustino
It isn't celibacy that makes one self-controlled, it's self-control that makes celibacy possible.
Quoting Agustino
What poor Freud thought was that we sublimate our sexual drives to produce civilization. We don't repress, we redirect. Celibacy is an institutionalized form of sublimation. The celibate sublimator doesn't deny his sexual urges, he redirects that energy to other goals.
Most of us are sublimators. We forgo the time and energy it takes to acquire lots of sex and instead go to work every day, we write books, dig ditches, build houses, cook, clean, mix concrete, change diapers--all the stuff that it takes to build and maintain civilization.
:-} There's a problem with this because it assumes that sexuality is the same for man as it is for animals, and this is not true - at least not true in comparison to MOST animals, there may be some with regards to which comparisons can be made.
Man is a spiritual being (and before Vagabond jumps up in arms about some bullshit), all that means is that we are rational creatures, possessed of both will and intellect - we are PERSONS. Animals are not persons. So as human beings we do struggle to manage our sexual drive in accordance to our nature as persons, and thus have different conundrums than animals. When an animal feels the sex drive, it goes jumps on the female boom boom boom, gets the job done, and that's it. No questions asked of who is the female, does she want it, etc.
When we feel our sex drive, it is mediated by the fact we are persons. I don't want to just fuck a woman like a dog. Why not? Because I'd feel bad about myself for using her and not treating her as a person worthy of dignity and communion, and thus failing to respect myself and my own personhood in the end.
Now the way the human mind functions is that there can be irrational desires present. For example it is possible for someone to want to fuck a woman like a dog - even though they realise this is not in accordance to reason, morality, and their own nature. Freud would identify this as some part of the psyche for sure. This is the part that most often has fantasies, which many times are irrational. There's no problem with these so long as they remain fantasises, but there is a problem when you try to bring fantasises in reality, for the simple reason that the fantasy does not share the same structure with reality. For example, it is impossible to fuck a woman like a dog in real life and still respect her personhood. In a fantasy, this may however be possible. Freud was right that some of these desires emerge from different associations (some mistaken) that we formed during childhood in our minds. The way to deal with such fantasies is to either (1) acknowledge them and keep them as fantasies, or (2) work with them by bringing them into consciousness, and severing the link between the pleasure associated with the object/action of the fantasy, by mentally trying to bring the fantasy into reality and therefore experiencing the actual negative emotions that would in truth be associated with it.
Tried and failed to maintain the claim, yes. You ended up trotting it back to some ultra-vague nonsense that dropped the god parameter entirely and settled on anything vaguely superstitious ("in any way beyond the physical"). You elected not to defend it against my subsequent rebuke.
Quoting Agustino
This is nonsense. Babies aren't born with every possible idea in their head and then through different environmental factors have them "actualized".
Teaching someone mathematics isn't "actualizing" the mathematical ideas they already had, it's introducing them to new ideas which previously did not exist in their mind.
Quoting Agustino
You would condemn an ugly woman for wearing makeup, or an ugly man for compensating with his career, right?
Quoting Agustino
What if the desire to be sexually attractive is to advertise yourself on a market of fair exchange where when two people have sex it's not simply one using the other (or whatever it is you're afraid of?).
What if instead of "using" other people for sex, they "had mutually gratifying sex together" and both enjoyed it?
It's hedonism then? Isn't any sex other than for the purpose of reproduction therefore immoral because both parties are clearly just exploiting each-other's bodies?
But let's take a step back: You're essentially saying that you don't like women who try to be attractive because you think they are disrespecting your spiritual nature (by controlling you?) with their bodies...
Quoting Agustino
What are the right circumstances? Do you need a chaperone?
Quoting Agustino
What harm do you speak of?
I would hope that you would fuck a woman rather better than a dog would. >:)
They're called feral children. They tend to have no language and behave in a manner congruent with their development. In the case of a child growing up with a dog pack, they act like a dog.
Your ideas about pre-existing ideas in human babies is really a mal-formed/naive way to view human psychology.
Sure, we're spiritual beings if that means we are rational creatures possessed of both will and intellect. Sure, we are PERSONS. however...
Evolution did not start from scratch with new species. It always (has no choice) incorporates last year's design into this year's model, with additions or the occasional deletion. The basic kernel of human sexual drive isn't all that different from other animals. For instance, you don't have to decide to be sexual. Sexual is baked in. You don't have to figure out how to get sexually aroused. The circuitry of arousal is pre-installed. You don't have to figure out how to thrust. It's part of the program.
Human sexuality, the sexuality of embodied persons, however is more complicated -- as you point out. But it is in the complexity of human existence that we get screwed up by bad/stupid/evil ideas.
:-} :-} :-} You are a bigger liar than Jeb Bush, as Trump would tell you. It is YOU who idiotically thought I said God, when I had said the divine/transcendent from the very beginning, something that I pointed you to, but it seems you still haven't acknowledged it. Maybe you want me to point it again, how you can't even read what I write properly.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No, it is actualising a potential of their mind to do mathematics. If their mind has no such potential in the first place, how come you can teach them mathematics? Why the hell don't you teach mathematics to your dog as well if there's no potential in discussion?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
:s what does this have to do with anything? I don't think they should "compensate" with anything, there is no necessity to be sexually attractive in the first place. They should be happy with how they are.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Love is not a business, sorry to break this one to you. When I pick a woman, I don't do a business deal, tallying up the costs and benefits. That's a very STUPID way to pick a woman.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
What does mutually gratifying sex have to do with the fact that they're using one another? :s They can absolutely exchange pleasure for pleasure, but that would NOT change the fact that they are using each other. CASUAL SEX IS PROSTITUTION - that's what I say, just as Proudhon said that PROPERTY IS THEFT!
The reason for that is such a relationship bears a utilitarian modus operandi, where two people engage in sex for self-serving ends. The man who fucks a prostitute desires the sexual pleasure she can provide, and the prostitute desires his money. When the self-serving ends of each are over, their relationship is too, which means they treat each other as TOOLS - not as persons. In casual sex the two participants each want the sexual pleasure that each can provide the other. When one of them can no longer do that, the realtionship ends - again showing that they were just TOOLS that each was using for his/her own selfish ends, and not real people. That is why casual sex is prostitution, because it bears the logic and modus operandi of prostitution and degrades both of the participants, whether they freely agree to it - like the man and his prostitute do - or not.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No, they absolutely can't control me, try as they may. I'm actually quite good with that. It's not about me, it's about the intentions of their heart. They have impure intentions (to control me, make me lust for them), which is their problem and their sin. Whether they succeed or not is of a secondary nature. Even if they fail every single time, it's still sinful, because intentions matter.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Such children do not behave like their animal counterparts, no. However, they do have a decreased function as human beings.
>:O
Agreed.
Quoting Bitter Crank
It is more complicated precisely because we're different from animals in that we're also persons. So we have to deal with the fact of our personhood when we feel the impulses of our sexual desire. The idea obviously would be to get the two in harmony, and religions (and Freud) would I think advocate for the same, even though they may share different means of doing that.
Is our sexuality complicated by bad/stupid/evil ideas? I think it's just complicated by vicious authoritarianism which uses fist and force instead of education to deal with our sexuality as it emerges. Most people don't have the capacity to educate, so they resort to other means.
What is a sex-crazed maniac shrug?
What if you are one, and because you're afraid of yourself and what you can do, you've chosen prudery? >:)
It's just no big deal. Obviously it's no big deal to me, and no big deal to others as well. As for the rest, it [I]should[/I] be no big deal for them, too.
Quoting Agustino
Maybe not. But an Agustino is.
Quoting Agustino
My wife? What wife? :D
And what six pack? :(
Nah, people on the street should enjoy my hypothetical six pack, too. Some probably did in the past when I actually had one and when it was on show in public.
Quoting Agustino
I was hoping we could avoid that quibble. I was speaking in a looser sense of not knowing enough about a situation to make a good, safe, reliable judgement.
Dude I quoted you directly in the other thread and it's there for anyone to read. Here it is again:
Quoting Agustino
Like Trump you have a knack for contradicting yourself.
Quoting Agustino
Being born with the potential to learn mathematics is not the same as being born with mathematical ideas in your head.
You choose the strangest hills to die on Aug...
Quoting Agustino
What if they want a mate that they are attracted to, so they are trying to make themselves attractive?
Should they be happy with whichever man/woman their parents/priest indicates they should marry?
Quoting Agustino
I'm talking about sex, not love. Why do people have to only deal in love and not in sex?
Quoting Agustino
Umm, so you're upset that they're "using one other" even though they're both well aware that pleasure is being traded for pleasure? Doesn't usery need to be one-sided or else it's not usery? It's a fair an open exchange?
Quoting Agustino
When you walk into any commercial establishment and exchange money for services, you're treating people like TOOLS? You're making a self-serving exchange for your own ends.... When you buy a sand-which.... So what?
Forgive me, but I'm having a hard time wondering who is harmed during an actual transaction of sex for money. Clearly the woman isn't harmed; she got paid! So is it the main who gets harmed? He loses his hard earned money and afterwards feels emotionally depressed that he must pay women to sexually gratify him? I don't get it, please enlighten me...
Quoting Agustino
Ummmmmmm.......
So running around on all fours, living amongst a pack of dogs, eating sleeping and living like them, is not animal behavior?
The existence of feral children pretty much destroys your notion that humans have some kind of innate set of ideas like "god" and "decency"...
Great, a more circular reasoning could not be possible :P
Quoting Sapientia
LOL!
Quoting Sapientia
Sure, that is sometimes possible.
Yes it could, because it's possible, which in turn suggests that it could. Therefore it's possible.
Yeah what the hell does that sentence say? Does it say the desire for God or the desire for the transcendent?! >:O I think you just need some new glasses.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
As if I said it was.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
That's good, no need to pay special attention to making themselves attractive for that. All they have to do is be themselves. That person should like them for who they are.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Because we're not animals. Next question please.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No, because this isn't an economic exchange. It involves who they are as persons directly (including their bodies and minds), in a way a business deal doesn't. A business deal doesn't involve lying close to that person and putting your penis in them. Nope. It just doesn't.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Read what I said above, and stop strawmanning and being stupid please.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Both of them are harmed, because they use one another as tools, they don't respect each other's personhood and VALUE as a person, they fail to actualise their potential for communion with one another, and they fail to uphold their human dignity. Need I go over these same explanations over and over again? :s
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yeah, go back and do a proper study of it. We have very little scientific knowledge of feral children (your own Wiki article says as much), and many of the stories are hoaxes. There's also stories of people who are now living amongst people even though they were feral. So no, clearly NOT like dogs. Go walk the dog, you may be more successful at that, than at peddling BS here.
Smart owl :D
Why?
That's your opinion, but I'd argue that you are absolutely wrong. The desire for the transcendent (including God) is a natural human desire, which existed from the very beginning of mankind. So babies aren't born atheists, they're born with a desire for God from the very beginning. - Augistino
Stop being pedantic please.
Quoting Agustino
Would you marry someone you found visually repulsive because you like who they are?
Quoting Agustino
we ARE animals. We evolved here on Earth right along side all the others...
Quoting Agustino
This might seem like some fast and loose conversation for you, but I can assure you that anyone who is reading this likely isn't going to fall for your present style of calling me a stupid liar when all I need to do is copy and paste your own quotes to contradict you:
" When the self-serving ends of each are over, their relationship is too, which means they treat each other as TOOLS - not as persons. In casual sex the two participants each want the sexual pleasure that each can provide the other. When one of them can no longer do that, the realtionship ends - again showing that they were just TOOLS that each was using for his/her own selfish ends, and not real people." -Augustino
When your self serving ends are over with a MacDonald's worker, and they with you (making money), the relationship is too, which means that you treat each-other like TOOLS - not as persons (CITATION NEEDED). In casual fast-food, the two participants each want the pleasure that each can provide the other. When one of them can no longer do that, the relationship ends - again showing that they were just TOOLS that each was using for their own selfish ends, and not real people." -Augistino's reflection
Quoting Agustino
"Actualize their potential for communion with one-another" is the kind of phrase I could program a post-modern research paper generator to produce. It's meaningless and you know it Aug... Do you honestly expect me to bend-over backwards and guess what the hell it is you actually mean here? (if you're not just making shit up ad hoc that is...).
In what way do tricks and johns fail to "respect each-other's personhood" in a way that MacDonald's workers and customers do not?
Let me guess: "BECAUSE WHEN THE PENIS ENTERS THE VAGINA IT'S SINFUL AND DISRESPECTFUL!"
Quoting Agustino
Pedanticer and pedanticer....
Yes we know very little about feral children because they're somewhat rare, and many stories of feral children have been hoaxes. That said, there are numerous well documented cases of feral children who have exhibited extreme degrees of animal behavior and additionally (but not crucial to my point) they have severe difficulties re-adapting to normal human life (sometimes they even escape back to the wild).
Of the bona fide cases of feral children that we do have, there's not much room for study given the amount of therapy and rehabilitative work that feral children require. When and where we find them, we're not about to sequester them for study. And yet, the few well documented cases of feral children we do have provide conclusive proof that if a child gets raised by an animal, they will adopt the behavior of the animal (i.e: they won't learn about god and decency on their own).
Were you even aware of the existence of feral children before I brought them up?
It says desire for the transcendent (which does INCLUDE God, but it obviously is much larger than the concept of God).
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes, quite possibly.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Sure, but this doesn't mean we're JUST animals. We're also VERY different from other animals. Animals weren't painting in their caves AND burying their dead AND worshipping, etc. ;) Don't make me bring this one up on you again.
Ant colonies don't have a space for altars, where they make sacrifices and such. Maybe only in your dreams they do.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
How does buying something from McDonald's involve your personhood in any real sense of the term? How does making a business deal involve your personhood? Oh it doesn't. Right. Of course then that it is irrelevant if they're using you as tools, because they're not actually using you at all, since your personhood isn't involved. Again, doing business isn't the same as putting a penis in someone. You seem not to be able to get this.
In other words, how do you FAIL to treat each other as persons when you make that exchange with the McD's worker? None of your personhood is involved in anyway in that, it's not an intimate act at all.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
You've shown no evidence of having understood what is being told to you to begin with. Evidence that it's time to go back to studying what I wrote.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Ah, sometimes they can escape! So they're not like dogs, because dogs can never escape RIGHT?! Really, you're making yourself appear stupid.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes, I was totally aware of them. They're still not anywhere near animals, evidenced even by the sole fact that they can sometimes escape that condition.
The transcendent; anything spiritual (what's spiritual?): "anything beyond the physical"...
Read as: anything vaguely superstitious = a baby's desire for god. Humans are superstitious, QED babies desire god right?
Quoting Agustino
so whether or not you're physically attracted to someone is not a consideration whatsoever in the partnership of marriage?
Quoting Agustino
Aug, I asked why humans cannot trade sex for sex without "love" needing to be a factor. "We're different from animals" is not a satisfactory answer. The fact that ants don't have altars doesn't mean we cannot trade sex for money in a loveless transaction without some terrible harm being inflicted (other than to your own emotions, for whatever reason).
Quoting Agustino
What do consensual sexual favors have to do with personhood? Oh, nothing.
If one day a woman should let you put your penis in her don't for a minute think that she's offering up her "person-hood".
Quoting Agustino
I would rather study L Ron Hubbard's "Dianetics" to be honest...
What the fuck does "Actualize their potential for communion with one-another" mean?
Does it mean anything or is it just nonsense? Did you just make it up?
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Agustino
Dogs never escape? :-}
The strangest hills Aug... The strangest hills...
Do they? Show me a dog starting to become a human. :s
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Read some Aristotelian philosophy and you may be able to understand what it means.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Okay, go do that then.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
They absolutely do have to do with your personhood, because sexual acts are INTIMATE, and involve close bodily and emotional contact.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes, and I answered you why. Read it and study what it means:
Quoting Agustino
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Nope. Not at all. Physical attraction may play a role in getting me interested in her as a PERSON in the first place, but it would definitely be of no consideration in deciding whether I should marry her or not.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes, anything beyond the physical includes the superstitious. Animals don't have superstitions, yet another difference.
Or, you could have clear ideas and communicate them effectively... There's always that option!
Quoting Agustino
What if sex need not involve intimate emotion? What's your definition of personhood?
Quoting Agustino
Right, right, because they don't actualize their potential for communion with one-another! How could I have been so forgetful!
Honestly though Aug, explain what all this stuff means or you're going to start sounding really stupid...
Quoting Agustino
Feral children (and children who were not raised with normal social interactions) do not escape their "condition", the severity of which depends on the severity of their circumstances. They're all permanently affected and only a few have managed to eek out even some modicum of normalcy. They do not acquire verbal language and their social habits are forever changed.
But what you're saying here is that because feral children can learn some new behavior later in life that "innate human ideas" somehow exist, right?
I've seen dogs and cats be trained to use the toilet, does that mean that they have some innate human ideas too?
Quoting Agustino
Why would you be more interested in an attractive female at the outset?
You low down hedonist dog you!
Quoting Agustino
How do you know animals aren't superstitious?
I think that dogs who growl at mailmen are behaving superstitiously...
OK, fair enough, I do agree there is a difference between being pregnant and semi-naked, or even naked, on a beach, and posing semi-naked and pregnant for a magazine, as I already highlighted by my comments about celebrity and minor celebrity. There are nudist beaches here in Sydney, and I have swum at some of them, and i find nothing at all offensive about seeing naked human bodies, and i feel no shame about appearing naked myself. Some are more visually attractive than others, to be sure.
I don't agree with your allegation of there being a "political agenda", though, with the "Serena' image. At least no more than there is a political agenda to every aspect of media, simply by virtue of the fact that we are political beings.
They are clear first of all, and they are communicated effectively given that this is a philosophy forum and not just a casual conversation in a pub.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Was I saying anything about intimate emotion? I said sex involves emotional contact, which is a true fact. I don't know what kind of sex you have had, such that even in the middle of the sex act you feel no emotional contact whatsoever with the other person (and no - this doesn't mean love).
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Fundamentally a person is someone bestowed with both will and intellect, such that the intellect can guide the will in the choices that it makes - but personhood refers to the constituent elements that belong to the human person, namely body, emotions, feelings, mind and spirit.
Buying something at McD's is purely a financial transaction, which does not involve the body, emotions and feelings of someone the way the sex act involves them. Now if you are going to say they do, then I think we're quite clear that you don't know what sex is.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
So how come some feral children can learn languages eh? Why don't you teach your dog a language too?!
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes, in relatively simple activities, but try teaching a dog or a cat to paint, to speak, etc.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
First, attractive would involve what I personally consider attractive about her, which may be different than what society does, so others may not necessarily consider her attractive as well.
And your question isn't a fair question. I said physical attraction MAY play a role in getting me interested in her as a person in the first place - so this is by no means a necessity as your question suggests. I could meet my future wife online for example, and first talk to her before I see her for example, in which case this wouldn't be the case. But otherwise physical attraction may play a role by simply making her be a person that I simply notice faster than other people, which makes it more likely that I will interact with her.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Acting out of fear and taking some sort of action against something identified as a possible threat isn't being superstitious.
Well, sure if that's your thing, no problem doing it at a NUDIST BEACH. But there would be a problem if you did that in the middle of the street. It's not indecent to be nude at a nudist beach, but it is indecent to be nude on the street.
Personally I wouldn't do that, not because I would feel ashamed or offended by it, but I just see absolutely no point to go to a nudist beach - as in I'd have zero reason to go.
Quoting John
I think this is not right. There is a political agenda to it which is driven by all sorts of postmodern and neo-progressive movements that Serena has always been a part of. Part of their agenda is to eliminate standards and hierarchies of beauty and truth, including in-so-far as they pertain to the pregnant female body.
me: "What does "actualize our potential for communion mean?".
you: "Go read Aristotle".
me: "Lol".
Quoting Agustino
Not all sex comes with the same emotional packaging. Sometimes both parties are just looking for a certain kind of physical contact.
But what exactly does "emotional contact" mean with reference to sex?
I could hug someone and feel emotional love and I could fuck someone and feel none at all; just because there is physical (sexual) contact does not mean that emotions are necessarily involved...
But I still want to understand the argument for your position that exchanging sexual favors is harmful. First you saidbecause it violates personhood, then defined "personhood" as "constituent elements belonging to someone" i.e: body and emotions (and some other junk), and so I guess your actual argument is: "exchanging sexual favors is harmful because physical and emotional contact being used as a tool for gratification is disrespectful to the "personhood" of participants in sexual behavior"
Is that a fair portrayal of your argument?
Quoting Agustino
In order to acquire money people need to work (sacrificing their body and emotions). The MacDonald's worker is sacrificing their patience to deal with customers and their time and body to do the work in exchange for money. It's not entirely different from a prostitute doing work for a john. The form of gratification is different (sex instead of junk food) and the work involved is different (genitals are involved). So essentially the only major difference is that sex is involved.
What's inherently bad about sex again?
(P.S: you probably should not say because it "violates personhood", because your reasoning for why violating personhood is bad is itself based on the fact that sex is involved, making the reasoning circular)
Quoting Agustino
They don't tend to learn language, especially not verbal language. You're letting my point get away from you though Aug: feral children sometimes cannot learn many aspects of normal human behavior, which indicates that they're not born with innate knowledge/ideas. You can say "why can some children escape their condition" as if it points to some built-in door to enlightenment, but it's simply not so (at least as you originally indicated) Feral children can learn when we manage to discover and capture them and force it upon them, but they're not out there "desiring god and the transcendent" and observing your own notions of "decency". Believing they are is beyond fantasy.
Quoting Agustino
You constantly move the goal posts further and further back... At least in this case you randomly asking why non-human animals cannot perform tasks that only humans are known to perform isn't at all relevant.
Quoting Agustino
"Identified as a possible threat" is just another way of saying "something unidentified".
Choosing to react to something unidentified in a particular way (fear) because you feel threatened might actually be one of the main drives of superstitious belief...
People fear god (who is unidentified) by assuming all kinds of nonsense about the nature of reality and our relationship to it.
If the dog were smarter I'm sure he would come with all kinds of fancy nonsense to go along with their mail-man hatred...
Back to sex though, please explain what you meant by "emotional contact" and how exactly is someone harmed when they willingly seek out this kind of emotional contact for gratification?
You alluded that you don't know what kind of sex I've had, the answer is many different kinds.
I'm not trying to be rude in asking this, but have you ever had sex?
What don't you understand by the expression actualise the potential for communion? You don't understand what a human potential is? Go read Aristotle and find out. Or you don't understand what communion means? It means getting out of the prison of your own self and relating with someone else, something that perhaps you've never done seeing that you're so clueless.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes indeed, but it always comes with SOME emotional packaging.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
So if I think about someone else, I just want to enjoy their body for a night and then not be troubled by them anymore, am I loving? Am I a decent person? Am I doing anything wrong perhaps?!
Quoting VagabondSpectre
You are greatly puzzling me, it seems that you don't even understand the meaning of basic words. What planet have you been living on until now? Emotional contact - a contact which involves feelings of close emotion excited in both people.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Would you not then feel another emotion instead of love while fucking them?!
Quoting VagabondSpectre
This is false. You either don't know what is meant by emotions, or you're redefining them in some ad hoc manner. Or you're completely clueless about sex.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No, not quite. I've already given you my portrayal of my argument very clearly, and I've pointed you to it several times already. You've made no effort to read it properly:
Quoting Agustino
The point is that you're disconsidering the other person (and therefore disconsidering yourself) when you have sex with them in such circumstances. Even the mere fact that you're not concerned with their emotional well-being (which you yourself admit) is a sign of that.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
It is entirely different. First the McD's worker isn't sacrificing his body at all. And the prostitute isn't only sacrificing her time. She's also sacrificing her emotional desires, her value as a person, and her dignity.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Nothing, inherently. But sex can be misused.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Your basic problem is that it seems that you cannot comprehend facets of human existence and experiences. And nothing I say can save you from the fact that you just seem to lack basic human experiences.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No it doesn't. Just because they're born with a certain potential doesn't mean they can always actualise it. Mentally retarded people cannot actualise a lot of human potentials.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yep, that's exactly what I said, these potentials require the right circumstances and experiences (including being raised in a social environment) to be actualised.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No, I wouldn't qualify this as superstition.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
They fear God because they have an experience of the transcendent.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
>:O >:O >:O Man this guy!! I've already answered that question about 4 times for fuck's sake!
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Where exactly have I alluded to that? :s >:O
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes, unfortunately, but that's something that I regret. And I have absolutely no clue how in the world someone can possibly be rude by asking the other person if they've had sex :s
The problem Aug, is that you're using terms which are ambiguous and in some senses unrelated to my inquiries.
There's about 20 different ways to interpret "actualize their potential for communion". If I boil it down into it's necessary elements though it just becomes meaningless: "don't actualize" means "do/does not", "potential" we can forget about because it's redundant in the sense that the ability to do/not do something includes the possibility of that thing happening, and finally "communion" now means "getting out of the prison of your own self and relating with someone else" (I'm not satisfied with this BTW, it's just as vague).
So, casual sex is bad because the participants don't "get out of the prison of their own selves and relate to each-other". (feel emotional contact)
What do you mean by "relate to each other"? I'm pretty sure that a good prostitute will be capable of relating to their tricks on some level (what level of "relation" is required for sex to not be harmful?), and I'm also sure that a considerate trick is also capable of relating to and appreciating the services of the prostitute, even though they may have paid for it.
If I go with the intuitive (and un-philosophical) interpretation of what you're trying to say, basically it's that "if there's no meaningful emotional connection during sex, then it's harmful" (I'm sure you will object to this phrasing, which is why I keep asking you to clarify and define your statements).
Why though Aug, why is "a lack of emotional contact" during sex such a harmful thing? (And for the love of the flying spaghetti monster, please stop giving me this semantic run-around)
Quoting Agustino
What's so important about the "emotional packaging" of sexual contact? Or, why does a lack of a certain kind of emotional contact (what kind?) during sex render it harmful?
Quoting Agustino
What takes place in the sanctity of your own mind cannot possibly be held against you as wrongful or indecent, it's your actions that affect other people.
At the right club, "I just want to enjoy your body for a night and then I won't trouble you any more" might actually get you invited to a few bed chambers.
If you approached a prostitute and said "I just want to pay to enjoy your body and to not trouble me beyond that", they might say, "That's generally the idea...".
If you approached a school teacher on their lunch break and said "let me use you for sex", then that would probably be indecent (although if you ask the right person you would be surprised). You might be doing sexual harassment, which would be wrong.
So, is it that asking for sex from someone who you do not love is inherently disrespectful? (if that's the case, then why is loveless sex between two consenting and horny adults harmful? They might not be personally disrespected enough to care)
Quoting Agustino
Well I ask because "emotional contact" could mean so many different things that your argument which bases "the harm of sex" on "the absence of (a particular kind of?) emotional contact" might become hard to defend if I start postulating all the different kinds of emotional contact that prostitutes and their clients might feel (or two horny party-goers). "Close emotion" is unfortunately just as vague. Is sexual arousal a close emotion? What about gratitude and appreciation for services rendered? Is a feeling of safety a close emotion? Is the desire to please someone else in a sexual manner a close emotion?
What I'm trying to find out is the precise type of "close emotion" that renders sex not harmful, and how or why it achieves this...
Quoting Agustino
I might feel any number of emotions depending on the circumstances, but are lust and sexual satisfaction/gratification emotions? If not then I suppose sometimes I feel nothing but skin.
When you had sex was there love there? If not what emotion was there?
Quoting Agustino
Consider the glory hole. This is an ancient invention (presumably) which has been employed by many-a-sexual degenerate for the sole purpose of clipping away any possible emotional artifacts which might be caused by the sight of your sexual partner (judgment or shame for instance, which some people feel, but not everyone does). It employs a simplistic but elegant mechanic of a hole to negotiate an anonymous contract between two willing participants. One participant has a penis that they want pleasured, and the other participant wants to pleasure a penis (or be pleasured by one).
The glory hole epitomizes loveless sex, but at the same time it very obviously mitigates any kind of interpersonal emotional exchange/connection that might impact either participant negatively. I'm very curious to see how you can show sex through a glory hole to be harmful on the basis that it lacks emotional contact or on the basis that other people are emotionally harmed by it.
Quoting Agustino
"Dis-considering"... *Vagabond takes a deep breath*...
Why am I morally obligated to be considerate of everyone's emotional well being? If I am at a night club, and a woman is dressed a certain way and showing me a certain kind of body language, why can I not assume she is competent enough to take care of her own emotions? If sex is what we both want, why do we need to toss in a bunch of extra emotions and commit to anything beyond a sexual encounter?
If I'm not actually abusing her (nor she I), how is any damage done to our emotional well-being?
As a side note, you should consider the nature of your "emotional well-being" argument. the main problem with it is that you have not clarified any kind of actual harm being caused or how "emotional well-beings" are necessarily harmed by sex without communion, but instead have outlined "a lack of benefit" ("disconsideration"). Your phrasing in this grows continuously more post-modern; "disconsideration of the emotional well being of others" sounds like some sort of anti-free speech argument that would have white-cis-het-males like ourselves quieted on the basis that other people take emotional offense of some kind.
Quoting Agustino
She's only sacrificing her dignity in the eyes of people who view prostitutes as having no dignity. (expensive escorts in the 2000$ a night range have more dignity than you can afford XD). But so what if dignity is sacrificed? A garbage man sacrifices their dignity in the eyes of the banker whose waste they collect right? Personally I have a lot of respect and compassion for prostitutes (strippers too). They're harder working than most humans and they provide a service that not many are willing to provide. Add this to the fact that modern society decided they're criminals and pushed them into a dangerous and shadowy world of organized crime, and so have become a class of humans dispossessed of their right to freedom and happiness purely because a majority of people decided that they're bad because of the sex acts they perform. I know you don't support the criminalization of prostitution, and I commend you on that, but like so many you have this deeply seeded bias that someone who has sex is somehow a sinner (and it warps your perception of sex itself).
A ditch digger or coal miner sacrifices their body in ways that prostitutes and McDonald's workers both do not (they suffer actual bodily harm/damage) along with anyone who gets injured at the work place.
When it comes to "value as a person", performing a sex act shouldn't somehow affect how people value themselves, nor should it necessarily affect how others view that person. If you think someone loses value as a person because they have done sex work, then that's your own sentimental judgment.
Quoting Agustino
According to everything I've pieced together so far, a one night stand between two horny and consenting adults is a(n immoral?) misuse of sex. I'm panning for answers to why!
Quoting Agustino
I'm trying to get at clear specifics because when you use ambiguous terms you've yet to define (or just keep redefining with other ambiguous terms) it allows you to equivocate endlessly about what it is you're saying. (i.e: desire for god becomes desire for the transcendent, which becomes "anything beyond the material", or potential for communion becomes emotional contact, which then becomes "close emotion". )
Quoting Agustino
So in other words, children have just as much "potential for indecency" as they have "potential for decency"? Wouldn't it make more sense if we understood individuals as "the things they have learned" rather than "the sum of all possible things they could learn"? (Or, why do you think babies have pre-programmed ideas as opposed to creating those ideas from a somewhat blank slate as stimulus accumulates? ("Tabula-rasa").
Quoting Agustino
Do you at least assent to my re-framing "desire for anything beyond the material" as being sufficiently described by "superstition"? (If so, then I'll basically begin arguing that while most humans have some degree of superstition, some humans might have so very little that it's not a relevant or quantifiable factor in their psychology).
Quoting Agustino
Is it the experience of the transcendent that threatened them with eternal damnation? (as a religious youth, that's why I feared God).
Quoting Agustino
Well......... You kinda just suggested that I lack a basic understanding of human experiences rather than telling me what kind of "close emotion" ought to be present in sex to prevent the "disconsideration of the emotional well-being of the other" from causing harm.
Quoting Agustino
Here:
Quoting Agustino
(I should point out that in the above you differentiate between "intimate emotion" (you described sex as "INTIMATE") and emotional contact, as if there are some precise meanings behind these terms which very clearly makes them distinct, but you've never bothered to share these precise meanings with me, hence my goose wrangling).
Quoting Agustino
Well because casual sex can be largely unemotional, and your argument seems to hinge on the idea that sex without "communion/emotional contact/close emotion" is harmful, I reckon you haven't had much casual sex (my own experience establishes the harmlessness of communionless sex) and I'm bringing this up as a means to show you that the impact of sex may extend beyond your own experiences...
The nudist beaches I have been to are in national Parks along the path s I have been wlaking, and i stopped for a swim. Swimming nude in the ocean and feeling the water on your whole body is a great feeling; that is one very good reason to do it.
You may be right about Serena; I haven't looked into her life at all so I have no idea whether she is strongly politically motivated. What exactly do you believe her agenda is "eliminating standards and hierarchies of beauty and truth" though? That seems pretty vague to me. I'm not sure what they could be, much less what it could mean to "eliminate" them.
I think most people have quite a capacity to handle those terms, but it seems you don't.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Wrong, that is just a specific instance of actualising and it's absolutely not the definition of the term.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Again, this is just wrong (you will see later why).
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I think that's quite specific. What's unclear and vague about it?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
That, among a host of other different things. It seems that you're intent on subsuming communion, to emotions, etc. but this is completely false. These are all different and independent reasons.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
To relate to another you must first relate to yourself and to something that transcends you. The act of relating to another isn't a purely physical one, but something that involves your whole being.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
A lack of emotional contact during sex is impossible. Being unaware of the presence of one emotion or another isn't to say that they don't exist. Making efforts to block them out (glory holes, not knowing who you're having sex with, etc.) doesn't mean that they aren't still there.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I made none of the inferences you suggest I made here.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Of course I will object to it because it's false. You're talking of something that is a performative contradiction.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
>:O Tell me Vagabond, is it possible that a man wrong himself? Clearly it's not only actions that affect other people that are wrong, we accept this every single day of our lives in the practice of living. A drug addict who injects heroin in his veins is doing something wrong to himself, even if he "consents" to it. His consent doesn't change the wrongness of it, neither does the fact that it doesn't affect other people.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yeah, so? :s
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Do you wish to discuss the morality of discussing sex, or the conditions under which the sexual act is disrespectful?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
There is no close emotion that renders sex not harmful as such.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes, the feeling of lust would be an emotion. So let's start with it. When you lust after something you're not satisfied. How can lusting be good? If you get yourself in the position when you lust for something you are hurting, you have already harmed yourself. How can that be good? Do you enjoy being thirsty? Would you purposefully go around getting yourself thirsty?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
If two willing participants negotiate an anonymous contract whereby one will eat the other one alive, and they both give their consent, have they done nothing wrong? Again, this whole idea that consent somehow has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with the rightness or wrongness of an activity is absurd. If I force you to have dinner with me, that's as wrong as if I force you to have sex with me from the point of view of consent. But clearly, we take me forcing you to have sex with me as a much more serious offence than if I were to force you to have dinner with me. Why is that?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
It TRIES to mitigate them, however it is not successful. For example, people could still experience feelings of guilt afterwards - among many many other emotions that it's possible to experience, including during the act.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Well do you want to be a nice and decent person? If so, then yes, you should consider everyone's emotional well being.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Why would you assume that? How the hell do you know that she's competent enough to take care of her own emotions from her body language, can you tell me that? How do you know for example that she just didn't have a fight with her boyfriend/husband and is doing something to express her anger towards him, something that she may later regret for example?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
This happens automatically. Sex always involves one's whole being.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Except that you would be abusing each other.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Wait, those two are different aspects, they're not the same.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
What does their dignity as people have to do with the amount of money they charge? :s This is a very peculiar thought, so please explain to me. Clearly you're asserting that the amount of money they charge has something to do with the dignity they have. So presumably a prostitute charging very little has little dignity, while one charging a lot has a lot of dignity. So then, by your own argument, a prostitute charging nothing for her services has no dignity, and this seems quite close to what we mean by casual sex. Is this correct?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
They are. They are doing a lot of harm to themselves, their partners, and their future spouses.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Prostitutes can also suffer direct bodily and emotional damage. Most of them have quite a beaten up psyche, which makes life very difficult for them, which is why a lot of prostitutes resort to doing drugs.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Again, why the hell are you referencing that they are (1) horny, and (2) consenting? We've already established that consent has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the morality of the underlying action. For example, if I force you to have dinner with me, that has nothing to do with the morality of having dinner, it has to do with me respecting your will as an individual. So consent is NOT part of sexual morality, just like it's not part of dinner morality. Consent has to do with respecting the autonomy of other people, and their freedom of choice. Breaking one's consent tells us nothing about the morality of the underlying action over which their consent was broken. And you should explain to me now, why forcing you to have sex with me is worse than forcing you to have dinner with me, and clearly consent ain't gonna help you.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I never said this. Nor did I say the previous. I meant desire for transcendent from the very beginning in that discussion as I've already proven.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No, absolutely not. See, this is what I mean when I tell you that you don't understand these terms. That's why your first definitions are wrong. Indecency cannot be positively defined in and of itself, but rather it is always defined with regards to decency, which can be defined in itself. Children have a potential for decency - if they fail to actualise that potential, then they are indecent.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Because without these potentials, they could not develop in the directions that they do in the first place.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No, not at all. It is the experience of sin that threatened them with eternal damnation.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No, although desire for anything beyond the material can involve superstition. Superstition would certainly be a sign of such a desire.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No, I've never had casual sex for that matter, but that certainly doesn't suggest that I wouldn't know what casual sex involves, or what feelings would be aroused, or what the effects of casual sex would be. Certainly I know what would happen and how I would feel if I were to put my hand in the fire, even though I've never done this. Our imaginations allow us to construct experiences based on feelings and emotions that we have already experienced through other, different experiences. For example, before I had sex the first time, I knew what the feelings of say orgasm would be like from masturbation, so I wasn't that surprised by the feeling. I also knew what the feeling of love and attraction were from things like having kissed my girlfriend, and from the intimate time I had spent with her. It would be absolutely silly to suggest that someone must have casual sex in order to know what casual sex is like - just as silly as suggesting that you have to put your hand in the fire to know what fire is like.
We are sexual beings, so the sexual act is not necessary at all to understand what it would be like. This is one experience that young people are often misguided and deceived by. They often think they need to have sex, because omg see what it's like, etc. Then they do things that they later regret having done. The truth is, as sexual beings, we already know, by nature, what the sexual act is like, because we simply have those feelings anyways. I'm a celibate, and have been a celibate for quite some years now, but I wouldn't say I'm asexual. I experience sexual feelings, I simply don't act on them, but I'm acutely aware of them. Monks have very similar experiences as well. If anything, you're closer to yourself as a sexual being by being celibate, than by being promiscuous.
Now, onto more serious matters. First thing to note is that sex is terribly problematic, and has been terribly problematic for all of human history. So your approach of treating sex as if it was not problematic at all BY DEFAULT is simply ignoring everything that we anthropologically know about man. This is so because sex has to do with the very existence of life itself. It is very close to the source of our being. That is why most cultures and civilisations that have ever existed have had what is known as natural sexual morality. Sex has not been treated like buying a burger from McD's, and there are clearly reasons for this, some of which have been outlined above.
Otherwise it would be absolutely impossible that very diverse civilisations have condemned certain sexual behaviour - such as homosexual sex - but haven't condemned looking at the sky for example. As an example, all major religions of the world condemn homosexual sex, including the Eastern ones like Hinduism and Buddhism. There were civilisations which allowed homosexual sex in certain circumstances, but not in all (Roman, Greek, etc.). What we note from this is that this behaviour has always been problematic and has been regulated by rules, for most of human history. So it is entirely absurd to treat it as if it wasn't problematic, and the burden of proof rested on me to show that it is. That's number one.
Oh, and please don't give me examples now of some minor tribes, etc. who have lived differently. I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about the majority of large human civilisations that have existed.
Point number 2. Why does one want to have sex? Where is the origin of sexual desire in a human being, and what is it directed towards? Now, one undeniable end of sex is reproduction. I think you will agree at least with that much. Without affirming this end of the sexual act, one is in effect denying themselves, because they're denying the manner and mode in which they themselves entered the world.
Another essential end of sex is unitive - do you agree that the sexual act is something that can produce intimacy and closeness between two different people, something that perhaps can only be achieved through the sexual act? If so, then this is something that appears to be unique to sex, unlike "fun", "pleasure" and the like, which can be attributed to a variety of other experiences, and do not seem to be essential to the nature of sex.
So if we had to define sex, we would define it as that action that occurs between a man and a woman that can lead to either reproduction or intimacy. That's what sex can do, essentially. That's what belongs to its essence as an activity, and isn't an accidental feature, like "fun" and "pleasure" would be. Sure sex can be fun and pleasurable, but that doesn't belong to it as an essence, that's not what identifies it as a separate activity from, say, eating burgers with someone (which is also "fun" and "pleasureable").
We also affirmed before that sex is very close to the origin of life, including your own origin. It is thus very close to your being, and necessarily so. It reminds you of your own making. Therefore sex is something that involves your whole being, and not just your physical body, but your soul too (defined as the form of the body).
So tell me Vagabond, does good food frustrate the essential ends of the body it is meant to satisfy? So likewise, would good sexual behaviour maintain accidental features, like "fun" and "pleasure", while frustrating essential features such as procreation and intimacy? So then, can we call casual sex "good"?
Furthermore, if sex always involves one's whole being (as a person), is it right and loving to deny your beloved sexual fulfilment, by denying them intimacy, for example? Or do you mean to argue that you simply do not care about the actual needs of the other, but only what they say, such that if they were to tell you that their need is to be eaten alive, you would proceed to give them a hand with it?
As we have established, sex is inherently directed towards a unitive end (btw we're talking about sex in-so-far as it relates to persons, so please don't bring up animals), so then if you deny yourself this unitive end by whatever means, is that no different and no worse than chewing food for the taste, and then spitting it out? If you refused to eat food anymore, denied the nutritional end of eating, and instead just chewed the food for the taste, and then spit it out, would you be harming yourself? So then Vagabond, don't you think that likewise you'd be harming yourself if you deny the unitive purpose of sex, which as we said is very close to your own being, and doing so regardless of whether or not you experienced some pleasure in the process?
If you treat another person as a tool for your own pleasure, then have you not neglected their real needs and desires? Have you not objectified them, treated them as undignified, and insulted their personhood? Is a human being no more than a vibrator or a plastic vagina? So if someone were to desire to be like a plastic vagina, would it be good to help them achieve that desire? If someone desired to be a slave, put in chains, would it be good to help them achieve that state? Would you, without hesitation, help them by putting and locking the chains on them, and then sending them off to the corn fields? And if this is how you treat others, then what about your own self? Does this not mean that you consider your own self the same way you consider them, and therefore you harm your own self in the process?
It is about your choice in the end and there are a number of different possibilities that would suggest why a woman behaves in such a manner. I have not yet had sex with a man but the way that I dress and communicate can often be interpreted as provocative and highly sexual, indeed there have been many men that have become really aggressive towards me from frustration at their inability to get close to me and as a way of trying to make me comply.
You need to be weary of your assumptions and consider a number of factors that requires you to know a person first, understand who they are, where they come from and perhaps you may find that it is your own assumptions that is making you choose to believe what is essentially your desire and your lack of responsibility. Such intimacy without respect for her history, her personhood, her reasons for being their in the first place merely objectifies her into what you want, not who she is.
Yes, but I think this is a problem for you. From the amount of time you spend talking about men on these forums, it seems that you are at least obsessed about men, and I would go even further and say that you do draw pleasure out of dominating other men by frustrating them. I gather this especially from the stories you tell, and how you assume that other men on these boards are interested in you, combined with your generally low opinion and regard for men etc. So what if you dress this way on purpose to attract their attention and feel superior by refusing whatever you perceive to be their advances?
This would not be moral, if that's the case. Of course, neither would the aggressive actions from men that you say you experience be moral. But then immorality breeds immorality.
But I obviously agree with that post above.
I think you are morally trying to compete with me. You are using the very assumptions that draw conclusions that only express your own projection on the subject, the abovementioned for instance. You seek to dominate. And by George you certainly frustrate.
No, I do not like dominating men; a woman can be virtuous and still wear a bikini.
Why do you think that?
Quoting TimeLine
How is it my projection? This is what I noticed from your own stories, and I said it may be a possibility.
Quoting TimeLine
Does it seem to you like I said she can't be virtuous if she wears a bikini in the right circumstances? :s
You made it out that I seek to dominate men, am obsessed over them, when I said that I have yet to sleep with anyone. How does that even work? That is a symbol of my inherent respect for myself and my desire to be with someone who respects me just the same. And what stories? That my father was extremely violent and I grew up scared of men? You don't know me, Augustino, you are just projecting with your assumptions and pretending it to be fact because you desire to see yourself as holier than thou.
Being friendly is not being provocative, the point I was attempting to convey was that men often think what is not there.
No, I actually didn't, I said however that this may be possible, precisely because I don't know you well enough to say for certain. Hence why I said:
Quoting Agustino
Quoting TimeLine
To be obsessed about men does not entail that you sleep with them, have sex with them, etc. As far as this works, it would be a psychological thing, seen from the fact that you return over and over again to discussing men, in quite weird ways, such as keep repeating what an ideal man is, how you spend your time with people who don't really deserve it, etc. Why do you do that? That's called obsessing over something, because I can assure you that most members here don't want to read how you're so great that you shouldn't be spending time with whoever, etc. Neither is it useful for the kinds of discussions that go on here.
Quoting TimeLine
I agree.
So, now you don't? So, why say this?
Quoting Agustino
When? Where? And this coming after how many posts you have made in this forum about women?
THINK before you write.
That's the latest time I noticed it, because we usually don't participate in the same threads but I've seen this repeated several times before, and I think other people would have noticed the same. Why do you keep talking about what you consider an ideal man, how you're waiting for you King Solomon, how you don't like to spend your time with people that you do spend your time with because you only tolerate them, etc. :s that's all very strange behaviour, which is exactly why I'm picking on you. Do you see anyone else obsess over such issues? :s
And by the way, we're just derailing the thread, so you can respond to that, but then I won't respond anymore, because it wouldn't belong here.
This is exactly on topic. Who are you to talk about women if you barely know the difference between your left and right hand? But stay silent nonetheless. It would do all of us some good.
Did I say it was sexually provocative? :s You're sooooo confused and blinded by your ego, you don't even understand what's going on around you...
THEN WHY SAY IT?
Because you seem to be obsessed about saying things like that and it's not the first time you've said it, clearly. Most people don't think about people that they spend their time with that they're not worthy or they merely tolerate them. That's not kind, that's not nice, and that's not virtuous. End of story. :s
>:O What the hell does the verb "to rag" mean? My dictionary tells me that it means to compose in ragtime LOL!
1.
to draw attention facetiously and persistently to the shortcomings or alleged shortcomings of (a person)
I said one friendly comment to Noble Dust and you call that obsession? You are projecting your own obsession, clearly there is something wrong with you.
Stay silent, Augustino. Enough rubbish.
Quoting TimeLine
It has zero to do with what you said to Noble Dust, it has to do with how you think about your friends, quite clearly - you think they're not worth your time, you merely tolerate them. That's not nice. And this isn't the first time you said that. Last time it wasn't to Noble Dust. I don't even remember who it was to, and I don't really care. Point being you're behaving very strangely coming on an online philosophy forum to complain about your friends.
Quoting TimeLine
Says the person who has multiple times been accused by different people of not being able to comprehend what is being told to them, but then sure, there is something wrong with me :s :s
I think Agu is more obsessed with Borat and Donald Drumpf (wow, right on queue, lol) than you are with men, fwiw. However, you do give off the vibe of being a misandrist.
Interesting opinion, however if you try you cannot cite one proper insult addressed to TL from me, yet her comments:
Quoting TimeLine
Quoting TimeLine
Quoting TimeLine
And other such >:O . It's interesting why she's getting so upset... ;) (we'll see what else she does by the time when I return from the gym - oh oh, there she is at it again!!! >:O )
You are morally delusional. Again, you do not know anything about me or my friends, stop assuming things and using moral superiority as an excuse to try and turn the problem to me, which only shows who is the one lacking in any sense or reason.
Well, I don't hate men and have never said neither expressed as such. But, talking to people like him makes it very easy to become one.
Quoting Agustino
Everything that you wrote was an insult.
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum TimeLine!
Men happen to notice when a female comes onto the boards but very few women last. Not because women are incapable of discussing Philosophy but because in addition learning the tools of debate, pondering, explaining and substantiating your personal position, you come across an underpinning of 'objectification' of women that can and does exist in all of us, both female and male, just to different degrees.
Agustino, I clearly remember how excited I was at the old sandbox when I first arrived and if memory serves me well, you wrote a bit more back then too. Everyone starts on the forums with their own experiences to draw on and maybe some reading or classes that has wet their appetite to pursue wisdom, just like the rest of us. But there is a degree of personal vulnerability, that we have to expose in order for us to learn from one another here on the forums. I know this from my own experience and how many beautiful friendships I have gained in allowing myself to be vulnerable, opening up about some things I had never shared with another soul in face to face life. All I can ask is that you allow females to be females when it comes to finding a comfort level of interaction on the boards. As my signature carried in the old sandbox: Relax, this is a safe place. which is often necessary for a female to share.
Anyway, that is my two cents that neither of you asked for and if I could get my change, I will be going now.
Hopefully not change for the ferryman? O:)
Of course, and then when he says profoundly immature and insulting remarks, it is my fault too, where they will try and find some justification, any justification, to solidify their argument against me. Oh, ok, so now I hate men because I am defending myself against false assumptions made against me, that I am highly aggressive because I question the remarks made by a man so high on his moral horse that he can barely hear anything we mere mortals say below.
Next thing you know he is trying to gather as many people into a mob to convict me of being a witch. I am not going to allow any man to bring me down ever again and if this place teaches me this, then at the very least I can walk away with the addition of more tools then mere debate.
Forgive my error, I have edited the name to reflect the right place and will gracefully bow out of this conversation. Rarely are two cents wanted or needed.
What's the host of other things that makes casual sex "bad"?
Quoting Agustino
So like, the transcendent metaphysical third party acts like a conduit for the spiritual energies which pass between the "whole being's" of the participants?
How can I explain to you that I don't comprehend your hippy-intuition style metaphysics?
"To relate to another you must first relate to yourself"? Meaningless... "And to something that transcends you"? Meaningless. "But something that involves your whole being"? Meaningless.
Quoting Agustino
How and why are you equating sex with "injecting one's self with heroine"? That's an action, not a thought.
Quoting Agustino
I want to discuss your reasons for making blanket assertions about the harmful nature/immorality of casual sex. At one point you said that wanting to have casual sex with someone is to disrespect their person-hood. Presumably then asking someone for casual sex is the action which communicates that disrespect, which you would declare to be immoral right?
Quoting Agustino
Then what renders sex not harmful? The promise to marry them?
Quoting Agustino
Humans don't purposefully get thirsty, they just get thirsty. Drinking a cold liquid then becomes inherently pleasurable.
People don't enjoy being thirsty, but they do enjoy drinking. People don't enjoy lust, they enjoy the feeling of satiating that lust.
Would you purposefully go around not satisfying your natural desires?
Quoting Agustino
Holy shit Aug, you're really gonna equate casual sex with suicide and cannibalism?
What the actual fuck...
We generally don't let people end their lives for no good reason Aug, if you want to talk about the morality of euthanasia we can do that, and subsequently about the morality of consuming dead humans, but these are two separate discussions from the one we're having.
The main reason why "forcing people to have meals they don't want to have" is immoral is actually because you're removing their freedom, not because eating food is an inherently harmful act. If you force feed someone a type of food that disgusts them (me and squash for instance), then we could consider that to be additionally harmful to them (a kind of torture even). Now, if I consent to dine with you, and to clean my plate save for the squash, has any harm been done upon me? (the answer is no)
So when you hold someone captive, there's the immorality of that, and then what you do to them constitutes additional moral infractions above and beyond just imprisoning them. Forcing people to eat foods they don't like is generally less psychologically traumatic than forcing people to have sex that they don't want to have. Because it's more invasive, it's more important to have that consent.
Think about what you're really saying here though ("this whole idea that consent somehow has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with the rightness or wrongness of an activity is absurd"). Of course consent has something to do with the rightness or wrongness of an activity. If I give a tattoo to someone who wants one, it's not immoral. If I tattoo someone who does not want one, then it's immoral.
If I have consensual sex with my wife, it's not an immoral activity right?
But if I have non-consensual sex with my wife, it's rape.
If I borrow your lawn-mower with your consent, it's not an immoral activity right?
But if I take your lawnmower without your permission, it's theft.
Doing actions upon people who do not want those actions to be done upon them constitute moral infractions against the afflicted party.
Can you honestly not see the relationship between personal rights, consent and force?
I'm guessing that you came to this strange hill because in your mind God decided that certain actions please him and other actions displease him (sex outside of marriage being displeasing), and that's how you view the source and foundation of morality (and so you forgot to consider the whole "treat others as they want to be treated" angle).
Quoting Agustino
And what if both parties go away from the glory hole happy with the exchange? Are you saying that everyone will feel bad about it?
Quoting Agustino
I don't have time to consider everyone's emotional well-being and I refuse to coddle strangers. If I'm going out of my way to benefit someone's emotional well-being then that's morally praiseworthy, but it's enough to not go out of my way to damage the emotional-well being of others.
Quoting Agustino
So, propositioning someone for casual sex is immoral because they might be out for revenge sex which they will regret, or because they might not be mentally/emotionally capable of making decisions for themselves?
I'm asking you specifically why casual sex is necessarily harmful (and therefore immoral), not why there's a chance it might be harmful. By this logic hiring a worker could be immoral because they might not understand the stresses of the job, and therefore might be harmed/regret it.
Adults who have no mental disability must be allowed to make decisions on their own rather than someone making decisions for their own good. If and when bad things happen to people as a result of their un-coerced choices, that's life.
Quoting Agustino
What does "whole being" mean? If I had to guess I would say some emotion-esque nonsense about souls and sin. Am I right?
If you're thinking of saying something like "How do you not know what whole being means? Do you speak english!?" please allow me to rebut in advance: I don't subscribe to/understand/believe in metaphysical bullshit like chakras, third eye's, transcendence, souls, spirits, or the like. Please take this as a request for a somewhat rigid or scientific definition for whatever the fuck it is you mean by "whole being".
Quoting Agustino
You're just begging the question. How would we be abusing each-other? Because casual sex is a sin?
Why not admit that your entire moral premise concerning sex is just one long-winded appeal to sex-negative puritan Christian doctrine?
Quoting Agustino
There's no such thing as a prostitute that charges nothing; a person who will have sex with anyone for nothing (effectively having no personal standards) will generally have very little dignity. What's so sacred about dignity though? Does it pertain to the tears of baby Jesus?
Casual sex is different than toll free prostitution. An individual might have casual sex with only one partner, thereby retaining the vast majority of whatever form of dignity it is that gets destroyed by the act of casual sex itself.
Let's step back and think about what you're saying though: an illegal alien who works your garden dirt cheap is losing some kind of dignity in comparison to the citizen who sells their labor for a livable wage. That's a sensical appraisal, but it's not "immoral" for the illegal alien to sacrifice their dignity in a consensual agreement with their employer, they're free to make such an exchange and we have no recourse to judge them for it.
Quoting Agustino
You're begging the question again, and I'm not surprised that you should throw in the whole "future spouses are harmed" angle. I bet that the fact that most women are out there having casual sex causes you emotional harm because you feel like there are therefore less virgin women for you to choose from. Do you think that women should be obligated to save themselves in case you wind up being their future spouse? As if you're entitled to a say over how how all women behave (according to your personal feelings about sex) because you have some sort of right to choose them as a marriage partner?
This is just like the whole "freedom to divorce is actually the un-freedom to stay married" bit. If you can find someone who shares your personal standards, marry them. Everyone else is free to live the way they want to live despite your ego-centrism.
Quoting Agustino
Not all prostitutes do drugs, not all drug users become prostitutes. Not all prostitutes get injured on the job. Not all prostitutes suffer emotional or psychological damage as the result of sex work. Lot's of things can be potentially harmful, that doesn't make them inherently immoral.
Quoting Agustino
Sex without consent is rape.
If you force me to have dinner with you, you're behaving immorally because you've breached my consent (you would be transgressing against me) and have relieved me of my freedom.
Consent is a part of "dinner morality" just as it's a part of "sex morality". Please tell me you realize this...
Your whole notion that certain actions are in and of themselves immoral must not stem from any kind of harm based moral argument but instead from some kind of arbitrary and absolute god morality where actions are inherently immoral because they breach some immutable and objective standard ("god morality").
Baby Jesus weeps...
Quoting Agustino
Care to define decency then?
(Of course that would be asking too much...)
Quoting Agustino
So they have the potential for animal behavior built-in. Got it. Indecency is pre-programmed...
Quoting Agustino
Do you honestly think that some god-like force reached out to you and then communicated that if you don't obey it's will it will torture you for eternity in some terrible place of no return?
Is the the loving God you worship?
Quoting Agustino
"Problematic"? (You really are a true post-modern thinker at this point).
"Sex is problematic because it has to do with the very existence of life itself. It is very close to the source of our being." This is nonsense, and if you could just open your third and fourth chakras, you would naturally acknowledge that this is nonsense because chakras are very close to the source of your being.
More serious matters indeed...
Quoting Agustino
"Sexual morality" has been diverse throughout human history, and your whole "ancient people tended to do it therefore it's true" rhetoric is sheer and incorrigible stupidity...
Do you think you can pass formalized and sloppy appeals to tradition like so many logs of shit?
No, just because people used to stone homosexuals to death doesn't mean it's necesarily "problematic" (whatever it is that means...
Quoting Agustino
Were the Spartans a minor tribe? Their entire civilization was based around militant bands of homosexuals...
Quoting Agustino
Biology gets us to have sex by offering up the reward of pleasure, which for us is an undeniable end of sex (i.e: why you masturbate). Just because sex was the original act which caused our inception doesn't mean we need to treat sex like some sacred domain. Sex isn't the monolith and we're not apes jumping and screaming around it...
Quoting Agustino
"Fun/pleasure isn't essential to the nature of sex"... That's very sad, but it's true. "intimacy and (emotional?) closeness" are also not essential to the nature of sex though, nor are they unique to sex. You can feel intimate with and close to someone through verbal interaction alone. Orgasms are a big part of sex but they are also not essential if we're speaking broadly about sex. Really the only essential characteristics of sex are physical contact and or the involvement of sexual organs.
Quoting Agustino Eating burgers with someone can produce feelings of intimacy, and the "fun" aspect of sex isn't accidental (evolution made it that way for a reason).
So, if we had to define sex intelligently, we could say that it is something that can lead to reproduction, or intimacy, or fun/pleasure, or any combination or these things.
Quoting Agustino
This is nonsense: "sex is close to your origin, therefore close to your being, so it reminds you of your making, therefore sex involves your whole being, and your soul too".
I'm not even going to bother ridiculing this...
Quoting Agustino
You call reproduction and intimacy "essential ends" very clearly because that's what you want. You cannot equate nutritional health with whether or not someone chooses to reproduce or to seek intimacy as intimacy and reproduction are not required for an individual to go on living. You only feel that way because you think reproduction and intimacy have intrinsic moral importance, which is a fairly crappy moral position because it negates the moral freedom of people to choose whether or not to seek intimacy or to reproduce.
Quoting Agustino Denying your spouse sex entirely is potential grounds for a divorce. I don't understand how that compares to euthanasia (or in this case some kind of suicidal-vore fetish?). These insane moral equivalences you make grow increasingly disturbing...
If you think a spouse should provide 24 hour sex on demand to their partner then you're confused. If you marry someone with the understanding that sex and reproduction will be a part of that marriage, and they change their mind, then you should end the marriage.
Quoting Agustino
"We" haven't really established anything Aug, you keep saying random variations of the same vague and sometimes disturbing platitudes and I keep accusing them of being undefined and contradictory to common sense.
Pleasure is just as much a valid end of sex as is reproduction and "unity"...
Quoting Agustino
You're just assuming that sex is necessarily harmful and then making false moral equivalences between sex and slavery or sex and suicide or sex and cannibalism...
On an unrelated note I've come to realize that I severely enjoy subverting you through music:
If a man makes a a pass at a woman and fails he needs to move on or risk committing sexual harassment (same goes for a failed female aggressor)...
Does it surprise you though that if you show up to certain places dressed a certain way that men assume it's O.K to approach you? Are they wrong for not assuming you're not interested or that you might get upset?
This is what I mean by not wanting to have to consider everyone's emotional well-being to the N'th degree. If you're dressed up a certain way and at a certain club I'm going to assume you're an adult capable of handling an adult interaction (a sexual pass). If I were to harass you with obscenity or repetition I would be wrong, but let's say I was cordial (in a night club setting) and you verbally insulted me as a part of your rejection, in this case you would be the bad guy ;).
If you were reading a book in a library there's hardly any room for making a cordial sexual pass (the situation/context renders it clearly inappropriate), so even if I was the nicest guy you would still be in the right to tell me to fuck off.
It all has to do with the circumstances which individuals can use to create a reasonable expectation of whether not a sexual pass would be taken offensively...
We are talking about intention here; a couple of months ago, I went to a birthday party at a bar and while attempting to get a mocktail and having a laugh with the bartender as we both don't drink alcohol, I was approached by a man. I was wearing a simple, floral dress and I don't wear make-up except for a bit of blush because I have freckles that I hate. This man was eyeballing me earlier and he did a few other things and when I was at the bar, he intentionally brushed himself up close to me and came to whisper something to me, but as I pulled away he actually, quite literally went 'what?' really angrily. I am at a bar only because it is my friends birthday and I don't drink alcohol, yet his assumption was otherwise because his intentions were. In his mind, he took away my humanity, everything that I am and turned me into a disposable object and I was not allowed to get upset about that.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Casual sex is symptomatic of a carelessness to ones own integrity and there is no value to it other than obtaining an orgasm or a fleeting sense of pleasure, ultimately targeted by those that have built a disjunctive against reciprocal significance of love or affection. They become nothing but a body that reduces the intimacy to nothing more than a mere transaction. The dilemma here is two-fold; the impact at a macro-level as mentioned below notwithstanding the psychological and epidemiological and your responsibility as a moral agent, but if we reduce the significance of sex to become devoid of meaning, it enables a permissibility of many acts of sexual deviation including non-consensual. Such intimacy must be reciprocal both sexually and emotionally to establish meaning.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
This is not about right or wrong on a case-by-case basis and sexual objectification is not emotional, we are talking about what is going on in your mind; what is in question is your interpretation of the types of women that exist under these particular settings. This is an objectionable point of view because it brazenly assumes and overall contributes to imagined constructs that devalues personhood. It lacks the acknowledgement of the person and such assumptions form social pressures that contribute - just as marketing and mainstream media do - to a number of psychological problems where men and women become obsessed with their appearances, getting plastic surgery or drawing on eyebrows to perfect themselves, for what exactly? You're loose moral contributes to something much greater.
I'm quite sure people don't drink because it's pleasurable (or they're thirsty), but rather because they're going to die if they don't. Obviously the same doesn't hold with regards to sexuality.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Where have I done that? Stop straw-manning please. I know that you don't really have arguments against me, because I read through your post and it's mostly blabber and completely off the point, but still you should have the decency not to be intellectually dishonest. Certainly you should read the passage you quoted again:
Quoting Agustino
No mention of cannibalism and suicide here.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
The morality of respecting one's freedom is different than the morality of sex. We were talking about the morality of respecting another's will (consent) at that moment.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Right motherducker, and did I say anything different?! The immorality has nothing to do with the underlying activity (whether this is SEX or EATING DINNER), but rather with the infringement of their freedom. And in both cases, there is the SAME infringement of freedom.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Right, so we can conclude that having dinner with me is not immoral. Now you stopped looking at the question of consent, and looked at the underlying activity. Do the same for sex. Stop looking at consent. It has NOTHING to do with it.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Right, exactly.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Riiiiight >:O >:O >:O - and until now you were saying that the prostitute does a service just like the McDonald worker - no difference!! Can you see how that was a piece of crap that you're contradicting yourself now? So now you finally admit that sex is different from other activities. It's more invasive. Maybe I should start like you. But why? Why is it more invasive?! Ahhhh is it because it has to do with their personhood, and involves their whole being, just like I told you before eh?!
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Bullshit. Forcing you to do something against your will is immoral, regardless of what I force you to do against your will. But - there can be additional immoralities that have to do with the underlying activity that I force you into, and those immoralities have to do with the activity in question and its nature, not with disrespecting your will.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Nope. Giving someone a tattoo is immoral in both cases. However, when you force them, there are two immoralities - the immorality of forcing them against their will, and the immorality of harming their body. The latter one is the only one that has to do with the activity of giving them a tattoo in and of itself. The other one has to do with respecting their will.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes it's not. Why not? Because the underlying sexual activity isn't immoral, and you respect her will.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
That is immoral not because of the underlying sexual activity (which is moral, you're having sex with your wife), but because you force her to do something against her will. If you forced her to have dinner with you in the same manner, that would be equally immoral.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Sure, but that's NOT because the underlying activities done to them are immoral, but rather because you infringe upon their will.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I absolutely can, but stop changing the subject. I pointed out to the fact that breaking your will and forcing you to have dinner with me, is not as immoral as breaking your will and forcing you to have sex with me. You have answered, FINALLY - that having sex is more "invasive" than having dinner. So you perceived my point, even though you're being a little snitch and trying to hide this, that there is something in the underlying activity, beyond consent, that makes one worse than the other. Consent is broken in both cases.
If someone says I wanna buy this pill and kill myself with it, it's wrong to sell them the pill. WHY? According to your stupid logic, which you don't even agree with, this shouldn't be wrong, because they've given their consent! (think of your stupid tattoo example)
Quoting VagabondSpectre
So Vagabond, does God randomly decide what actions please Him and what actions displease Him? Or does He have some rationality in so deciding? I feel that you think God is some sort of idiot who would make you do what's actually bad and harmful for you.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Irrelevant.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes, because quite honestly, you're just using this as an excuse to think of yourself as moral, when you should be thinking the opposite. It's a problem that you don't consider other people.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes, and it's absolutely morally wrong to harm another knowingly, even if they accept this through their will.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
It means the same shit you were saying when you said sex is more invasive than having dinner :s Really, you're feigned ignorance is pathetic.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes, a scientific foundation is exactly what you lack, that's why you can't even distinguish properly between different aspects of morality.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
:s I don't care if they're virgins, but I do care if they're decent people who strive to be moral. Someone who goes out every weekend to shag a different person is highly immoral, and definitely not decent, so yes, I wouldn't be interested in them. If someone had sex because they had a boyfriend or something, then that's understandable to a certain degree (though obviously still immoral).
And yes, of course sexual immorality affects me - as well as everyone else in society, including children and couples. That's why divorce rates are through the roof and people can't even have a fucking family anymore. So many children growing up with a single parent or worse.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes, and so should men. They should strive to do that, they may fail, but that's not that bad if they're at least trying. But many, especially amongst men, don't even give a fuck, and that's very immoral, and a serious problem.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I'm ego-centric? >:O >:O
Says the guy who likes shagging random people because it "feels good", and who isn't concerned about their emotional being, because, well that's too much to ask of him, they should take care of themselves! >:O >:O Give me a break!
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No, that's not what I'm saying.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Oh really? I didn't know we had a special term for it. You surely had to bold it and make it obvious. So what if it's rape? :s Why the hell does it matter that we call it rape and not fjhsdhdas? Breaking someone's consent is immoral - on top of that is added the immorality of the sexual act (fornication) and therefore we assign it a special place of immorality, and call it rape.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No, it's not. Consent is part of respecting your will, which is different from dinner morality and sex morality. It is also a part of morality, but a different aspect of it.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I see you've run out of arguments, and into speculation.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Immorality doesn't only harm you in the afterlife, but in this life also.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No it's not. It's not an inherent end of sex. That's exactly why masturbation is wrong.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Ehmm, yes it does actually mean we need to treat it with reverence and respect.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Intimacy is one thing that can only be achieved, to that same extent, via the sexual act. That's why it counts as an end of sex. Sure, you can be intimate by sharing food - but that's not as intimate as having sex. Why? Because sex is fucking more invasive, you yourself said it just a few moments ago! It's kind of pathetic how you pretend to forget what you have said, and shift from contradiction to contradiction because you want to run away from the truth.
And no, I'm not talking of "essential characteristics", but rather essential ends.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No, because the same degree of fun achieved with sex can be achieved via other means. So that "fun" isn't essential to define sex. It's not the same as reproduction and intimacy. I told you to read Aristotle, and you should, because then you'd actually understand what essential means, and how it opposes accidental. Accidental doesn't mean that there isn't a connection between two things, but rather that that connection does not belong to the essence of the activity.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
The end of eating is providing nutrition for your body. It's NOT pleasure. Pleasure is an accidental feature of eating. Likewise for sex. And it has ZERO to do with whether something is required for living or not.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
The freedom of people is only part of morality. We're talking about the intrinsic morality of certain actions now, so stop bringing in the freedom of the people. The freedom isn't negated because action X is immoral. They're still free to engage in it, but that doesn't change the fact that it is immoral.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Care to answer the questions? Or do you prefer to run away?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Answer the damn questions...
Quoting VagabondSpectre
There's no moral equivalence there. I didn't say they're equally wrong. I'm using it to illustrate a point, namely that there is an intrinsic morality of an activity which has ZERO to do with consent. So stop pretending like you don't see it, and answer the questions. It's very simple. You can either answer the question if you have a good answer, which would be able to illustrate that you are right, or you can run away, fleeing from the truth, because you don't have an adequate answer.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
False, as I've explained above. Just like pleasure isn't a valid end of eating, so pleasure isn't a valid end of sex. A valid end of sex is what is essential for sex, what sex is aimed at. It's aimed at reproduction and intimacy, the same way eating is aimed at nutrition. Simple.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
You're not subverting anyone mate, you're just running away now that you don't have answers anymore.
People do drink for pleasure, that's why they pay extra money for all kinds of flavored and carbonated beverages. This is common sense Aug...
Quoting Agustino
The ordering of my quotations got a bit messed up, but surely you didn't forget making that comparison:
"Furthermore, if sex always involves one's whole being (as a person), is it right and loving to deny your beloved sexual fulfillment, by denying them intimacy, for example? Or do you mean to argue that you simply do not care about the actual needs of the other, but only what they say, such that if they were to tell you that their need is to be eaten alive, you would proceed to give them a hand with it?"
There you go.
I'm not strawmanning you at all Aug, you've said all this shit on your own...
Quoting Agustino
When you stated that consent has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of an activity you made it pretty clear that you weren't talking about freedom (which is related to consent). you were trying to argue that sex is inherently more harmful than forced feeding as a part of your argument that casual sex is inherently harmful, but it doesn't apply because non-consensual sex is more traumatic than non-consensual food consumption, but non-consensual food-consumption is also more traumatic than consensual sex, which is possibly not traumatic at all
You asked me "why is forced sex worse than forced eating if consent doesn't exist in both cases?" (expecting the answer "because sex is inherently more harmful") What you fail to grasp is that it's the non-consensual aspect of sex itself that makes it so much more traumatic. You kept ranting that consent has nothing to do with the underlying morality of an action, but clearly when it comes to matters of personal freedom, it does.
If you still don't grasp this basic reality, answer this question: Why is sex between consenting adults not considered to be worse than kidnapping or forced feeding?
Quoting Agustino
The service that the prostitute does is more invasive on their body, but then, arguably the work a coal miner does is more or just as invasive on their body than even prostitution might be for a woman.
The important thing is that the person consent to the invasive action to be done upon them. In the case of sex, a lot of the time the invasive actions are welcomed as desirable and pleasurable (keep in mind that sex has a different impact when when sex is unwelcome/non consensual). A prostitute who might not actually want to have sex but does so anyway is exchanging money/goods for a service in the same type of transaction that a coal miner or a Macdonald's worker is. We can say that the MacDonald's work is less invasive (and that's why they tend to get paid less), but we could also say that coal mining is more invasive (and that's why they tend to get paid more).
The coal dust that enters the lungs of the miner might be there forever and cause them to die a slow painful death. You could make comparisons about STD's and sex but health problems probably come from coal mining much more reliably than from sex work. But maybe now you might begin to understand that goods and services exist on a market where the price of something is determined by how much people want or need a particular good and service, and the difficulty/sacrifices people must undertake produce them.
Quoting Agustino
Again, when sex is done against someone's will, it tends to be severely traumatic, that's why consent has a lot to do with the morality/impact/potential harm of sex. consensual sex between adults does not tend to be traumatic, it tends to be enjoyable.
Quoting Agustino
Why are tattoo's harmful to the body? Did god say so?
Quoting Agustino
Just to be clear, is it that you are married to her which makes the sex not immoral or that there is "communion" or whatever. In other words, if they were not married but still in love and all that, would the sex still not be immoral?
Quoting Agustino
There you go again, comparing sex to suicide...
And now tattos are matters of life and death too...
Sex is invasive, but whether or not it's "harmful" depends almost entirely on the will and disposition of the participants (unless an STD or an unwanted pregnancy is involved). People have invasive things done to them all the time but they don;t consider it harmful, they consider it pleasurable (and verily, we cannot point to necessary and substantial bodily or psychological harm,). People enjoy sex and they enjoy tattoos and while there is some risk of harm we don't forbid people to pursue happiness on the basis that they might harm themselves (not unless we treat them like children, like some authoritarian overlord).
This is why people can have mutually enjoyable sex all the time and afterward might be more happy and less stressed - because consensual invasiveness isn't necessarily harmful.
At this point you will just refer back to your original assumption (begging the question) god said sex is bad so it's bad.
Quoting Agustino
Well, actually, stupid people randomly decide what pleases and displeases "Him". The stupid people who either think they know "god" or pretend to speak on it's behalf sometimes try to use reason, but the assortment of centuries old moral positions found in religions contain so many stupid and retarded moral arguments that we're better off starting from godless scratch.
Quoting Agustino
Irrelevant to what? The tears of baby Jesus?
Quoting Agustino
I do consider other people, I just don't consider them to be children in need of righteous guidance or constant emotional coddling. That and I don't have a warped and negative (and anticipatory) view of casual sex.
Quoting Agustino
So "whole being" means that "sex is more invasive than food consumption"?
Why did you say "whole being" instead of "sex is invasive and invasiveness is harmful" then?
But now I get to ask: When you have sex with your wife, it's invasive (and therefore harmful by that logic), right?
Quoting Agustino
Are you saying that you have a scientific moral framework?
That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard all year...
Quoting Agustino
So 'promiscuity causes divorce' is your best and only argument that's actually based in the material world (other than your insistence that casual sex is always and necessarily harmful). At least it's something...
But it's not the only factor that leads to divorce, and making sex outside of marriage illegal (per the noahide laws and your own morality) might actually cause more harm than the amount of harmful divorces which are caused by sex outside of marriage in the first place. It's also important to note that not all divorces are bad, because sometimes it brings an end to abusive and dysfunctional relationships. You can blame sluts for the collapse of western society all you like but your argument as to how that happens is chained lunacy (because you think divorce is all the fault of immoral sex fault and that will destroy the nuclear family and therefore the culture/children and therefore your religion and therefore the economy and therefore the nation?)
And in short, yes you're emotionally affected. Got it...
Quoting Agustino
Naa, it's not immoral, and since we've already established that you shouldstop feigning pathetic ignorance and assent to my constant appeals to god and tradition and outright question begging.
Quoting Agustino
You're the guy who moans that he is destined for divorce. Like a slave who is "free to escape", you're free to try and fail at marriage.
You fear you will fail at marriage because you view everyone else as a greedy promiscuous slut who won't be able to resist cheating on you or to invest in life long monogamy the way god intended...
When a woman has sex, "harm is done to her future spouse", (that's you). Your future wife is out there getting fucked, possibly as we speak. Maybe she will even get pregnant (will she get an abortion and not tell you I wonder?) .
How familiar are you with the term "cuck"? (Don't answer that). It comes from cuckhold (which means your wife got impregnated by another man), but over the last three years it has come to be used as a broad pejorative that gets wielded against conservative men who basically protest too much (like a liberal, kinda). There's a few different political senses of the term, but a broad and main one essentially describes over-confident person who is in reality a whiny beta male whose insecurities (such as the inability to sexually satisfy their wife) winds up forcing them to make liberal compromises (such as letting another man sexually gratify their wife (ouch!)). It's used mainly because it bothers people with insecurity severely.
I brought up what I view to be your ego centrism because you have made it abundantly clear that the personal and private decisions of other free and consenting adults bothers you to the extent you consider yourself harmed by them. You will of course go out of your way to make it clear that you're not worried about yourself (you're an alpha, that's a given), but the way go on and lament how all the other men will be enslaved to divorce makes it seem like that's how you really feel about your own future. The way you describe sex as harmful to one's future spouse must mean you yourself are being harmed by your future wife (if she isn't a virgin) before you've even met her. This has a bit of the "protests too much" angle, and so you should be aware that voicing many of your points in many mainstream political circles would be met with the "cuck" retort.
I'm not calling you a cuck though, I don't want to pretend to get at the roots of whatever makes you feel entitled/harmed when it comes to how, when, and why other people engage in sex. But I am pointing out that your sense of entitlement and harm regarding the private actions of other people is ego-centric and seems like a psychological insecurity.
Quoting Agustino
When you just pull terms out of your ass like "dignity" and stake your movable goal post into the ground you cannot blame me for making sensical comparisons like the fact that an illegal alien who works for less than you sacrifices their dignity in doing so.
Why is that different from the sacrificed dignity of the prostitute? Is it a different kind of dignity?
Does baby Jesus not weep?
Have you run out of arguments?
Quoting Agustino
Because you repeated and capitalized nonsense about how consent has nothing to do with the morality of sex. Clearly that's not the case because non-consensual sex is deemed by society to be harmful/illegal/immoral, while consensual sex is not considered to be illegal/harmful/immoral in the same way. Your point about how the morality of sex has to do with the nature of the act is either some ad hoc misguided nonsense you haphazardly excreted on the spot or it stems from some kind of god based absolute "X is wrong because X is wrong" nonsense...
Which is it?
Quoting Agustino
Normally I would ridicule this by suggesting that it resembles something a mentally deficient child would produce, but since that won't help you understand, let me try a different approach:
"sex morality" and "dinner morality" are short hand for referencing "moral issues pertaining to sex and sexual interaction" and "moral issues pertaining to dining with other people". In both cases "respecting the will" of the participants is a highly relevant issue in many respects, and so trying to separate out consent from "sex morality" sounds absolutely ridiculous and as if you're totally unfamiliar with how your own ideas actually sound.
Quoting Agustino
So which is it. Is sex bad because you fear divorce or is sex bad because baby Jesus weeps. Take your pick and the arguments will keep flowing.
But I cannot treat sewage without substance, you've got to provide that.
Quoting Agustino
Are you answering the question with a "yes" or are you just running away?
Quoting Agustino
Without masturbation you will become stressed and sexually frustrated unless you have a partner who is adequately available for sex.
Let's clarify though: masturbation is bad because it's pleasurable or because it's not intimacy or reproduction oriented?
Quoting Agustino
What about the bed upon which your parents fucked in order to conceive you, must we treat that with reverence and respect?
What if you were the result of invitro-fertilization, must you treat the petri dish with reverence and respect?
Why does "close to our conception" or whatever actually mean such that we need to revere it? You keep making conclusions which don't appear to follow from any combination of the available and presumptive premises you've offered.
Quoting Agustino
It's because you have an internally contradictory view of sex (warped) that causes you to A, not understand my own moral framework, and B, to jump back and forth (cognitive dissionance?) between random, varied, and inexorably contradictory positions as you try to avoid the many problems I've pointed out.
For example, you tried to argue that the morality of sex has nothing to do with consent (as if sex is an invasive procedure that is inherently harmful in and of itself), but then you went on to state that sex is not inherently immoral (and therefore not invasive/harmful?) so long as it's with your spouse. (to me this indicates some arbitrary specific standard around which you presently dance)
Why is the harmful invasiveness of sex an O.K thing to do to your spouse but not an O.K thing to do to a consenting non-spouse? If your wife asked you to eat her alive, you wouldn't give her a hand would you? (protip: that last question is a red-herring)
Quoting Agustino
Sorry that I'm not ready to submit to your dogmatic appeal to an ancient teleological framework as you try to weave it in to some kind of twisted purpose or "end" based moral platform. I have my own way of classifying, describing and understanding concepts and objects, and frankly I think it quite naive a position for you to expect me to assent to an assertion like "the purpose of sex is intimacy and reproduction, therefore subverting these purposes is immoral"...
You should read "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris, "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins, "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking, and if you have time "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" by the late great Christopher Hitchens.
(Spoiler alert: I've already read Aristotle but I missed the nonsensical bit that actually determined "necessary/essential ends/characteristics" to be the basis for moral oughts.
You do realize how many crazy things we can conclude using your reasoning? "The necessary end of bicycles is travel, therefore joyriding is immoral!", or, "The necessary end of eating food is nutrition, therefore eating for pleasure is immoral!", or "the necessary end of living is dying, therefore living for pleasure is immoral!", or "the necessary end of eyesight is awareness, therefore looking at art for pleasure is immoral! or "the necessary end of rest is to convalesce, therefore resting for pleasure is immoral!", or "the necessary end of listening to music is pleasure, therefore listening to gospel/hymns for religious enlightenment immoral!". Need I go on?
The necessary end of a chair is to be sat upon, therefore using it to jam a door closed is immoral!
The necessary end of a dildo is to be inserted into vaginas/rectums, therefore using it to moralize and condemn free agents is immoral!
O.k I'm done...
Quoting Agustino
According to you masturbation is immoral because sex has essential ends of intimacy and reproduction, while pleasure is only accidental (sad). By that logic eating food for pleasure (choosing a dish for taste over nutrition) is immoral. Right?
Quoting Agustino
This is exactly what I've been saying about your moral framework; it's based on some continuous appeal to the intrinsic/inherent/innate immorality of something, in this case sex, and while I constantly ask why sex in the marriage bed is not immoral while sex outside of it is, all you need to do is keep referring back to the assumption (restating, over and over and over) that such seX is immoral.
Everytime I talk about weeping baby Jesus, I'm ridiculing/assuming that you get your moral constants from an arbitrary source like God (which seems totally correct given how much you've referred to Christianity as your moral inspiration).
What if God is gay though?
Quoting Agustino
O.K
"As we have established, sex is inherently directed towards a unitive end (btw we're talking about sex in-so-far as it relates to persons, so please don't bring up animals), so then if you deny yourself this unitive end by whatever means, is that no different and no worse than chewing food for the taste, and then spitting it out?"
No, because intimacy and reproduction are not required to be healthy and go on living. Although, assuming that you're already well nourished, it's not harmful at all to chew and spit out food for the taste, or to sip and spit out wine at a wine tasting.
"If you refused to eat food anymore, denied the nutritional end of eating, and instead just chewed the food for the taste, and then spit it out, would you be harming yourself?"
Yes you would be harming yourself, because eating food is required to go on living, intimacy and reproduction are not.
"So then Vagabond, don't you think that likewise you'd be harming yourself if you deny the unitive purpose of sex, which as we said is very close to your own being, and doing so regardless of whether or not you experienced some pleasure in the process?"
No, because "has reproduced" or "is in an intimate monogamous relationship" are not required for health or happiness, while "is well nourished" is.
Can you see the difference?
Quoting Agustino
You're trying to make a comparison between things as if there is intrinsic immorality contained in all of the actions themselves but it just isn't so. You need to bring up such ridiculous and severe examples of immoral behaviors to try and get me to agree to the premise that certain actions are in and of thswemlves immoral rather than defining why certain actions are immoral and in what circumstances based on actual reasons (as opposed to God said so). Cannibalism isn't always immoral, sometimes it's necessary for survival Suicide isn't always immoral, sometimes it's merciful. Even murder isn't always immoral (unless you define it as immoral killing of another, in which case "the killing of another" isn't always immoral).
It's the context, the circumstances, reasons (things like consent) that determine the morality or immorality of a certain behavior, not some ultimate eternal and central authority. (at least, not a morality you can successfully argue is useful or true (i.e: persuasive)).
I'll answer these questions too though:
We don't allow people to take their own lives generally because their reasons for wanting to do so are irrational/temporary/psychologically disturbed. We put a suicidal person in a mental institution generally because we think their reasons for wanting to die are fixable (were they thinking clearly they would want us to help them rather than encourage their suicidal desires). But sometimes, such as in the case of a suffering and dying terminally ill person, we might actually let them kill themselves because it's more merciful (they have good reasons). Wanting to be eaten is not a good enough reason to permit people to kill themselves, so we do them the favor of trying to cure their insanity instead. Wanting to eat someone isn't exactly a crime, but if you steal a body to eat we will arrest you for that, and if you kill someone to eat them we'll definitely arrest you for that too, but if you eat the dead co-pilot because you will otherwise starve, most people would forgive that. If you convince someone to agree to be eaten, we will basically arrest you both on the grounds that you're both insane.
Why don't we arrest two adults who have consensual sex on the grounds that they're abusing and harming one another? Is it because we don't live in Saudi Arabia?
It's because consenting adults are capable of having sex without actually abusing or harming one-another, and so we don't need to be concerned for them on any moral grounds other than that they be free to pursue happiness.
Quoting Agustino
Food is aimed at pleasure too though. Pleasure from eating is a fundamental end of eating. Even if I were to assent to your intrinsic purpose oriented teleological-moral nightmare of a confused and sexually repressed religious perception of the world, I could still object on the basis that evolution endowed us with pleasure attached to sex and eating because happiness is an essential end of human existence, and therefore we actually eat (and fuck) to be happy.
My claim has just as much gravitas as your shitty "food is for nutrition not pleasure, therefore sex for pleasure is immoral" mental back-flip.
Quoting Agustino
Oh, I wouldn't call it running
If someone stares at you and invades your personal space, then they're in the wrong. Merely approaching you and speaking to you however isn't something I would expect you to be upset about.
As far as him remarking "what!?", are you sure that he stripped you of your humanity in his mind?
Perhaps he was just surprised that you were repulsed/put off by him because he lacks self-awareness? (this isn't really a point of interest though)
Quoting TimeLine
"Careless to one's integrity" is just as meaningless to me as half the crap Aug as been writing...
Obtaining orgasms are sometimes the only value that people want out of sex, what's so wrong about that?
You employ a slippery-slope argument and suggest that sex for pleasure (as opposed to love?) will eventually lead to non-consensual sex (rape), which seems like a rather negative and presumptive view of things. Sex for pleasure is less satisfying than sex with an actual romantic lover, sure, but making casual sex out to be inherently harmful (especially along vague and subjective lines like "integrity") is just unsubstantiated prudishness.
Quoting TimeLine
I don't devalue person-hoods by approaching women in bars. I think you actually are devaluing their person-hood by assuming that they're so emotionally fragile that If I approach them and interact with them with any sexual motive that they're going to necessarily take offense and be harmed.
And now you're suggesting that me having some sexual interest in women in appropriate settings like bars and nightclubs is what leads to the oppressive image based over-sexualization of western culture?
Give me a break, I just wanted to get laid, and I've had plenty of satisfied and unoffended customers.
"Lacks acknowledgement of the person"... Give me a break and explain what you mean by this... Please...
I mean display of the naked body is valued. If we’re lauding displays of the naked body in media, especially in celebrity media, the idea it’s lewd or disgusting becomes impossible. You can’t just admonish any public display of nudity.
If the photo of Serena is beautiful for example, an expression of value of a particular embodied meaning in public, arguments for a lewd or disgusting display of a naked body have to become more nuanced. You have to start specifying the context, such that’s it distinct from the valuable naked displays. The link between the publicity of the naked body and disgust is severed.
In politics this has a significant effect. You can’t just people for displaying nudity in public. The immediate rhetorical disgust is lost. Shaming becomes more complicated than seeing a display of a naked body and attacking the creator/participants for the immediately obvious action of what’s been done with their body. You can’t make a moral example of a topless women marching in the Slutwalk just for appearing with bare top.
The question of displays of nudity is opened up to scepticism. If some of them are valuable, then they (displays of nudity) can’t be disgusting and lewd just by being naked.
In the case of the Slutwalk, for example, one of the points is about how the female body is objectified, about how other assume that a display of a naked female body means she is there for someone sexual consumption. Is the toplessness of the women actually any sort of problem? Not necessarily, if some displays of nudity are valuable, toplessness isn’t just lewd or disgusting of itself. Even if you’re taking a position opposed to the wider politics of Slutwalk, toplessness can’t just be a problem of displays nudity itself.
The accusation of category error is opened up with regards to the attack on toplessness: that you are mistaking an issue of sexual morality (advocating sexual permissiveness) for the display of toplessness. You lose a rhetorical force tied to embodiment— maybe the position of those marching on permissive sex is wrong, but that doesn’t mean being topless is.
It's objectification and ignorance of what's going on in their own head. Since sex involves other people, it cannot be just about orgasms. Even in the most casual fling, another person is desired; they are valued as a participant in the act in the sex act, be as an objectified body or another person.
By definition an impulse to have sex involves at the very least valuing, if we are talking about instances where orgasm is the goal, obtaining orgasms by being involved with another person, in both body (e.g. how ever their body is important) and mind (as they have feelings, thoughts and value related to the act of sex). "Emotionless" sex is a myth. Consensual one night stands still involve the desires, expectations and valuing another person. Sex is an act between people. It cannot be separated for the significance of others and reduced to a pleasure motivation.
You didn't catch my bit about glory holes?
If you want to argue that there's always some emotion during sex, that's fine and I'm not a psychologist who knows better, but very evidently some sexual encounters can be less emotional than others where sexual satisfaction is the goal for both parties rather than intimate or emotional connection.
So I ask again, what's so wrong about that?
Let's see what you said I did:
Quoting VagabondSpectre
There is no equating of casual sex with suicide and cannibalism up there. A comparison, illustrating how consent is irrelevant to the immorality of the underlying activity, doesn't mean a comparison between the gravity of two different underlying activities. You're really having a hard time aren't you? :s
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No, stop right there. I wasn't trying to argue that. Seems like you have reading comprehension issues. I was illustrating that breaking of consent is one moral issue (which happens both in rape and in forced feeding) and the underlying action - feeding and sex - are another set of moral issues.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
A comparison of how traumatic each are is irrelevant since I never compared them in the first place in terms of their gravity. I've only said that the breaking of consent is the same, and equally wrong in both. The reasons why one of them is more wrong than the other is because on top of breaking consent is added fornication.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Maybe because we value one's freedom more than we value chastity? :s Really, you're not having an easy time at all.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Right, so if someone consents that the invasive action of eating them alive be done on them, then it's right to eat them alive? :s If not, then why the fuck not? Clearly NOT because of consent, so stop citing consent like an idiot.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No, they don't actually get paid less. My work is very non-invasive, and I don't get paid less either.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I never made this assumption.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No, because they objectively burn and harm the skin of your body.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Don't give me this bullshit nonsense. Consent means that their will is broken. The additional trauma of it cannot have anything to do just with their will, cause their will is broken in forced eating too. It's the same will that is broken. In terms of consent, the same harm is done. So the additional harm can only come from a different source, not from the breaking of consent.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Well you'd be pleased to know that I arrived at my positions on sexuality (certainly with regards to fornication) before I even became a Christian. So I think you can lay to rest your false imaginations.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I never said I'm destined for divorce :s - really is your reading comprehension that bad?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
That's absolutely not true, and stupid on top of everything else. Clearly I'm not promiscuous, and I'm a male, what makes you think there aren't such females? I've met quite a bunch of them actually. Maybe if you stopped hanging around in night clubs and other useless places you'd meet some too.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes, that is indeed true, if we're speaking of my future wife now.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Probably not, for the simple reason that those women don't attract me in the first place. It would be very difficult for me to get married to someone promiscuous for the simple reason that they'd have to hide it for too long, as I wouldn't instantly marry them when I meet them.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Again, I highly doubt it.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Well Hanover right here explained the term to me a few days ago, so quite familiar I think ;)
Quoting VagabondSpectre
"whiny beta male" - that concept doesn't translate to me, sorry to tell you.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
"Alpha" and other concepts may apply to you and your life, but certainly not to mine. There is no such thing as an "alpha" or "beta" male. You must have quite a hard time always struggling to deal with such fictive imaginations, always trying to be "alpha" or whatever. That's not even how you win at the game of marriage - you don't win by "being best in bed" as that means nothing.
So no, the reason why I'm not worried about myself isn't because I'm an alpha (or other such bullshit), but rather because I trust my capacity to judge people and determine people who have good moral qualities and wouldn't marry me because they want to have sex with me or think I'm good in bed, or people who are promiscuous and have an abnormal love for sexual intercourse.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Again, this may be a worry for you, but certainly it isn't one for me. I wouldn't marry a hyper-sexual person who always requires to be "sexually satisfied". I don't make sex a matter of self-esteem, as you seem to do. I'm comfortable in my own skin, knowing that nature has gifted me and my future wife with everything we need to satisfy each other. So all this is your projection, you seem to think that I structure my life by the same standards that you do. If my wife is a decent, chaste and moral woman without a promiscuous past (or who at least regrets her promiscuous past), what makes you think she'd be so concerned about it and unable to control herself? If I don't have sex with her until I marry her (but I will obviously live with her before that), how will I not know about her sexual habits and ability to control herself, the same way she will know about mine? And if she can control herself while not even having sex with me, what makes you think she wouldn't be able to control herself once she starts having sex with me?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
This isn't a matter of ego-centrism at all, it's just a fact. If you think you're never harmed by the decisions of others then you're absolutely deluded, let me tell you that. We are harmed by the decisions of other people, including with regards to sexuality. And it isn't only one way that I'm harmed. If these dangerous misconceptions (some of which you're also peddling) spread through society, then we'll live in a far worse place than otherwise.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
If my future spouse is having promiscuous sex, absolutely. So what? What's your point?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I'd be glad if they call me a cuck, so that I may proceed to correct them, and hopefully clear out some toxic views with regards to sexuality that they themselves hold. That way, I'll make the world around me a much better place.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No it's absolutely not ego-centric. Ego-centric is something that I derive pleasure from, something that is selfish. There's no question of selfishness here, because what you call "my sense of entitlement and harm" is nothing but a natural human reaction, which you have perhaps repressed in your own self. Respecting yourself isn't the same as selfishness. You're really having a hard time tonight.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Right, it's not as harmful as non-consensual sex, that doesn't mean it isn't harmful.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No it's absolutely not a highly relevant aspect of dinner or sex morality. It's a highly relevant aspect of the morality of interacting with others, regardless of what kind of interaction you have with them. Again, seems like you have no clue what you're talking about. You fail to see a very simple distinction.
If consent is what makes an underlying activity moral or immoral, then why the FUCK is eating someone alive not moral if they give you their consent huh? Stop pretending you don't understand this simple analogy. There is much more to morality than your consent. And this is proven to anyone reading this, beyond any reasonable doubt. Consent alone cannot describe the morality of underlying activities, but rather the morality of interactions with people, regardless of the nature of those interactions. But the underlying activities are also relevant to determine the moral relevance of the entire situation.
And no, trying to separate consent from sexual morality is absolutely fine. I DO separate consent from the morality of cannibalism, why shouldn't I do the same for sex, and all other activities? :s These things must be judged separately.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Sorry, you've pointed out zero real problems.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
The latter. And no, without masturbation you won't necessarily become stressed and sexually frustrated. It's something that comes with practice, given that we live in a very promiscuous and hyper-sexualised culture. You actually feel much better in many regards without masturbation.
Just strictly sexually, masturbation is probably the worst sin. But overall it's preferable to fornication because fornication isn't just a sexual sin, but also a sin against charity and justice. So yes, if people cannot be chaste, they should definitely resort to masturbation rather than another activity.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes, I think you should, but I have no idea how exactly you'd "disrespect" it...
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Quite the contrary, I think it's you who is completely on the move back, projecting onto me your own ideas and your own worldview, which I do not share.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I never said sex is inherently harmful. Invasive =/ harmful.
Yes, sex with your spouse is inherently good. Why? Because it is a relationship of love, where you give infinite commitment to each other, the kind of commitment that two human beings deserve to share in.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Your question is bullshit. Rephrase it like "Why is sex an OK thing to do to your spouse and not an OK thing to do to a consenting non-spouse?" - well it's the way you value them ultimately. To one of them you have dedicated yourself to care for her unto eternity, and to the other, you're not dedicated to her at all, just want to use her body. That's wrong.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I've actually read all those books.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yeah, if you've read Aristotle the way you read my posts I can clearly understand why you're so confused.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Are you not traveling while you're joyriding silly boy?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Nope, this is the wrong conclusion. If you ate JUST for pleasure, in other words, if you purposefully frustrated the end of eating (nutrition) then it would be immoral. That's like chewing food but not swallowing it, and instead spitting it out. Yes, doing that would be immoral precisely because it would frustrate the end of eating.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
It's false that the necessary end of living is dying
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Asinus! Are you not being aware when you're looking at art for pleasure?!
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Are you frustrating the natural end by enjoying it? :s NO! It only becomes a problem if you frustrate the natural end on purpose. I can have as much sexy time as I want with my wife because I'm not frustrating the natural ends of sex, even though I'm having pleasure while having it.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
First no, the necessary end of music isn't pleasure.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes, actually the necessary end of a dildo IS sexual pleasure. And if I were to use the dildo to moralise against you, by perhaps waving it in your face, that would be immoral.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No. By that logic chewing food and spitting it out is immoral. If you eat less nutritious food, you're still eating nutritious food, so you're not frustrating the end of nutrition at all - you're not denying it.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
What makes you think God can be "straight" or "gay"? I think you're just committing a category error.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
What does being necessary to remain alive have to do with the natural teleology in question? Clearly you haven't read Aristotle very well AT ALL. And no, you can't make an assumption which you then proceed to negate.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes, because you'd be harming your body, even if you didn't die. You don't have to die for something to be harmful.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Who says they're not required for happiness? You? I disagree.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
That doesn't mean it's not immoral, it just means it's acceptable in some circumstances because it's a lesser evil. Much like masturbation is for many people.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No, not consent. But rather things like are you married to her (read, are you devoted to her for all eternity)? Do you care for her as a person? Do you value her for who she is as a human being? Is sex an expression of your love for her, or a selfish means of using her body to achieve pleasure for yourself?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Same for casual sex. It seems you enjoy your double standards.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
And will the person in question be charged with just theft or more? And why?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Right, so the activity is inherently immoral, such that it requires forgiveness even in those limit cases you quote. I agree ;)
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Sorry to tell you, being insane aren't grounds for arrest. Try again please.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Why don't we arrest you for being rude and disrespectful? Well, because we don't always punish immoralities legally. That doesn't change the fact they are immoral though.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
So people are also capable of insulting each other without harming one another right? :s
>:O
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Why? Just because pleasure is associated with eating? That is not sufficient to qualify it as a fundamental end of eating. Just because most people choose food they enjoy eating? Again, that's irrelevant.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
First you have not illustrated that it's a nightmare. Second of all, it has zero to do with sexual repression, and the fact that you say that really tells me that you don't know what you're talking about. Repressing sexuality is very different than simply expressing it in the circumstances when it is appropriate. You're just throwing this word around, and it seems you have no clue what it means at all. So please, have a look at what Freud for example wrote about repression. Repression isn't simply being a celibate. A celibate doesn't repress their sexuality generally, but rather they sublimate it, which is very very different. You have very little knowledge of this, perhaps because of your stunted development due to your overindulgence in sex amongst other things.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No it's absolutely laughable how you think you could object that way, and it just illustrates your complete ignorance of the matters at hand. You're conflating pleasure and happiness. The two are not the same. The drug addict may feel pleasure, but we wouldn't call him happy.
You fail to see the point. What I am trying to convey is that he sexually objectified me and his rather aggressive reaction was certainly surprise (indeed, I can give a rather powerful greasy) because in his mind he thought girl at bar means she is sexually available as you are continuously reiterating. That type of categorisation is wrong, it is a problem in your perception, which corresponds with intent. Such a category takes away the humanity of women and his intention was not about 'me' - he could not give a shit about who I am - but what he could get out of me. The intention is merely transactional and such intent is immoral.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
So why is sex for pleasure less satisfying then sex with an actual romantic lover? That is a problem in sexual ethics, there is no slippery slope but clearly you are unable to ascertain why because I see nothing but your usual desire to get a kick out of annoying religious people (and by the way, nothing like Aug considering I do not write 10,000 words of random nonsense and I am not religious).
You would need to substantiate how sex devoid of meaning - meaning of which can only be employed between a reciprocal sexual and emotional intimacy - is ethically justifiable because the absence of meaning purports that the act of sexual intercourse is solely the attainment of this orgasm. As such, having sexual intercourse with an animal for instance could become justifiable. I understand the dilemma to this paradox because consent should render the lack of emotions justifiable, but two people having meaningless sex is no different to one person having meaningless sex; it is without meaning.
In addition to this, as mentioned, there are psychosocial impacts to a culture of promiscuity as well as epidemiological and your responsibility as a moral agent should be to ascertain reasons why women begin to treat themselves as objects. You should take responsibility for how you act, not succumb to how others act, otherwise what is the point of your existence?
As for integrity, it is all semantics. I am of the position that meaning is founded in our responsibility to become an autonomous moral agent, that my existence and being itself is determined by my principles of morality where my motives are concerned. To be autonomous and reason and think independent from that type of blind following of ones own desires. Integrity is to say that I hold esteem and value to these principles because it provides meaning to my existence.
You say:
Quoting VagabondSpectre
And then:
Quoting VagabondSpectre
:-|
Customers, eh?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Perhaps you can first define what you mean when you label women as 'customers'?
Sex is aimed at a plurality of ends, but let's be honest: at its most basic the goal of sex is the satisfaction of a biological urge. Sex is not a rational activity in the sense that people generally do not deliberate about whether or not it is something they want to pursue, but rather they are driven to pursue it, often without reflection. The sex drive is biologically determined.
For some people sex is unattainable, or rarely attainable. That pretty much takes care of the problem of overindulgence. Those for whom sex is an option, the fact that we have even a minimal capacity to overcome our basic urges is amazing. In the context of readily available sex, behaviour that is purely devoted to procreation and intimacy would certainly require an impressive amount of discipline and will power.
Are you purposefully misinterpreting what I wrote? There's nothing wrong with having sex for pleasure, so long as at least one of its essential aims isn't frustrated. And no, this doesn't actually take a massive amount of discipline and will power. The fact you think it does only demonstrates that we live in an age that is excessively promiscuous with regards to sexuality, and where people have been led to think that it's some crazy amount of self-discipline and willpower that is required to abstain from immoral sexual behaviour.
Quoting geospiza
No that's not the aim of sex. I've explained a billion times why not. Nature did not give you sex to satisfy an urge. Rather it gave you an urge to satisfy what? Procreation and intimacy.
Quoting geospiza
That's a problem for many people, and it leads to a lot of unhappiness. They should deliberate about it and consider it.
No, it's not my intention to misinterpret you, but you are taking such a hard line that you will no doubt perceive me as an adversary.
Quoting Agustino
This embodies an overly simplistic view of nature as a rational agent. That is not to say that there isn't or couldn't be a rational agent behind nature, but nature itself is rather clumsy and inefficient. The reasons that nature made us the way that we are involves complicated historical processes, not all of which are ascertainable to us.
Quoting Agustino
You are now guilty of misinterpreting me. I did not say that people should not deliberate and consider how to behave responsibly with respect to sex. However, the basic human desire for sex is non-negotiable, and the denial of our sexuality has led to its own fair share of misery.
How is it a hard line? This is absolutely the standard line on sexuality that has been taken by all major religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.) including most of the philosophers of the past.
Quoting geospiza
Do things in nature have reasons for happening as they do? For example is there a reason for your heart pumping blood around the body? :s
Quoting geospiza
I see quite the opposite! Nature is fantastically well organised and developed, quite the opposite of clumsy and inefficient. My gosh, I wonder how you can even claim that Nature is inefficient. Just imagine how every day your body does thousands, if not millions of tasks that are needed for your survival, and it does them perfectly and in harmony most of the time. Sure there are errors, but the errors are the exception, not the rule. Nature is so beautifully organised, that one is moved by merely regarding nature towards worship of the divine.
Quoting geospiza
I agree, but listen to this. You don't have a natural desire for JUST sex, and if you don't clarify what this desire actually is, and how it relates to different parts of your psyche, you'll never figure out what will fulfil you, and what you actually want. Most people don't even know what they want. So the irrational indulgence of sexuality is just as bad as its irrational repression. The point is that you need to figure out what will satisfy your sexual nature as a human person.
It is uncontroversial that the heart and the vascular system together perform the function of circulating the blood to and from the extremities of the body. The reason for this is not as easy to state. The naturalistic explanation is provided by history and genealogy. There may also be ultimate reasons, but they remain highly speculative. My own view is that the advanced vertebrate cardiovascular system was a requirement of the increasingly complex biota of our planet.
Quoting Agustino
Nature is complex, sophisticated and, at times, beautiful, but by no means does it perform optimally. Nature is imperfect, as we are imperfect. Nature may reflect the divine, but it is not itself divine. Beware of idolatry in your views of nature.
Quoting Agustino
No argument here.
So then at least some things in nature do have reasons for happening?
Quoting geospiza
This is irrelevant, since the teleological explanation functions as part of the full explanation that can be given for the heart and the vascular system.
Quoting geospiza
The strange thing though is that Nature is a lot more perfect than you imagine it to be. That's what's really surprising. It's not the mistakes of nature, which are so rare in comparison to what it gets right.
I don't understand what you are driving at here. Some things happen for a reason in the sense that they are pre-meditated by a rational agent. Other things happen for a reason in the sense that they perform a function. Still other things happen for a reason in the sense that they are caused. Reasons can be proximate or ultimate, singular or plural. Yes, some [all?] things in nature happen for a reason, but reasons come in many different flavours.
Quoting Agustino
Nature is ingenious, but it proceeds by trial and error. There are thought to be some organisms or some features of organisms that perform optimally in a given environment. Features that confer an acute adaptive advantage are typical of these traits. There are numerous other examples, however, where nature functions just well enough to get the job done, more-or-less (e.g. the reptilian heart). In nature we also find examples of vestigial features that appear to serve no biological purpose whatsoever (e.g. the pelvic bone of a snake). Nature is wonderful, awe-inspiring and inventive, but it is also an ongoing work in progress.
:s This is not what I'm saying. I agree with Aristotle's view that all things have 4 causes that are required to fully explain them: material cause, formal cause, efficient cause, and final cause. Without final cause we cannot explain the wholes that are formed by the parts, and so these teleological explanations are absolutely necessary.
Quoting geospiza
What do you mean? Yes there is trial and error in nature. But there is also established procedure.
Quoting geospiza
This doesn't mean anything. The mere fact that it's working so well is awe-inspiring. The fact that it gets better, adapts itself, and improves itself - the fact that it can do that in the first place is also awe-inspiring.
O.k, to be fair you compared sex and cannibalism to denying intimacy sex to one's spouse (which is somehow equally disturbing), although you do later go on to compare casual sex with suicide as follows: "[i]If someone says I wanna buy this pill and kill myself with it, it's wrong to sell them the pill. WHY? According to your stupid logic, which you don't even agree with, this shouldn't be wrong, because they've given their consent! (think of your stupid tattoo example)
[/i]"
The analogy that can be drawn is "if someone wants to have consensual sex with you, it's wrong to have sex with them in the same way (or by some degree of comparison) that giving them cyanide to kill themselves is wrong.
I do find it kind of amusing that you will make sure to clarify that you've not actually said something although you actually agree with it in principle.
Quoting Agustino
Whether or not sex is consensual is a main determiner of whether or not an individual deems that sex to be traumatic or harmful. "The inherent (im)morality of casual sex" is directly tied to the issue of consent.
By your logic someone who has enjoyable and casual sex but then force fed cabbage has been equally harmed as someone who has been raped but then not force fed cabbage, right?
Because according to you breaking consent is different than the morality of sex. So someone who is raped has their consent breached (one unit of consent-harm) and is harmed by the casual and consensual sex (one unit of sex-harm). So the person who gets raped likewise has (one unit of-consent harm) and (one-unit of sex harm).
Consent and sex are two separate and entirely unrelated moral issues, so this makes sense right?
Quoting Agustino
The main problem with this approach is that the same actions can be considered harmful by some, and not harmful by others, and furthermore when something is undesired (sex for instance) then experiencing it is made traumatic and harmful fairly explicitly by the lack of consent itself, not the necessary nature of the act (or sex act).
If I breach your consent and mail you flyers and solicitations, I've breached your consent, and I've also infringed on your relaxation (a small but tangible harm). How big of a moral wrong is it that I've breached your consent? (hint: the gravity of breaching consent has something to do with the gravity of the underlying harm). If I breach your consent by digging a 30x30x10 foot hole in your front yard, then I've breached your consent and presumably caused substantial damage to your property.
If you want flyers though, and give me consent to send them to you, then the same action (sending flyers) becomes beneficial to you as opposed to harmful (consent changes the moral nature of the underlying action as it applies to individuals). If you're trying to install an in-ground pool, and you consent for me to dig the hole for it, then I'm actually doing something morally praiseworthy.
You cannot necessarily separate consent from the morality of certain actions and behaviors.
Quoting Agustino
So if you have sex with someone who consents to have sex, you would be doing something immoral to them like if you were to eat someone alive who consents to be eaten alive?
(I want to say "here's you comparing sex with cannibalism", but first I'll have you agree to the above sentence so that there will no longer be any doubt)
Quoting Agustino
But, MacDonald's workers often burn their hands on the hot equipment, so I guess that makes MacDonald's work immoral, even though they consent.
Obviously the pain of tattoos is not significant enough for people to care about, so why is a moral issue?
Quoting Agustino
It's this kind of confused thinking that will get you to say that rape is the same as casual sex combined with leaving sooner than your partner wants you to (i.e, after sex).
Sex is had in both cases and consent is breached in both cases. Right?
Quoting Agustino
I think when you explained that "freedom to stay married" is like "the freedom of a slave to escape", I cannot be blamed for reading in-between the lines despite your constant protesting that you yourself are not at risk.
Quoting Agustino
Yes, and the gent doth protest to much me thinks...
Quoting Agustino
The private decisions of other people to engage in consensual sexual acts behind closed doors do not tangibly affect you (this encapsulates your ego-centrism). Peddling the idea that you and society are harmed when your warped morals pertaining to sex are breached behind closed doors is a very dangerous idea because if enough people really believed it they would probably go around enforcing it, just like your bible says to do.
Quoting Agustino
But if your future wife is out there having consensual sex right now, she's harming you. If you could magically communicate with her, you would probably tell her how badly she has emotionally injured you. That's selfish by my standards...
Quoting Agustino
Oh, but the morality of an underlying action has nothing to do with consent RIGHT?
If you're willing to admit you previously described the relationship between consent and sex incorrectly, maybe we can begin to start climbing back out of this rabbit hole you've dragged us into...
Quoting Agustino
So I never actually said that consent is always the only consideration that must be made when determining "the underlying immorality of an action", but it was you who kept saying that consent has nothing to do with the underlying morality of an action. I think that the inaccuracy of that is by now proven to anyone reading this.
Cannibalism isn't always immoral by the way, if consuming the dead is the only means of survival, then it's not immoral at the very least.
Sex isn't always harmful or immoral, and comparing it to murder and cannibalism is misleading because cannibalism and killing are almost always harmful and immoral, while in many many situations casual sex is not at all harmful.
"Maybe someone will regret sex" is not a necessary harm, nor is "I view promiscuous people as having less dignity" a necessary harm.
You still need to demonstrate why casual sex is necessarily harmful; that's the central crux of your entire position.
Quoting Agustino
So "not reproducing" and not "getting married" is immoral? Or is it just immoral to touch yourself for pleasure because you're misusing the necessary teleological ends of your penis?
(it's my penis and I'll do with it what I want to thanks)
Quoting Agustino
What if you were conceived on the counter of a truck stop bathroom? Should you revere the truck stop bathroom countertop or the entire truck stop? Does that also include revering the employees? (does that include the employees who were working there at the time or any subsequent employee to ever have worked there?).
Since you're on about some sacredness of the "whole being" and all that, we need to be clear and specific about these things I think.
Quoting Agustino
"Fails to actualize potential for communion" becomes "disrespects person hood" "disconsidering of the emotional well-being of the other" which becomes "invasive to whole being" which becomes "close to your conception" which becomes "something to revere" which becomes "problematic if misused" et cetra, et cetra.
"Consent has nothing at all to do with moral issues pertaining to sex" becomes "Of course consent has to do with the morality of human interaction (including sex)" which then reverts back to "of course the issue of consent is different from the immorality of sex".
A quick recap: My position is that consensual and casual sex between two adults isn't necessarily harmful, and previously it was that the mere intention to be sexually appealing as indecency is not a sound or useful foundation for determining social moral norms. These views have not changed at all, and what we've been doing is going through layers of your attempts to actually justify your contrary views (such as by insisting that casual sex is abuse, and using all kinds of descriptions as to why (i.e: harmful to integrity, lowers value as person, disrespects person-hood, invasive to whole being, something to be revered, harmful to future spouses, disconsiderative of emotional well-being, contributes to rising divorce and the collapse of society, teleological misuse of necessary ends compared to accidental ends (see Aristotle XD), et cetra, et cetra.)).
the reason why you've had to thrust so many varied reasons as to why casual sex is inherently immoral is because I've criticized each one at length and explained that the types of "harm" that you describe all have to do with your subjective sensibilities (things like integrity, personhood, emotional-well being (you presume everyone's emotional well being is harmed by casual sex), value as a person, reverence of a sacred act, and the value of adhering to teleological necessity (see: your argument on the harm of masturbation) and therefore are not perceived by everyone in the same way and are often not considered to be harmful at all (for example, many people disagree that casual sex is damaging to their emotional well-being, or that the loss of "dignity" is actually harmful), OR, that the societal harm you allege is the fault of promiscuity and casual sex is not directly or only correlated (via causation) with casual sex alone, but instead with a host of other factors which must be addressed before assertions like "promiscuity is the main cause of the rise in divorce rates" can be made with confidence.
Why is casual sex necessarily harmful?
That's the question I'm hoping you can answer. I never needed convincing that casual sex MIGHT be harmful (in a given instance), but I'm still hoping that you can convince me why casual sex is necessarily harmful in each and every instance. "Might lead to increased societal divorce rates" isn't a necessary harm, and even if there was a necessary causative relationship divorce isn't always harmful, and humans should not be morally obligated to get married or to stay married unless we're somehow morally obligated to perpetuate human society in that specific manner, which we're not.
Quoting Agustino
You said casual sex is necessarily harmful/immoral, because they're using eachother like tools, personhood, disconsidering, yata yata yata....
So if it's not "invasiveness" that's inherently harmful about casual sex, what is it then?
Also, does this mean that divorce is always immoral because it means you've been having sex without infinite love and commitment?
Quoting Agustino
But she knows that, and she just wants me to use her body, and she just wants to use my body, and I know that, and we're O.K with that, because we want to have fun, not dedicate ourselves to each-other forever...
So why is it still wrong? Why is it inherently wrong to use the body of a consenting adult? (just like the paid coal miner who has coal dust invade their lungs and harm them, consent is relevant.)
Quoting Agustino
So you do realize that much of your psychology and emotional behavior is geared directly toward you successfully impregnating a female? (including for instance, why you wear clothes that you think look nice (INDECENT!))
Your instinctive desire to bond for life with a female is the result of a particular evolutionary strategy where you ensure the spread of your own genetics by putting in work and effort along-side a partner in the rearing of the children that your biological sexual urges caused you to create together. "Love" is actually a chemical cocktail designed to cement a long term attraction between two individuals which have been intimate, which subsequently causes them to stick together and cooperate in the rearing of the children.
The so called "necessary teleological ends of sex" are themselves accidents of evolution.
Why then do you pretend that biological imperatives such as "have sex, impregnate a woman, and fall in love" should be the basis for moral arguments like "It's our moral duty to get married, have kids, and stay together". Who or what does your morality serve? Evolution?
Quoting Agustino
Not if I'm going in circles, therefore it would be immoral right?
Quoting Agustino
So I take it you think the use of contraceptives is immoral because it frustrates the "necessary end" of sex?
Quoting Agustino
Dildos are themselves inherently immoral though because their existence frustrates the necessary ends of sex right?
Quoting Agustino
What makes you think God cannot be "straight" or "gay"? I think you're just committing a category error.
Quoting Agustino
I think the burden of proof is on you to show why an individual needs to procreate and find long term intimate monogamy in order to be healthy. Your teleological ends argument is stupid because nobody cares what you think are the necessary and accidental ends of given objects and behaviors, and nobody thinks they're morally obligated to adhere to those "necessary ends" even if they assented to your teleological framework.
You're currently celibate with no children. You're being immoral right?
The longer you wait to get married, the more you frustrate your own teleological ends...
Quoting Agustino
Now you want to tell me what is required for my own happiness?
Quoting Agustino
If it's acceptable than it's not immoral. Cannibalizing the dead out of necessity for survival is not immoral; forgiveness is not required. Things aren't immoral because they're inherently immoral, (I mean you can believe and say they are but that's not a convincing argument) they're immoral for specific reasons under any moral framework that is actually reason-based (as opposed to arbitrarily and absolute platitudes).
Quoting Agustino
There you go again, suggesting that consent doesn't matter in regards to the morality of sex...
So I guess if you love someone, value them for who they are as a human being, care for them as a person, and want to use sex as an expression of your love for them, then raping them is not immoral. Because consent is not relevant to the morality of sex, remember?
Quoting Agustino
But we do allow people to have casual sex, because we don't live in the nightmarish puritanical and authoritarian theocracy that you want us all to live in.
So you think it's a double standard that we intervene in the lives of suicidal people but do not intervene in the lives of consenting adults who have casual sex?
You're explicitly comparing casual sex to suicide (again) as if there's some degree of moral equivalence... I can only imagine the whirlwind of emotion and dissonance that's unfolding inside your brain right now...
Quoting Agustino
They'll be charged with desecration of a human body too (because offensive to the family and is generally against the consent of the deceased). If it was in someone's will to be cremated and baked into cookies, and then to be eaten by someone, and the family wanted that to happen, there's not much the law could do to prevent them from doing so (where the lawyers at?).
Quoting Agustino
Actually, it's not immoral such that emotional forgiveness is to be expected.. I'm glad we can agree ;)
Quoting Agustino
Actually they are sufficient grounds. You can commit an insane person to a mental asylum and if the doctors think they're a danger to themselves or others then they will be kept there.
Quoting Agustino
Actually it's because what people find to be rude and disrespectful can be entirely subjective, such that it would be impossible to find one universally agreeable set of very specific standards. If we let one individual decide what constitutes rudeness and disrespect then everyone with different sensibilities and standards would become a criminal overnight. If we decided democratically on rigid and specifc (and petty) standards like not wearing hats indoors or wearing a flattering dress then a massive chunk of the population would still be made into a criminal purely because they do not share the same standards of decency and respectability that other people share.
There currently are many laws which are based around matters of rudeness and respect/decency though, and they're passable because they're almost universally agreed upon and they at least try to base themselves in tangible freedom/harm based moral reasoning (nudity laws, spitting laws, harassment laws, and more).
You want to be the person to tell everyone else how to behave I reckon... You know all the correct behaviors and how to live while most of the people around you are like mewling infants who don't know how to not burn their hands on hot stove elements...
You would make a great and terrible tyrant...
Quoting Agustino
Why yes! Tis true!
You can insult me repeatedly but you're not actually harming me (in fact I find them quite amusing).
It all has to do with emotional robustness you see. Since I don't base my self-esteem or self-worth by how you feel about me or what you say about me, I have nothing to lose!
In a similar fashion, experienced and consenting adults are able to have pleasurable casual sex and not come to tears about it afterward...
Quoting Agustino
Pleasure from eating is fundamental to human psychology. The drive to seek pleasure is just as fundamental as the drive to avoid pain and to stay alive. For some people, the pleasure of food is a part of what makes life worth living, and so pleasure from eating very well can be a necessary and intentional end for a given individual.
Quoting Agustino
:D
The gentlemen definitely doth protest too much me thinks...
So your vision of a moral world is a nightmare to me because it means that I'm not allowed to masturbate (those darn noahide laws!), hot women are thrown in jail for being too hot (that's kinda hot though), and sex outside of the marriage bed would likewise get me thrown in jail. You will say that you don't think society should actually legally sanction me for breaching your personal moral taboos, but you do insist that Im a hell-bound sinner and that if I was moral I would behave just like you do.
Now, if you can work it out to where society saves money by incarcerating me in the same prison as all the hot women, then I would be quite O.K with that...
First you tried to send me to Aristotle and now you're sending me to Freud? Oh my... IT'S SUBLIMATION NOT REPRESSION DAMMIT! THERE'S A DIFFERENCE! *begins fapping furiously and angrily*"
Quoting Agustino
We've been over this before Aug: pleasure/pain contributes to happiness/unhappiness.
I'm not conflating pleasure and happiness by suggesting that people can use pleasures like sex and eating in order to achieve a state of happiness....
Not quite. I keep reiterating that if a woman is dressed sexually and at a bar then it is reasonable and appropriate to think that sex might have something to do with what she is looking for.
I'm saying its reasonable to approach a woman in order to find out, NOT that it's moral to assume she is ready and willing...
By merely approaching you with the intention of finding out if you're interested in interacting with him, is he sexually objectifying you? (if you think so, then I would have to say that's life).
Quoting TimeLine
Sex is less pleasurable with a casual partner because in addition to the orgasm you get the emotional feeling of love (additional pleasure).
The slippery slope I referred to was that you're suggesting people having casual sex will soon lead to rape. Make a strong argument as to why this will happen or the description of "slippery slope fallacy" applies perfectly.
So, you might feel like I'm here only to troll or to annoy, but believe it or not I have views of my own and when people, like you and Aug, suggest that I'm an immoral sinner or that the casual sex I engage in leads to rape, I'll happily write thousands and thousands of words until one of us is persuaded to the other-side or becomes fed up and goes away.
Just because I do something only for an orgasm doesn't make it inherently immoral. The burden of proof is not on me to justify why casual sex is not immoral. I can just allude that it does no necessary harm, and so a harm-based moral framework will not condemn it. What you have to explain is why casual sex is immoral, and "leads to rape" or "because the absence of meaning purports that the act of sexual intercourse is solely the attainment of this orgasm" aren't sufficient or sensical reasons.
Quoting TimeLine
It's not my duty to wonder why some women do what some women do. Why don't some women take responsibility for how they act instead of suggesting that I'm causing them to act that way by engaging in promiscuous casual sex with other women????
Quoting TimeLine
I still don't understand why this means casual sex is immoral...
Quoting TimeLine
I mean that I've had sex with them, they liked it, and came back for more (and I them).
Do you honestly think that I'm devaluing the person-hood of someone by describing them as a "sexually satisfied customer"?
The "satisfied" part actually indicates that I do treat them as if they are a person.
You've tacitly blamed me for the prevalence of rape, the promiscuous sexuality of women in western culture, and now you're expecting me to somehow answer for my grave insult of referring to sexual partners as "satisfied and unoffended customers" as if you've got a moral hatchet raised above my head....
Give me a break...
Even if we assume there is a singular final cause of everything, without the intermediate causes we cannot bridge the divide and in any event a proximate cause is often adequate for our purposes without probing any further.
Quoting Agustino
I mean natural selection, of course. What do you mean?
Quoting Agustino
Positively awe-inspiring, I agree. Even developmental biology is incredible to the point of amazement. How can a single celled ovum fuse with a single celled spermatozoon and develop into a fully developed mammal? It's crazy! All of the instructions are built right in! All you have to do is add a little bit of nutrients and voila!
Okay, so now the ten thousand dollar question. This transactional sex that you and your partners engage in - does it ever lead to regret?
Well once I was drunk and a very sexually aggressive chick took advantage of me. That's the only sex I actually regret, and while I hold myself only partially accountable, I've still learned a lesson and been able to move on. (it hasn't spoiled sex for me entirely). There was also the broken condom affair, but I learned a lesson there too...
Sometimes casual sex can be harmful, but if you practice safe sex and have some standards then the reward can be well worth the risk, like many things in life. (para-sailing, swimming, hiking, etc...)
If you crashed you car, would you regret having driven that day? Probably. Would you never drive again? Would you say driving is immoral?
Depending on the circumstances, I might modify my driving technique. I don't know you and I'm not judging you, but don't most people eventually move beyond the "hook up" phase of young adulthood (and with good reason)? I mean part of me is definitely jealous of all the sex you are evidently enjoying. Another part of me thinks you should enjoy it while you can (because it won't last forever). And one teeny tiny part of me wonders if you might be screwing up your chances for having a life-long partner (assuming that is something you will eventually want).
Accidents are a part of life though, and I've learned a lot from my experiences; I don't regret them
I don't regret not currently being married (in fact I think that if I had gotten married, since I've changed so much since then (in ways I like) that I would probably be drowning in a regretful marriage and wind up in divorce court. I actually plan to seek a long term partner later in life if by then I haven't decided I'm utterly incapable of living happily in a committed marriage, but until then I prefer to focus on myself and my own happiness rather than to bring a partner on board.
1. There is no such thing as "meaningless sex".
2. Casual sex is not different (as sex) than sex with the "proper" partner.
3. Sexual activity bears certain risks, no matter what the intentions of the couple or either individual.*
4. When men and women appear in a bar and behave (dress, actions, speech, etc.) as if they were interested in sex, then their behavior should be taken at face value.**
5. Desiring and obtaining abundant sex with willing partners is not abnormal or deviant. It's what healthy people do, unless otherwise occupied
* The risks include disease, pregnancy, inconvenient entanglements, etc.
** Behaving AS IF one was available and willing and then abruptly claiming that dress, actions, speech, etc. have nothing to do with sex is either naive or deceptive.
*** While having sex isn't obligatory (even in marriage) it is a very pleasant and appropriate experience.
If rape is an expression of power, then mutually agreed upon sexual activity will not lead to rape. Sex that leaves one with regrets because it didn't meet one's standards for "ideal sex" doesn't make it rape.
In this humble discussion Aug and I have been having, "casual sex" and sometimes "meaningless sex" is just short hand for "sex outside of the loving marriage bed".
What year is that pinup from BTW? I thought back then they had good christian morals... She's really got one of those "actualize the potential for communion" bodies.
Yes, very pneumatic. Probably air-brushed. I'm guessing 1960s or later, judging by the hemline, strapless design, and hair. Not before the 50s.
Other people are involved with glory holes too. The same argument applies.
I'm not asking a comparative question about emotion. Caring isn't defined by suddenly becoming irrelevant because you don't want to life for someone forever. It's always tied to the context.
If you want to have sex, another has value to you, is desired by you, it's tied to your emotional state (your desires/what makes you happy/ what makes you frustrated) and how you value other people. Sexual satisfaction is an emotional goal in which another is significant, no matter what form it might take.
Nothing is wrong, per se, with different sorts of sexual relationship. They can be short, long, exclusive, open, etc. but the way people understand the sexual relationships and what others happen to think matters a great deal. It affect how people relate to others and whether they are considered in the context of sexual interactions.
The myth "sex is just about pleasure" is wrong because it's ignorant of how other people are involved in the sexual encounter. Instead of terming sex in terms of the significance of the other (e.g. "I want to have sex with someone as an expression mutual desire"), it does so only in terms of what one individual wants (e.g. "I'm having sex just to get pleasure). Not only is objectification, but the person isn't even aware it's objectification, for they just don't conceive the other person and their significance is playing a part at all.
Let's use the bar example to show what I mean. Should a man just walk-up to a woman, act like she is interested in him and hit on her after some seconds have passed? This should be fine because the woman "should be able to handle it" right? After all she's all dressed up, in the place where (supposedly) people go to find any stranger for sex-- that's what she must be there for right, to meet any random man? She must just be the object there to agree to give a strange man pleasure.
If we pause to actually think about the other person for a moment, we'll find this obviously not true. People often go to bars just to be entertained. They dress up and do out with their friends. It doesn't mean they are there looking for a casual sex partner. Even if they are looking for a partner, it doesn't mean they'll want attention from a particular man.
The ethics of any approach become more considerate and more complex. Instead of interrupting the group of friends clearly talking amongst themselves, to spend a night with one (or more), one will leave them alone because they are clearly busy. In making any approach, on will consider the impact they will have on others by doing so, how the pressures of being hit one might impact on someone. One won't just automatically go around hitting on everyone because they are interested and might get a night of pleasure. The idea women should "just be able to handle" a man's becomes abhorrent. We see it's nothing more than a man thinking he's entitled to try and get what he wants, without consideration of the circumstances or interests of any woman involved. In some cases, the (dis)interests of women are enough to mean an approach is unethical, even in a bar.
To think about sex as "is just about getting pleasure" is to ignore an element which defines all sexual relationships, other people, and so miss an element critical ethical behaviour in that context.
Oh, I suppose in an art glass studio other people would be involved in the glory hole of the furnace from which a viscous ball of molten glass is taken or later reheated. I don't see what that has to do with sex, however.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Some sexual encounters are more pleasurable if one is observant about how other people are involved in the encounter. In the glory hole situation (which a few of the TPF participants may not be familiar with) both participants will have a better time if they are on the same page. Sometimes it happens that observance of one partner's experience is sort of irrelevant--by mutual agreement. Sex just isn't always about mutuality.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Why would a man NOT be entitled to at least try to get what he wants? Are not women also entitled to try and get what they want? (You can't always get what you want, you know.)
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Even "an approach" is unethical? Is one supposed to recognize the aura of inviolability from across the room?
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Well, that seems like a rather tall order for a social situation that one would try to figure out the circumstances of a woman (or a man) when making an approach. In gay bars, all sorts of approaches are made, and if one isn't interested one says so (verbally or non-verbally) and that's that. Of course some guys try harder than others to get what they want--they maybe don't take "no" for an answer. One deals with it. Why would a woman not be able to do as much?
Did I tell you to assume that? No.
Quoting geospiza
Tell me, what is the meaning of this Buddhist story? :s
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Here is a guy who has ruined himself, and has deprived himself of the goodness of marriage - a guy who by his own admission would fail in marriage because he has filled his mind and soul with vicious habits that would stop him from benefiting from marriage. To envy this guy, is like envying the miser who has deprived himself of friendship to acquire gold.
Here's a guy who, because he can't reach to the grapes anymore, says they're sour, and wants everyone else to forgo the grapes because he has done so.
And what's more, he says I'm a cuckservative, but lo and behold he thinks he's a conservative because he has had casual sex with friends with benefits. I'm not quite sure who the cuckservative is, but it certainly ain't me.
Quoting Bitter Crank
False.
Quoting Bitter Crank
True.
Quoting Bitter Crank
This is again false. Even the Communists, in practice, considered sex outside of marriage immoral.
Now, desiring and obtaining abundant sex with the person you love and are committed to is absolutely not abnormal, and it is what healthy people do.
Same with sex with multiple partners. Or celibacy. And gay sex, straight sex, group sex, BDSM, and so on. Different people want and enjoy different things, and to think that there's just one proper and correct sex life is misguided.
This seems like a non sequitur.
No the analogy absolutely can't be drawn that way. The analogy compares the logic of the situation, NOT the gravity of the offences. Only someone like you can fail to see this. The analogy points that the underlying logic is the same. In the case of giving them cyanide, their consent doesn't make that action moral. Neither does their consent make the action of sex moral. Now, what the fuck does any of this have to do with which action is worse? :s Are you that incapable of comprehending what you read?!
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Read what I wrote above before peddling this stupid strawman for the 1000s time
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No, you haven't breached my consent, you've violated my property and a few other rights, not my consent.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
:s
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No, if by like you mean a comparison of the gravity of the two offences. However, if by like you mean that they share the same logical structure, sure.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No, because burning their hands isn't involved in the work, it's something accidental. That's like me somehow getting injured by having sex with my wife - that doesn't mean the sex is immoral, because that's an accident, not something that belongs to the activity in itself.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Because you cannot have a tattoo without injury the body, but you can work at McDonald's without injury.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No, consent is only breached when you actively force someone to do themselves against their will. If I do something that doesn't match what someone else wants me to do, that's absolutely not breaking their consent. Breaking their consent is forcing THEM to do something they don't want to do, typically through the use of force. You have a bit more studying to do.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Oh yes, you can absolutely be blamed for assuming something that's not true. Just because something is the case for society at large is no indication that it is the case for me.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
We only need to enforce it culturally, not legally - that would be a good thing, it would save a lot of people from suffering and pain. Certainly better than allowing you to enforce your idiocy culturally.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No, that's probably not what I would tell her, because remember that she's harming herself first and foremost. So I would most likely seek to understand her and help her overcome whatever emotional and self-esteem issues are pushing her to do such a thing to herself, and help her become more independent and moral.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Because you're harming each other.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
That doesn't mean they're not objectively harmful. Someone may not perceive cannibalism as harmful. So what? Does that tell me cannibalism is not harmful? This is a very stupid objection that people don't all agree. Who gives a fuck what they say? I don't. I just care about the truth.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No, that's actually not true. If my behaviour was directed towards successfully impregnating a female I'd donate my sperm to a sperm bank and impregnate thousands of females. Clearly I'm not very keen to do that. Their idea that everything we do is directed toward impregnating a female is extremely naive and short-sighted, and disregards the human component (as opposed to the animal) of our being.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
That it also has an evolutionary role, there's no doubt about it, but to assume that the evolutionary role is everything about it, that's naive. There's a lot more reasons why I want to bond for life with a female, some of which have little to do with offspring.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
There is no doubt that love has chemical effects that are detectible in the body - but to go from that and say that that's all what love is, that's the height of idiocy, excuse my words. That's called jumping to conclusions to say the least.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
My morality serves all ends of the human being, including their biology. But biology isn't the only issue. We're much more than our biology.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
For the most part yes, but it depends. So long as it doesn't frustrate the other purpose of sex (intimacy) I'd have no issue with some forms of contraception.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Are you an idiot or what's the matter with you? How can sex be an expression of your love for them when you rape them? Can you please explain this?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No, there is no logical connection between something being acceptable and not being immoral, so you're drawing this link based on empty air.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No because I'm not actively doing something that frustrates the ends of sex.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
True, but this doesn't change their purpose.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes, happiness does involve pleasure, however to affirm idiotically as you have that someone will be happy because they experience pleasure is stupid beyond measure.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No, since you're not actively doing something to frustrate the ends of your sexuality.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes that is immoral. You can do whatever you want with your penis, that doesn't mean it's good.
The rest of your post is blabber, red herrings and strawmen so I won't bother. When you have something more significant to say, you can let me know.
You haven't proven this. I have given reasons for supporting my views, a whole truckload of them if you bother to read through my conversation with Vagabond. However it's getting a bit boring since he has done absolutely zero to refute any of them. He prefers strawmen and red herrings.
I envy him because it is a nearly ubiquitous male fantasy to have an endless stream of desirable sex partners. The only good reason I can think of to deny it would be to protect the feelings of an exclusive partner (i.e. a white lie). You're not my exclusive partner, so I'm not going to lie to you.
As far as I can tell, Vagabond is reaching more grapes than all of us put together. He has been quite honest in his disclosure that some have been sour and others sweet. I must admit, I can't really relate to his experiences nor do I prioritize my values in the same way as he does, but I don't judge him for that. Perhaps he does glorify a promiscuous lifestyle, but I don't think he is deliberately discouraging others from pursuing the type of committed and emotionally fulsome sexual relationship that you propose to be the be-all and end-all.
It is not mutually consensual casual sex between two single adults that I find immoral, but this very assumption, this notion that it is reasonable to approach a woman to 'find out' which is enough to expose your intent and the very point I am attempting to convey. The intent that compels you to 'find out' whether a woman is sexually available is a flaw in your perception of women and this intention verifies who you are as a person. So, what happens to the woman who you approach and who is not sexually available? Who gives a shit, right? Abandon, and then next? Next what exactly? Your intention in approaching the woman to find out if she is available for casual sex is immoral; that is sexual objectification. Morality is about what is going on in your mind and the decisions that you make and the perceptions that you believe, and not about them agreeing to it or not.
So, without that perception or assumption, your intentions change. As such, you would not seek out casual sex.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Why do you continuously put me into the same category as Aug? I do not think you are morally depraved neither do I have a problem with sex outside of marriage, but having meaningless sex without love is, to me, degrading to my personhood. I actually believe in genuine love and I have yet to encounter someone who can see 'me' rather than my body and I refuse to share my body for a fleeting moment of sexual gratification. You yourself say:
Quoting VagabondSpectre
The experience of a genuinely loving relationship where I am respected and admired and likewise that I respect and admire my partner elongates that pleasurable sensation beyond the bedroom, and it establishes meaning to our existence in a mutually shared capacity that in doing so motivates us to become better people. It is not only casual sex that I have a problem with; many couples - including those that are married - are in it for convenience, dependence or tradition rather than for love and so it is an empty bind that results in the same meaninglessness as casual sex and one will never find themselves feeling pleasure neither ever progressing. But unlike, say, masturbation (which I don't think is immoral but without pornography, but please let's not get into that), there are a number of practical concerns that render casual sex problematic, the epidemiological is clear for one. The problem can thus also become practical ethics as well as morality. This is what you are refusing to discuss because you are trying to defend yourself from Aug who is coming at you with his pitchfork and torch; set that aside, we are talking rational ethics.
So, let us try to discuss the philosophical implications of the following:
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No. I never suggested that, you assume that because you are failing to see the philosophical problem at hand. We need to ascertain whether there is any intrinsic meaning in our sexual relations with one another - which we have come to agree as meaning formed by mutual affection and love that becomes instrumental to the pleasures that bring value to sexual activity and to our own identity or personhood - and as such, what lacks intrinsic meaning is the disvalue due to the lack of this mutual affection and love.
The source of pleasure in our sexual activity becomes the key to permissibility and so, if as stated above it has intrinsic meaning over or above the source of pleasure, likewise should the source of pleasure outweigh the intrinsic meaning, the person or the other' value is reduced below the desire to attain an orgasm. It is not to say that it will certainly lead to acts of rape or harm of another neither does it require absolute prohibition, but sociopaths can also be non-violent and we are talking morality here. The very source of our abhorrence of non-consensual acts of sexual activity.
It may appear logical to believe that casual sex is justifiable and rape is completely abhorrent, but there is certainly an inconsistency when trying to argue philosophically why acts such as rape wherein no principles - value, meaning - binds the act itself together is any different to casual sex which also lacks this binding principles.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I see, but then you say:
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No objectification of women there, right?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Urg, yeah ok.
Keep quiet with your bullshit. Where have I come with the pitchfork? Did I say that sexual promiscuity, etc. should be illegal or what? Identifying an activity as immoral isn't coming with the pitchfork, as I'm not trying to get him to do anything by force. I'm just discussing with him, and explaining why his behaviour is immoral.
You should mind your conversation with Vagabond without discussing me.
Quoting geospiza
Well that's certainly not my fantasy. Do you think I'm lying to you? And no if you were to say that to your exclusive partner it wouldn't be just a white lie, it would be quite problematic because you're being dishonest about your intentions and how you feel about her. And that's actually very serious, you will never be capable to have an intimate relationship with someone if you'll keep up this dishonest behaviour.
Why would you want an endless stream of desirable sex partners? Give me a reason. An actual rational reason. If you say sexual pleasure, then you have to explain to me how that sexual pleasure benefits you.
As for why it's not my fantasy... well let's see, I work out, I have a sexy body that I'm proud of, why would I want some tramp to enjoy it eh? :s What you give diamonds out in the street for free, or what's wrong with you? No self esteem? No self-respect? I want to have sex with a woman who deserves to have sex with me, and I with her, in a committed married relationship, not with some random tramp from the gym or the night club that jumps on you >:O What the hell is wrong with people these days... You think I'm some sort of tradable commodity that she can have for one night or what? :s >:O
Quoting geospiza
As far as I can see he has utterly failed, that's why he cannot even get married for fuck's sake - he himself admits that he would fail, what more evidence is required to see that he is someone who should be pitied, just like in the Buddhist story, and not someone to be envied. He cannot reach up to the goods that are available to those more moral than him, and so he resorts to drinking away his sorrow in empty pleasure. Personally I don't admire losers.
Explaining why his behaviour is immoral is coming at him with a pitchfork. And who are you to speak when you say the following:
Quoting Agustino
Just to let you know: "narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for admiration and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of ultraconfidence lies a fragile self-esteem that's vulnerable to the slightest criticism."
Quoting Agustino
Indeed.
Good for you if it's not your fantasy. I now know that you can be counted on to seize the opportunity to allocate blame in response to an honest admission. That speaks to your character. I don't think you are lying, but I do think you present an unrealistic portrait of marriage or any long term committed relationship.
No that's absolutely not coming at him with a pitchfork, you don't even know what you're talking about. A pitchfork implies violence (or certainly the threat of violence) used to get someone to behave a certain way, and no I haven't done that.
And I certainly wouldn't mind if someone wanted to discuss my behaviour being immoral, I have no problems with that.
Quoting TimeLine
Yeah give me a break. There's a difference between narcissism and a normal and adequate self-respect and self-esteem which takes into consideration your situation. If you consider yourself such that you're willing to sleep with just about anybody, there's something wrong with your self-esteem.
Quoting TimeLine
The one who knows myself and my body better than you do, clearly.
Yes it does, I'm trying to educate you not to do that to your loved one, because it would be very very bad for both of you if you did that. It's better to be honest if you have that fantasy, and discuss it openly, and work through it with your beloved rather than hide it from her through your "white lie", which isn't actually that white at all. If you repress it like that, it will just ruin your relationship or get you to do something that you regret.
Perhaps. I urge you to try it and report back on your experience.
Also, I don't need to be "educated" by you, so please avoid attribution of either the "white lie" or the "full disclosure" to me personally.
I did try it, it went very well. Not exactly with your fantasy (I never had that one), but rather with porn viewing. I told my girlfriend when I was 16ish (can't remember the exact ages), and she helped me get over it.
I don't understand why you wouldn't be honest - if the other person dumps you, that's good, you got rid of a son/daughter of a bitch who didn't love you to begin with, and who wasn't willing to help you overcome your moral defects and become a better human being. That's good in my books, and it should be good in yours too. You want someone who cares about you and is willing to be there for you and help you through difficulties, someone who you can be open with. And you want them to be the same with you too - open so that you can help them when they struggle with something, not afraid that if they tell you whatever you will break up with them or I don't know what. That's not a normal relationship where one of the partners fears that the other will break up with them if they are honest, that's a very abusive one, where people are in it just because they can get something from the other through deception, not because they actually love and care for them and are willing to help them become better people.
Quoting geospiza
What do you mean avoid attribution? You yourself said it. And I absolutely do think you need to be educated if you think that hiding your fantasies about other people from your partner is a "white lie". It's absolutely not a white lie.
I hope I am not crossing the line by suggesting that you have a woman's perspective. That perspective is certainly welcomed by me!
Is a bar the place where you would expect to find your soulmate? Notwithstanding that you might find your soulmate there, what kind of expectations would you have about finding Mr. Right in that setting?
If I understand your position, it is that overtures by a man seeking casual sex from a woman is morally wrong. I would like to point out that these overtures are not always to be taken at face value. They are sometimes simply a method of "breaking the ice". The default dynamic between men and women of reproductive age is that men are seeking sex, and women are understandably suspicious. That dynamic can be a very formidable barrier to any communication at all. One way that I have observed will sometimes diffuse that situation is for a man to act out what the woman is afraid he is seeking, and to permit the woman to say "no" and to have that rejection accepted. Sophisticated people know that the overture is half-serious as is the rejection. After that, the chances of a more meaningful interaction are sometimes more likely, and could actually lead to sex (casual or otherwise).
Isn't there something to be said about lightening up a little?
People don't generally begin a romantic relationship with the primary purpose of helping to cure the other person's imperfections. More often it just comes with the territory. There is also a measure of acceptance that is normally required by both parties to sustain any long term relationship.
Quoting Agustino
You need to give your head a shake. I confessed to a fantasy. I see now that it was a mistake to let my guard down. I made no such admission to telling the "white lie". I said only that there might be good reason to withhold disclosure of one's fantasies from others in some circumstances.
Does my sentence which you quoted say the opposite somehow? I don't see it.
Quoting geospiza
And?! Did I say you did?
Quoting geospiza
Yes - that and the examples you gave are the problem.
By comparing the two situations you're mplying that "sex" is harmful on some level of comparison to which "handing out cyanide" is harmful. By saying that "the underlying logic is the same", you're necessarily drawing some sort of comparison between the harm of cyanide and the harm of sex, where since both actions are in some way inherently harmful, to do either of them constitutes a moral infraction. Keep in mind this does not demonstrate how or why sex is harmful, it just compares it to giving out suicide as part of your rhetorical appeals.
Quoting Agustino
The problem is that I actually read everything you wrote... Remember when you were screaming about how consent has nothing to do with the morality pertaining to sex? (who am i kidding, of course you don't! ill quote it for you):
[i]"Right motherducker, and did I say anything different?! The immorality has nothing to do with the underlying activity (whether this is SEX or EATING DINNER), but rather with the infringement of their freedom. And in both cases, there is the SAME infringement of freedom."
"Right, so we can conclude that having dinner with me is not immoral. Now you stopped looking at the question of consent, and looked at the underlying activity. Do the same for sex. Stop looking at consent. It has NOTHING to do with it.
"If two willing participants negotiate an anonymous contract whereby one will eat the other one alive, and they both give their consent, have they done nothing wrong? Again, this whole idea that consent somehow has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with the rightness or wrongness of an activity is absurd. If I force you to have dinner with me, that's as wrong as if I force you to have sex with me from the point of view of consent. But clearly, we take me forcing you to have sex with me as a much more serious offence than if I were to force you to have dinner with me. Why is that?""[/i]
Unfortunately you have failed to communicate a sensical position in regards to consent and sex. Very clearly you don't think consent has to do with the morality of sex, and so by that logic having non-consensual sex with someone must be the same as having consensual sex with them (plus some arbitrary violation of consent like being force fed cabbage).
This is no red herring or strawman Aug, this is the messy underside of your poorly formed moral ideas. If I were you I would recant...
Quoting Agustino
If you have a no flyers sign and tell me not to dig a hole in your yard, but I send you flyers and dig a hole in your yard, I've breached your consent. Care to re-read or re-respond to my point now that this common sense issue has been cleared up for you? Here it is again:
"If I breach your consent and mail you flyers and solicitations, I've breached your consent, and I've also infringed on your relaxation (a small but tangible harm). How big of a moral wrong is it that I've breached your consent? (hint: the gravity of breaching consent has something to do with the gravity of the underlying harm). If I breach your consent by digging a 30x30x10 foot hole in your front yard, then I've breached your consent and presumably caused substantial damage to your property.
If you want flyers though, and give me consent to send them to you, then the same action (sending flyers) becomes beneficial to you as opposed to harmful (consent changes the moral nature of the underlying action as it applies to individuals). If you're trying to install an in-ground pool, and you consent for me to dig the hole for it, then I'm actually doing something morally praiseworthy.
You cannot necessarily separate consent from the morality of certain actions and behaviors."
Quoting Agustino
The logical structure you're trying to say they share is that both sex and handing out cyanide are harmful; that's the comparison you're making. You're saying that consent doesn't matter because it's the immorality/harm of the underlying action that matters and then assuming that sex is harmful/immoral by comparing it to handing out suicide.
I could make a similar comparison. Having consensual sex with someone is like giving them a consensual hair-cut. Both actions are not immoral because consent is involved and there is no necessary harm in the underlying actions...
Quoting Agustino
You honestly think tattoo's constitute injury? (Sad).
I've got some news that you might find surprising: people can have casual sex without injury or tears.
But my point here is that the risk of harm doesn't make something inherently immoral, epecially in light of whether or not individuals are willing to accept that level of risk via consent (there are exceptions, but this holds true for things like driving, sky-diving, haircuts, and casual sex).
Quoting Agustino
Situation A: Rape: sex against someone's will is forced upon them (immoral due to breach of freedom, and immoral due to harm caused by sex)
The above is how you would describe "the logical structure" of the immorality of rape, correct?
Situation B: Consensual sex happens + cabbage is force fed to them: food against someone's will is forced upon them (immoral due to the breach of freedom, and immoral due to harm caused by sex).
Is the above the correct "logical structure"?
If so, can you explain why rape has the same moral gravitas as consensual sex + a minor infraction against someone's consent? (remember, because consent has nothing to do with the morality of an underlying action)...
Quoting Agustino
I'm not the one trying to enforce anything, I'm trying to escape your attempts to restrict my freedom via your crappy moral suppositions.
I never said people have to have casual sex, I only said that you have no business morally judging what goes on in my bedchamber between me and other consenting adults.
Quoting Agustino
Here you are again, comparing sex directly to cannibalism as if there is some moral equivalency.
The way your mind works is terrifying.
If you care about the truth then make an actual argument as to why casual sex is objectively harmful instead of just telling me it's like suicide and cannibalism in logical structure...
Quoting Agustino
I said "much of your psychology" not everything you do...
You're not actually trying to deny the genetic impact on your emotions/psychology are you?
Quoting Agustino
What other reasons?
To be happy? (nope, because that's hedonism or something)
Because god told you to (and because obeying god makes you happy)? (DING DING DING!)
Quoting Agustino
Heaven forbid a conclusion should get jumped in the magnanimous Augustino's presence...
Love is in fact a chemical cocktail. It's not a metaphysical or transcendent "force", it's a physical state of mind, and it was created and refined by evolution, not by god or some objective meaning of life.
Love means more than "a chemical cocktail" from within the human condition, but I have to point this out to prevent you from appealing to love itself as some kind of metaphysical or sacred foundation for "objective/teleological moral appeals". In other words, the existence of love doesn't demand that we orient the entirety of our moral frameworks around it. In other words, just because people have sex without being married or in love doesn't mean that some purpose of life or proper way of living has been subverted. To argue this is the case is merely to presume that love and marriage are our starting moral values instead of using reason to show why they are valuable as moral ends.
Quoting Agustino
Why are you allowed to frustrate one of the two necessary ends of sex?
Is there some kind of "satisfy at least one teleological end of an action and you're not immoral" rule?
I'd say that makes no sense according to your logic. If you're frustrating EITHER end you're doing yourself harm (by your logic).
Quoting Agustino
I don't know, but since "consent has nothing to do with the morality of the underlying action", and because "I value them as a person, want to be intimate, reproduce, and express my love for them through the act of sex" (let's assume that I even marry her at a shotgun wedding, which also isn't immoral because "consent has nothing to do with the underlying morality of an action"), then how could this instance of rape possibly be immoral? (Well, by your logic since she would not be returning my love, she would technically be harming me as I raped her because she doesn't value me and thinks of me merely as a body/tool.)
Remember, consent has nothing to do with the underlying morality of sexual acts!
BEST MORAL POSITION 2017!!!!!
Quoting Agustino
I mean, you're the one who stated that cannibalism is always immoral but acceptable in some cases. I'm the one who is suggesting that it is moral (or not immoral to be specific) in some cases, such as in the case of survival necessity.
I don't actually subscribe to the idea that some actions are in and of themselves immoral. I think that depends on intentions, circumstances, and in some ways outcomes.
Under your moral framework you can just define certain actions as inherently immoral (without showing why they are necessarily immoral) and then just keep referring back to that assumption/premise whenever you are questioned.
Quoting Agustino
Here's what I originally said Aug: "Pleasure from eating is fundamental to human psychology. The drive to seek pleasure is just as fundamental as the drive to avoid pain and to stay alive. For some people, the pleasure of food is a part of what makes life worth living, and so pleasure from eating very well can be a necessary and intentional end for a given individual.... I could still object on the basis that evolution endowed us with pleasure attached to sex and eating because happiness is an essential end of human existence, and therefore we actually eat (and fuck) to be happy.".
This doesn't imply that anyone who experiences any amount of pleasure will therefore be happy, it alludes to a relationship between pain, pleasure, and happiness.
Calling me an idiot while blatantly misinterpreting what I've said is stupid within measure (ironically, it measures in the "idiot" range).
Quoting Agustino
How does not getting married and not reproducing NOT frustrate "the necessary teleological ends of sex and your own sexuality/biology" (per your definition)?
Quoting Agustino
Stop saying that consensual sex is in any way morally equivalent to suicide and cannibalism, and stop suggesting that consent has nothing to do with the "underlying morality of actions" (especially with reference to sex).
"I ain't never what said near nothin of that you scare-crow type person you!!!! Stop scaring my crows!!!! All I is what sayin - that sex is bad, you should feel bad, and always remember that consent gots nothin to do whatsoever with the moralities of sexual relations!!!".
As is customary, please enjoy the following musical number as as satirical interlude in this most riveting of debates!!!!
Saying both are inherently harmful isn't comparing them.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
In terms of JUST sexuality yes. But this is not a problem. Since having sex with them doesn't involve just sexuality, it involves other virtues as well, such as justice and charity. So while in terms of sexuality there is no immorality provided that the non-consensual sex is with your wife, there would be immorality in terms of justice and charity. And since justice and charity are both more important than sexuality in terms of morals, then having non-consensual sex with your wife is immoral overall.
Really you're clearly not very well read, because Aristotelians through history have dealt multiple times with this objection that you bring up and you somehow think I never thought of :s
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No there is a strawman based on the fact that it seems your intellect isn't strong enough to be able to make the necessary distinctions or appreciate charitably the ideas presented, or if you lack knowledge, read and inform yourself.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No you haven't. You'd have breached my consent when you force ME to do something, not when YOU do something. In that case you've breached my right to property amongst several others, but not my consent.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
You're equivocating between two different senses of consent.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
That may be true if sex were like having a haircut. But it's not. You said "it's more invasive" ;)
Quoting VagabondSpectre
In scenario A you present one action, in scenario B you present two actions which are unrelated. That makes it impossible to compare directly.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
How am I restricting your freedom? Since when is morality a restriction of freedom? Do you think your freedom is restricted for example because you can't eat other people? Do you think your freedom is restricted because you and others have property rights? No - actually your freedom is increased in these manners.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
It would be hedonism if happiness = pleasure - it seems you keep comflating the two, you can't even keep your mind straight mate. What's wrong with you?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
This is your assumption. You have yet to prove this, and let me tell you - science ain't gonna help you, because this is a METAPHYSICAL assumption.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
It actually does, if you understood it.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes, now you actually bring up something valid - took you a long time guessing and stabbing in the dark to put your hand on something that may be problematic. Not all Aristotelians would agree with me here, but basically here's my argument: Human beings are formed of a rational soul, which includes capacities of the animal (sensory) and the vegetative (nutritive) souls (ALERT: these are Aristotelian terms with clear definitions to which people who understand the definitions would agree, please don't cry about God) but adds to them the capacity for will and intellect (personhood). Granting that what differentiates human beings from animals is superior and greater (will & intellect), it follows that if it's necessary to sacrifice a telos that belongs to the animal and vegetative parts of the soul in order to achieve a telos that belongs to the human part of the soul then such is moral. Under this reasoning, if it's necessary to sacrifice reproduction, to achieve intimacy, then this would be moral, since (sexual) reproduction belongs to the animal part of the soul, while intimacy belongs to the uniquely human part of the soul. Another reason why promiscuity isn't immoral in animals, for them the telos is just reproduction, so they're not doing anything immoral, for promiscuity is something that hurts the uniquely human telos of intimacy. That's also why you're immoral if you have promiscuous sex aimed at reproduction - but it would be a lot less immoral than if you were to just have promiscuous sex while frustrating both intimacy and reproduction.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
You clearly don't understand. No it doesn't have to do with the intrinsic morality of the underlying action, but it DOES have to do with the morality of the human interaction that is presupposed by the underlying action. So even if the underlying action were moral, you can still commit some wrongs through the interaction (by for example imposing your will by force on another).
These are Aristotelian distinctions, which you don't seem to be capable to make even though you've read Aristotle (or so you claim). For example, there is talk of X being wrong in-so-far as it is considered in itself - this wouldn't include consent in the case of sex for example. But there is also talk of whether or not X is wrong (tout court), which would include other considerations apart from just the underlying action in and of itself.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No, it's never MORAL to murder or eat other people. It may be acceptable simply because it is the lesser evil - for example someone tries to murder you, and you kill them first. That's not moral, but it's acceptable, simply because it's the lesser evil for you.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Right everyone does this. Distinctions exist at the intellectual level, not in reality. If you read some Aristotle, you'd actually know this. Again - the reason why your comprehension is so terrible is because you don't even have the basics clear. I'm not gonna educate you in logic and metaphysics now.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
It's questionable whether there even is such a drive as seeking pleasure for its own sake. Furthermore, "pleasure from eating is fundamental to human psychology" is very questionable.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Because I don't undertake an action that frustrates those ends. I'm staying in my natural state - not marrying, and not reproducing - in other words not doing anything. I'm not taking any action which frustrates those ends. Not doing anything doesn't count as doing something that frustrates it. I don't die if I don't have sex, so there's nothing frustrated about my being or about my sexuality (as I've shown before).
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I never claimed consensual sex is morally equivalent to suicide and cannibalism. You're strawmanning again and this is becoming very painful to discuss because of your ignorance of what I'm actually saying.
By this logic it's never moral to ever approach a woman with the intention of pursuing a romantic relationship because that sexually objectifies her and what not.
How do people ever get into a relationship in this world? Is only the woman allowed to make the first move? Does she need to wear a sign that says "interested in a relationship" around her neck?
What?
Quoting TimeLine
That's all well and great for you. But I don't think having casual sex is actually degrading to my person-hood, or the person-hood of the women i have sex with, nor do they think that.
Your own personal sensitivity toward the act of sex is your own personal sentiment, not some objective truth about the way the world is for everyone who engages in casual sex.
You refuse to have casual sex, congratulations. The rest of the world keeps turning...
If perhaps you think that no man should ever "approach" any woman because you're personally not interested, then you should rethink the idea of whether or not society ought to operate around your personal standards of decency and offense taking.
If you're utterly not interested, then keep guarding yourself and life will go on (although if you wear revealing dresses at bars, some men are probably going to approach you (which is not some grave moral infraction), and some might even over-step and invade your personal space or harass you (which is wrong). My advice is to not go to such bars and clubs. (or places where sexual fraternization is the main attraction).
The reason why I'm comparing you to Aug's position is because essentially you're both using your own prudishness to moralize against what I believe are basic and uncontroversial moral beliefs (like it's o.k to ask a woman out on a date, or it's o.k for a woman to wear a pretty dress to encourage men to ask them out on dates) (the former you disagree with, the latter Aug disagrees with).
Quoting TimeLine
You think being honest about whether or not I'm attracted to certain female bodies is harmful to them?
Even when they're intentionally and explicitly posed in a sexually provocative manner? this is the effect tat pinup models are actually going for you know...
"Sexual objectification" isn't the same as whatever "devaluation of person-hood" is. I don't suddenly forget that sexy women are people too because I talk about their body as if I'm attracted to it...
This is you once again trying to use your personal sex-negative feelings as a moral hatchet against me like I'm some corrupt and immoral villain...
Quoting TimeLine
What do you mean "Urg, yeah ok."...
Are you suggesting that this isn't how casual sex works? Are you expressing disbelief?
Quoting TimeLine
I don't care about elongating the pleasure of admiration and respect beyond the bedroom. Nor do I need admiration and respect to "establish meaning to my existence", nor do I find "motivating myself to become a better person" to be morally obligatory.
Quoting TimeLine
This is you trying to tell other people what to do for their own good because you think you know better and what will make them happy.
I'm not persuaded.
Quoting TimeLine
Strictly speaking, your notion that approaching a woman to find out if she's interested in sex is immoral because if she's not interested then she and society yata yata yata are harmed is like saying that it's immoral to make eye contact with any other human being because they might have some sensitivity that renders eye contract a traumatic experience for them.
It's like you want to wrap everyone and everything in bubble wrap because you cannot bare to risk the discomfort of being approached by a man who is interested in a sexual relationship.
Those aren't rational ethics. It's nowhere near a broadly accepted premise that a man merely approaching a woman is immoral or unacceptable (and therefore useful as a social ethic) and even if it was all our marriages and relationships would probably need to be arranged for us by some central authority.
Quoting TimeLine
I don't care about meaning. I simply said that emotional intimacy can be pleasurable. I didn't mean to give you the impression that some sort of "meaning" based argument would actually be persuasive...
You're concerned with intrinsic meaning and value and integrity and dignity and person-hood and all that stuff, but I outright disagree that any of it is relevant concerning the harm-based morality of casual sex or approaching women in bars.
You feel that personhood is devalued through casual sex or approaching women in bars, great, whatever personhood means to you and however you feel it is affected is your own personal and emotion feeling about the world. It isn't a measurable or universally shared position and so I utterly refuse to pretend like moral arguments can be sensically founded upon them. To reiterate, I do not share your subjective opinion that we should derive "meaning" from sex, or that casual sex necessarily affects self-esteem or personhood or dignity or integrity or self-value or any of that nonsense.
I hold that casual sex is not necessarily harmful, nor is approaching women in bars necessarily harmful (or unethical/unreasonable), and you're not going to convince me it is harmful merely by appealing to your own emotional sentiment towards it with concepts like "personhood".
As I once said to Aug, what the fuck does personhood even mean?
Quoting TimeLine
I find rape to be abhorrent because the harm and trauma that non-consensual sex causes is terrifying, not because I value value intimacy above orgasms (which right now I don't).
So to reiterate your argument: If the pleasure that someone gets from intimacy outweighs the pleasure (and meaning?) that they get from the intimacy of sex, they are therefore devaluing the other person?
How does that logically follow? What does the pleasure I get from an orgasm have to do with how I value other people, or the pleasure I may or may not get from "meaningful sex"?
Quoting TimeLine
It's about necessary harm (or the reasonable expectation of harm). The reason why we can say rape is abhorrent but casual sex is not is because casual and consensual sex is by definition not considered to be significantly harmful by the participants, whereas for the case of rape actual emotional/psychological/physical harm is inflicted (and violation of consent is universally inflicted).
If you base your moral system on some kind of objective meaning or purpose, it makes more sense as to why you think casual sex is morally not so different from rape (or will somehow lead to an increased prevalence of rape). But most people (and secular society) bases it's moral framework not around objective meaning, but on (almost universally) shared desires for freedom and freedom from harm. That's why comparing casual sex to rape is a false moral equivalence if we're talking about morality designed to preserve human health and happiness as opposed to morality designed to preserve some hierarchy of objective "meaning-related" values (like: love must be put above orgasms).
Saying "agreeing to have casual sex with someone is like agreeing to eat someone alive" is comparing them.
Why bother making the juxtaposition if not to suggest some kind of equivalence between these two things?
Quoting Agustino
So it's not the harm done to your wife that makes raping her immoral, it's that it's not "just" and "charitable"?
What in your virtue ethics makes it unjust (hint: does it have to do with consent?), and what does charity have to do with it?
Quoting Agustino
What two different senses? I don't see the distinction.
Quoting Agustino
Ah, but coal mining is "more invasive" ;) therefore paying a coal miner to work your mine-shaft is immoral just like paying a prostitute to work your meat-shaft.
Invasive =/= harm/immoral though, remember?
Quoting Agustino
I'm taking this response to mean that you're unable to explain why non-consensual sex is worse than casual and consensual sex. "because consent has nothing to do with the underlying morality of certain actions"
Quoting Agustino
My freedom would be restricted if i didn't have the right to have sex with consenting adults, not increased...
Quoting Agustino
You mean your metaphysical assumption that love is more than it's physical description? I know, science ain't gonna help you there.
Fun fact though, claiming god designed love is just as provable as claiming that the invisible flying spaghetti monster excreted it out of it's invisible spaghetti anus...
Quoting Agustino
You realize that all this can be brushed aside with no effort because it contains no actual evidence?
The assumption that humans have a "rational soul" is not proven or scientific. Dividing this unproven soul into the "animal" and "vegetative" is an unsubstantiated extension of just assuming "rational souls" exist in the first place (regardless of how vague I might object the terms to be). Then comes the arbitrary moral value assumption that says the "vegetative" is more morally valuable than the "animal". And finally comes the assumption that the telelogical hierarchy of necessary ends of these realities constitutes a sound basis for objective moral reasoning. This is just bullshit predicated on bullshit...
Quoting Agustino
I don't think you understood my point here. I'm well aware that imposing your will on other people by force is immoral, but by your logic marriage in an of itself is not immoral, and so forcing someone to eat cabbage would be imposing your will on them and therefore immoral, and also forcing someone to marry you would be imposing your will on them, and therefore immoral, But my question is "why is forcing someone to marry you worse than forcing someone to eat cabbage?" Your system of moral reasoning doesn't seem like it can readily answer that question (unless you want to just whip out random virtue based arguments when and where it suits your moral intuition, which I'm happy to address). Just to be clear, what I'm hoping to get you to agree to is that the morality or immorality of some actions can depend entirely on the consent of the parties involved (such as in the case of receiving flyers, digging holes on property, being fed cabbage, marriage, and sex).
If you could also be so kind or have an answer for the above and want to move on, please explain to me what it is that makes X action wrong/immoral?(casual sex in and of itself, tout court). What are those other considerations you allude to? This is what I've been trying to get at the entire time...
Quoting Agustino
Then actually question them...
Pleasure from eating is in fact fundamental to human biology and psychology. It's an evolution endowed drive that incentivizes us to nourish ourselves. Just like how pleasure attached to orgasms incentivizes us to procreate. Just like how having fun with a partner (especially while having an orgasm) while filled with their scent/pheromones, the sight/mental imagery imagery of them, the sound of their voice (etc...), can cause a lasting psychological/emotional and pleasurable association between you and these things to be formed (love).
Any questions?
Quoting Agustino
I'm pretty sure that not procreating is frustrating toward the end of procreation... Are you saying that procreation is not one of your necessary teleological ends?
Quoting Agustino
What's even more painful is when you crow about straw-men and then go on to voice the exact argument that you claimed was a straw-man, sometimes in the very next sentence.
Consent doesn't matter when it comes to the morality of sex because it's the underlying harm of the action that matters. If someone asked you to kill them or to eat them alive, you wouldn't oblige them would you?
When I say "why is consensual casual sex harmful" and you say "because consent has nothing to do with it; think of someone who consents to be eaten alive", you're not answering the question I'm asking which is "what is harmful about casual sex". I have to always say "consensual" because previously you argued that casual sex was harmful on the basis of loss of dignity/personal value (which is subjective) and which can be easily rebuked with the addition of consent (i.e: the moral right of an individual to devalue/denigrate themselves if that's what makes them happy).
So I'm expecting an argument that contains reasoning as to what makes sex inherently harmful, and all you give me are juxtapositions between sex and suicide and sex and cannibalism (as you rant about the irrelevance of consent).
Can you at least see why every time you say "that would be like agreeing to eat someone alive" It seems like the rhetorical point you're making is that sex and cannibalism are both in some similar category of inherently immoral actions (some degree of moral equivalence)?
And as always, please enjoy this hypothetical musical scene from your moral paradise (or a variation not too far off):
Quoting VagabondSpectre
To illustrate that they are (or can be) both harmful in-themselves, without even bringing the question of consent into play.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Charity involves compassion and taking care of others, if you force them to do something that's not very compassionate. The virtue of justice and charity do have to do with consent, among other things, in this specific context. However, the virtue of chastity (which is what we refer to when we call sex in and of itself immoral - has zero to do with consent).
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes, but the immorality of casual sex does not restrict this freedom. We're not talking about making casual sex illegal. You said that I try to restrict your freedom - and that's false.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I asked a question first. Since you say that love is JUST the chemical reaction visible in the body, the onus is on you to prove this, since a priori, it is at least logically possible, especially given our experience, that love involves a lot more than this.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Okay here's where I wanted to bring you. You've now said that this contains no actual evidence. Furthermore you've said that the "rational soul" is not proven or scientific. Please remember these two statements. I want you to take the questions below and provide me clear and direct answers - no evasiveness, no mocking, no nothing of that sort. Failure to do this will indicate that you're not interested to continue this conversation on a rational basis.
• What is this "rational soul" that you claim is not proven or scientific?
• What do you mean by scientific or proven in relation to the "rational soul"? Keep in mind that these words have different standards - a different standard of proof is required to show there is a tree outside your garden, compared to showing that atoms exist.
• Do you hold that only what is scientifically proven is worthy of belief?
• Do we mean by a "good" doctor a doctor who performs his function well, either in healing the ailments of the body/mind or in keeping the body/mind healthy or what do we mean? (telling me this question is irrelevant or somehow avoiding to answer it will count towards failure and evasiveness).
• Do you think you can dismiss a long philosophical tradition without even understanding its positions by just waving your hand and calling it bullshit? Something you don't understand isn't necessarily bullshit, and you have to, as of yet, show evidence that you do at minimum understand it. This is precisely the mistake Dawkins commits with Aquinas in his God Delusion.
Indeed, if you are seeking a relationship with someone that you don't know and there a number of people that do this in various social or cultural settings for the purpose of regular sexual intercourse or to ensure approval by their social environment and when the initial objective - whatever it may be - may no longer be fulfilling, the object is disposed of and replaced. Love at first sight is also load of garbage, because the fact is that your intention to pursue a romantic relationship should always follow friendship.
You and Aug are both doing the exact same thing in different ways, that is you are seeking for entirely selfish purposes based on what you want, but through friendship one develops empathy, which enables one to give love and so you no longer desire that type of gain and turn that narcissism away to feel care and admiration for your partner. They are no longer an object but a person and when this is reciprocated a genuine bond is formed and thus one begins the process of a romantic relationship.
So yes, it is immoral to approach a woman with the intention of pursuing a sexual relationship, unless this follows you approaching a woman with the intention of getting to know them as a friend.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
To be morally conscious - which is established by friendship - is the language that enables empathy and thus ultimately love, the cognition and capacity to connect to the external world and identify other people. You thus consciously experience the world, otherwise you are doomed to remain trapped in your own limited cognitive framework, unfeeling and mindlessly controlled by your instinctual drives and an environment that dictates how you should behave. If your environment endorsed rape, would you do it? Or having sex with a prostitute who may have been kidnapped and forced into sexual slavery? Or be in an unloving relationship because you attain social praises?
Without morality, you are a mindless drone, a non-person.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I think you may be having some trouble being philosophical. It was rather tedious reading most of what you wrote because clearly you fail to understand what it is that I am attempting to convey, as proven below:
Quoting VagabondSpectre
:-|
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Care to explain your logic here?
1. I am a woman.
2. And?
Quoting geospiza
I quite literally do not think about it. I understand the balance of probability; a guy wearing footy shorts high up to his crotch and a stained navy blue singlet may unlikely be my soulmate, neither is the guy whose neck has disappeared into his muscles and who says 'I fink' instead of 'I think' but ultimately compatibility is relative. You cannot formulate a decisive list when it comes to love because that list epistemically references your social environment and is thus artificial because you seek what you are taught rather than what you actually want and who you are compatible with.
Quoting geospiza
Yes, because saying that is just a subtle form of coercion.
Quoting geospiza
Reminds me of the following quote:
For what it is worth, I wish you would not view your 'confession' as a mistake because I can appreciate your fantasy as well. There is nothing wrong with your fantasy.
How warped and cynical.
Quoting TimeLine
Ah yes, Canadian treasure Margaret Atwood. I used to know her step son, Graeme Gibson Jr. He formerly ran a bird ringing station on Pelee Island. Not sure what he's doing now.
Insecure men are afraid of women's laughter. Confident men are not bothered by it.
A man should never seek to physically intimidate a woman (except maybe in an emergency).
It was a mistake to admit it to what's-his-face because he just turned around and used it to personally attack me. Anyhoo, it's just a fantasy, not an ambition.
I've been told that a common women's fantasy is the opposite: to have the singular devotion and attention of one man they admire. If that's true, how can we account for these conflicting fantasies in a relationship?
I did not personally attack you - go back and read it again. It seems to me that you have no clue what you're talking about and you get very easily offended - that's not my fault now.
Can you please stop discussing and spewing falsity about me? There's nothing selfish about anything that I've said for that matter. Nor did I encourage treatment of women as objects, but rather quite the opposite. You should really be ashamed of yourself for letting your personal feelings towards me cloud your judgement to the extent that in almost each and every message of yours you have to say misrepresent what I say in order to be able to say something negative about me.
Easily offended? Yes, you do seem to find it easy to offend people.
Yes, I believe that's what I wrote. What about it?
Edit: Well seems you've edited your post.
Quoting geospiza
Again, I haven't insulted you. Why do you feel insulted? Can you explain that?
Hmmm...please do not count me in that idea of a woman's fantasy because for me, that is what I experience in the marriage of 22 yrs married, 26 holding hands. While it was a fantasy before I got married, the idea of singular devotion is way to restrictive for my fantasies. My fantasies rarely involve just one person being present and sometimes only involve me.
Having said that: I think it is fair that I share that my husband wanted an "open marriage" when I met him and I was just out of a relationship and not looking for anyone to commit to, yet still resisted the idea of an "open marriage". Five years later we redefined what marriage looked like which included the option of having a third person join given they agreed to a few rules.
Odd it is that we have yet to run across someone that exceeds or even meets our rules for play. So even though it is possible, we have never found another person that was worth it.
It follows the mantra that we have had since we redefined our marriage which is: "I want you to be here with me, as long as you want to be. Not a day longer, not a day less."
I think by leaving the door open, knowing that you would not hate the other if they chose to walk away, allows us to want to stay. I am not really sure, nor do I want to dissect this beautiful flower into it's parts and pieces, to figure out what "it" is that allows us to stay together contently. But I can tell you it is not without work and both pursuing goals together that we would never have achieved on our own.
ps. for the literal thinker, when we speak of being there not a "day" longer, we are not talking about AN argument, A disagreement or A spat. We are speaking of not wanting to be there anymore. Period. Full Stop.
That actually made me laugh. I said to Vagabond that he and yourself are doing the exact same thing, that is wanting rather than learning how to give and ultimately objectifying onto others your desires in different ways, and this followed what you yourself said:
Quoting Agustino
Your continuous contradictions is making it fast becoming impossible to communicate with you. You are so aggressive, as you say here:
Quoting Agustino
Or:
Quoting Agustino
Even in this same sentence below, you do exactly what you say you are not doing, where you say you don't 'personally attack' followed by a personal attack,
Quoting Agustino
Now my argument with Vagabond is that attraction and love to another person is about giving love and learning to understand the other person through empathy, which is formed through friendship. You would not call people 'tramps' for a start, such Othering is unnecessarily aggressive. If you do not respect a woman that you encounter, brush your shoulders off and move on, but who knows, these so-called 'tramps' could quite simply be good women who don't fit into the category you expect of them. Who are you to judge?
Quoting geospiza
For those that use subtle coercion to try and pressure others to conform? Yes, they are rather warped people, aren't they.
Juxtaposing sex and cannibalism does not actually demonstrate that sex is inherently harmful, it just rhetorically (via sophistry) compares the two and indicates a moral equivalence. That might not be that you were trying to say, but that's how you have said it.
Quoting Agustino
Do you really think I'm about to accept the burden of proving that god did not design love?
I figure you ought to prove the inverse if you want to base your own objective morality upon it...
Quoting Agustino
According to you, it's what human beings are formed of, which includes capacities of the animal (sensory) and the vegetative (nutritive).
Quoting Agustino
Something scientific is something that is falsifiable. Since we do not yet understand enough about human psychology there's no way to test if the "rational soul" description is false or innaccurate
Quoting Agustino
No but I hold that obscure and unsubstantiated beliefs are worthy of scrutiny before belief.
Quoting Agustino
What do we mean by a good doctor? Sure, someone good at healing....
Quoting Agustino
I think the following: that which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Since you've not provided evidence for your long traditional philosophy, I can dismiss it without evidence...
Now that I've answered your questions, please answer just a single one of my own:
What makes casual sex inherently immoral/harmful?
I didn't speak about God at all. So why are you bringing God in? I've asked you to prove merely that love is JUST a chemical cocktail and nothing more. It's not a black and white thing. If love isn't just a chemical cocktail, that doesn't mean God exists, so don't be scared. This is not a trap. I'm just asking you an honest question.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
And don't you need to prove your point if you want to convince us that love is just a chemical cocktail? Or do you expect us to fall down before your great wisdom in blind acceptance? That sounds quite like what you project on religious people to tell you the truth. It's quite hypocritical to hold others to standards you don't hold yourself to.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
What does that mean? I didn't ask you to recite what I said, I asked you what it means. You say you're familiar with Aristotelian tradition, so please go ahead and explain to me what exactly a rational soul is. What is this thing that human beings are formed of?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Okay, I agree. What would you say "obscure" and "unsubstantiated" mean? How do you make a belief "clear" and "substantiated"?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
And would you agree that we mean someone good at healing, instead of good at baking pies, because we appeal to the function of the doctor, and so we consider a doctor to be a good doctor when he performs his function well?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Right, and I agree with that. But to claim that this tradition is presented without evidence is quite silly - even on an a priori basis, some of the brightest minds who have ever lived have believed it. To really make that claim you must first show that you understand that tradition, and show that it lacks such evidence, something that you haven't done. To be able to do that, you'd have to engage with the tradition, do you agree?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I will answer your question, but you won't understand the answer yet, so hopefully if we work through the questions I've asked you above, you will start to understand what I mean by this answer. So I would advise even if you disagree with the answer to refrain from critiquing it for now, so that you can begin to understand what it means. After you understand it, then you can begin critiquing it.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
The fact that it necessarily frustrates the telos of intimacy of sex.
How am I objectifying others through that statement? To objectify them would imply that I treat them as objects rather than persons, correct? That I treat them as tools, presumably for my benefit, right?
Quoting TimeLine
How is telling someone they don't know what they're talking about when they make false statements, and telling them they're easily offended a case of "personal attack"?
Quoting TimeLine
Yeah, good, I agree. We're on the same side of this if you haven't realised.
Quoting TimeLine
So if I call someone who is a tramp, a tramp (not to her face in this case) is that bad? Why?
Quoting TimeLine
Sure, but why do you think I wouldn't respect women I encounter? :s I referred to tramps who jump on you - that's what I actually said - so I think if they did that, according to your own logic (with which I don't quite agree by the way), they would have objectified me.
Quoting TimeLine
Of course I will judge them by their actions. When you say I'm extremely aggressive, aren't you judging me? I could do the same - who the hell are you to judge? :s Maybe I'm a really nice guy - who are you to say I'm not? Just because I don't fit your preconceived standard of behaviour? Pff - stop objectifying me!
"disposed of?"
Isn't that an arbitrarily negative way to look at one night stands? The woman leaves of her own accord, or I do. Nobody is disposing of other people..
Quoting TimeLine
Why should it always follow friendship? Because that's how you feel about it? Because otherwise your feelings get hurt?
Why?
Quoting TimeLine
I don't understand what you mean here; I don't have sex with objects, I have sex with people.
Can you please stop making assumptions about how awful of a person I am for being attracted to female bodies?
Should I follow your advice because I'm so narcissistic or what?
Quoting TimeLine
Not all women want to be friends with their sexual partners. This seems to once again be your own personal emotional reaction to the idea of being approached in a bar. You think that a man should not have any sexual interest before getting to know a woman (this will never be the norm, men are too horny), and some other women think that a man should be confident and sexually attracted to them from the get go.
If I see you at a bar dressed a certain way, behaving in a certain manner (provocatively), I might make the presumption that you're interested in something other than friendship (or think it a reasonable possibility), and I might take the grave moral risk to make a sexual pass at you.
I won't invade your space, I won't touch you, I will only use my words and my body language. You will reject me, and that's totally fine (I wonder who will be more offended, you for me having a pass made at you, or me for being told I'm an immoral narcissistic piece of shit for thinking that I even had the right to approach/speak to you and to get lost...).
What should happen here is you reject me (in whatever manner is fine, I'm a big boy and social rudeness isn't something I tend to moralize over), and then I leave, and then life goes on for both of us, unmolested by each other's presence.
What's so lastingly harmful about this?
What if... What if everybody knew that this was the "hook-up bar"? What if there was a sign at the entrance that said "people inside this establishment are interested in sex, and therefore may or may not approach you with sexual interest in mind", and then you went in anyway on the count of it's your pal's birthday?
Would I still be immoral for approaching you with sexual interest?
Quoting TimeLine
So, I don't exactly follow your logic here and your fast and loose use of terms makes it difficult to know exactly what you're trying to say.
Why is "friendship" required to be "morally conscious"?
I don't understand how you can describe "morally conscious" (meaning: "has friends" for all I know) as "the language and the cognition and capacity to connect to the external world, and to identify other people in the external world".
I can do that without friendship. I can empathize with someone without friendship. Let me give you an example. If I see a person in distress, I will attempt to offer comfort and assistance (or at least I like to think I would). I'm not going to approach someone in distress and make a sexual pass at them, indicating that I'm not an empathy-less sub-human monster, and furthermore even if someone is not in distress, I'm not going to make a sexual pass at anyone unless I think it is a reasonable expectation or assumption (given the setting, context, behavior, dress, actions, etc...).
When I see a woman dressed up and at a club displaying body language as if she want's to attract attention, I'm going to assume to hat she's not in distress, that's she's O.K with being approached, and that having sexual interest in her isn't going to do her any harm. Do you still call me immoral for doing so?
I can assure you that my cognitive framework extends beyond the weirdness of only being able to perceive other people as people if A) you know the language of friendship and love (or something that I don't understand) and B) have no sexual interest in them, because that makes them into an object an not a person....
You accuse me of being mindlessly controlled by my drives, and I accuse you of being mindlessly controlled by your prudish sensitivity toward the idea of casual sex and dating in modern culture. You can think that societal morality should revolve around your own sensitivity, and as I said to Aug, that's merely ego-centrism (where you really are unable to perceive of others as having ideas and standards different from your own)
Quoting TimeLine
All this because I don't believe the women who regularly attend some bars and night-clubs to be as prudish or easily offended as you are...
A mindless drone who would rape and enslave...
Quoting TimeLine
Oh come now. Appeal to un-philosophicalness?
Let me try and decipher what you mean:
Quoting TimeLine
You explain me yours and I'll explain you mine...
Your moral point about approaching women with sexual interest/intentions is that it's harmful to them. Specifically it's harmful to you because of your own sensitivity, but to many women it's not considered harmful at all, and it's even considered desirable by most women in night-clubs. So my example was that if there was someone who felt harmed by eye-contact, they might naively think that nobody should be allowed to look someone else in the eye while under some delusion that either eye-contact actually harmed everyone else or that social morality needs to placate their own personal sensitivity in the matter...
Regarding "the harm of sexual objectification", it's not actually a necessarily harmful thing. Some women successfully sexually objectify themselves (Beyonce for instance). But when I speak about a woman (a model in a photograph in this case) and refer to them as sexy or attractive or someone I'd like to fuck, why do you think this means I'm either harming her or somehow devaluing her person-hood? (Why do you allege that I'm the kind of person who would rape a woman if society endorsed it? Because I don't agree to your sex-negvative morality I therefore have no morals at all? Because I'm not your friend I'm unable to perceive the external world or people in it and remain trapped in my petty cognitive framework?)
Someone's person-hood, and their personal value (how I value them, and how I view their "personhood" (again, whatever that really means), their rights as a human, etc, have nothing to do with whether or not I want to fuck them...
Explain what your point is please...
Quoting Agustino
But then, earlier in your little tirade against me, you said:
Quoting Agustino
You contradict yourself constantly; so I am not kind or nice or virtuous when I speak, but you are? And then you ask why it is bad to call someone a tramp? That people who don't love you are the sons and daughters of bitches? Your strategies to try and worm your way out of and excusing yourself from your behaviour is only deceptive to you and asking a multitude of irrelevant questions is as much a tactic as appealing to the 'many people agree with me' rhetoric when you attempt re-direct the blame to your interlocutor.
Quoting Agustino
This is not a game of who can write the most or who will give up first or who can manipulate words the best as a way to deflect any responsibility. Again, here you are contradicting yourself and you are indeed aggressive. Several of your posts have been deleted if you haven't noticed.
I bring God into it because that's the only other source of "why love is what it is" (with it's specific telos, etc...) that I can imagine you have in mind other than evolution (as a basis for why this telos is morally important). Given that you're suggesting we orient (some) morality around the teleological specifics of love, the reasoning for doing so must come from some argument pertaining to the virtue/success of the way love is rather than merely appealing to it as a starting point. (the question becomes what's so great or important about "love" what we orient our morality around it?). (Or in other words, why should our teleological assessments of "love" be taken as morally necessary to pursue or immoral to frustrate?). If God designed love to be the way it is, then I can imagine why you hold love to be morally important to preserve/pursue (because god is good, basically). If only evolution designed love, then I think you would agree that appealing to it as a necessary beginning moral value would seem somewhat arbitrary and unpersuasive (given that the evolutionary path we've taken is somewhat arbitrary/random).
So first we have this question: "what is love"? The way I've answered it is by getting at it's mechanics in physical biology and it's structure/function in terms of evolutionary purpose/strategy. More than that, I cannot venture to say. And I cannot prove the negative of "love is nothing more than it's physical description" (there might be some hidden metaphysical truth out there, a "god" for instance). To say that love is something more than it's physical description, from my perspective, makes a claim that begs for actual evidence (my scientific standards).
Under a love-telos based moral framework, I've managed (I think) to substantiate my claims regarding the evolution endowed teleological ends of love (which is essentially one strategy of many designed to perpetuate the species, like pleasure from eating, etc.). But since successful species perpetuation comes in so many other and varied forms (including the failure of some members of a given species), when considered on the whole exclusive life-long monogamy actually becomes one option of many possible strategies that humans are capable of taking thanks to evolution.
So, under a teleological moral framework, if you want to convince me that love is actually something more than what I can actually show it to be, then you have to tell me what it is that makes it "more than it's physical description" (so we can understand it's teleology). Presumably, God is the thing that designed love to be more than just an optional evolutionary strategy, I just don't know to what else you would point or appeal. We don't have to talk about god and I would prefer not to, but instead of God you've got to some up with some kind of argument that gives me some reason to believe that love is anything more than a something which exists in a physical, chemical, biological, and psychological worlds.
Likewise I'm not trying to trap you into talk of god or anything, I'm looking for the bedrock of your moral reasoning, and if you have no solid starting point, then I hope to incentivize you to create one.
Quoting Agustino
I only tend to make claims that I can demonstrate to be true (that's what I try to do at least). Claiming that love is basically a chemical cocktail and evolution is the bar-tender is something I can back up with evidence. I think it's reasonable to believe that there's no hidden metaphysical design or telos of love, but that's not necessary to my would be claims under a telos based moral framework. The way I see it, if you want to suppose that your metaphysical suppositions reflect the reality of what love is, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why.
Quoting Agustino
Oh me oh my! I love a good quiz! (But I don't love having to unpack Aristotle's "rational soul" for you, that's your job!)
Aristotle believed that the best way to understand things in the world was to classify them under a teleological framework that names the materials something is composed of, the form/shape that this material is situated in (the soul), the thing that produced it (your parents?, or evolution?, or god?), and the final cause or function that the thing has (where my current point of contention is while adopting your teleological presuppositions. see: propagation/adaptation through trial and error thanks to evolution).
So, Aristotle's soul is the actual form that humans take which can be understood by the actions/functions that they manifest. Plants have only the "nutritive soul" (where seeking nutrition and consuming nutritious material is an action inherent to the form of plants), while non-human-animals have a "perceptual soul" in addition to a nutritive soul (they perceive things, but do not understand them), and finally human-animals actually have "a mind" aspect to their soul, which is what supposedly makes us totally special and unique, and able to actually engage in complex activities which require complex understanding. A "rational soul" is the form of a living thing with nutritive, perceptual, and mind components.
So if the above is satisfactory to you, can I now tell you why I think Aristotle's teleological approach to understanding the world (per the above) is a primitive and poor basis for objective moral reasoning? (let alone critical and scientific thinking)...
Quoting Agustino
By "clear" I mean with language that is not tied to some specific (and ancient -_-) school of thought or thinker who tended to use their own vocabulary in specific ways, but also, and especially also, not using using or invoking concepts which point to very complex phenomena without at least giving a solid definition and description of what that phenomena is (for example: "emotional well being" or "person-hood"). I'm happy to speak in colloquialisms, but I cannot be expected to sniff out underlying hard arguments when you employ them in your actual arguments.
So I really like it when premises and conclusions are clearly defined and clearly articulated.
In terms of "substantiated" all that I ask is that your premises logically follow from your conclusions (or are made highly probable by them). If I cannot object to your premises, and I cannot disagree with the logic your conclusion employs, then I'll accept the conclusion.
Quoting Agustino
"Good" can be used as a adjective describing someone skilled in their profession, so yes?
I don't see where you're going with this yet... And when we say "doctor" we don't mean "baker" due to an arbitrary reality of the english language. We're not appealing to some innate and necessary function of an immutable "doctor form", per se, we're just pointing to the common understanding of doctor when we say it. In the english language we invent categories... I don't see the significance of this yet but hopefully you can show me this is going somewhere...
Quoting Agustino
To show that a tradition lacks evidence I would have to engage with the tradition yes...
I'm not the one trying to argue that it has sufficient evidence though, that's your position, and I cannot be expected to prove a negative. You're the one who in the process of arguing for the position that casual sex and promiscuity are inherently harmful eventually pointed directly to the existence of a tradition (as evidence/argument) and now again are making this explicit appeal that the existence of a tradition is reason enough to believe something is valid until someone comes along and proves that the tradition contains insufficient evidence.
This is called an "Appeal to tradition". It's a well known informal fallacy and piece of sophistry/rhetoric that humans have irrationally employed for millennia. It's employment is itself a tradition. I'm sure there's irony hiding around here somewhere...
In other words, saying "smart people believed this stuff and it's really old so you need to show why it lacks evidence" is a fallacious appeal to my request that you explain to me why your Aristotelian teleological framework is a sound basis for a moral one, or at the very least what makes casual sex necessarily harmful. I think I've been very sporting of your constant demands that I rebuke Aristotle directly, so now maybe you can meet me half way and close the remaining logical gaps in your argument without demanding that I recite or paraphrase the meaning of the terms you employ without yourself actually qualifying them.
Quoting Agustino
As soon as I realized you were founding your moral values on some notion of teleological purpose, I understood completely what your argument was and where it ends.
It ends with your personal definition of what the function of humans are. Essentially it amounts to your own experience based assessment of how you think humans ought to live (a naiveté stemming from a LACK of experience and the belief that there is one best way of behaving for all humans (perhaps cemented by the mistaken assessment that all humans share the exact same form or soul)).
We can get into all kinds of moral dilemmas where it turns out that actually adhereing to "necessary teleological ends" of one random aspect of human emotion or psychology (like anger for instance) can actually be unhealthy to humans, and that the very presupposition of necessary ends themselves is often the result of a limited understanding of the diverse functions of complex things.
Entertaining the idea from a modern perspective leads to issues as well. The "form" (soul) that my body "actualizes" wasn't merely created by my parents alone (they didn't design it); evolution had something to do with it, and it also involves a world of genetic complexity whose full functions we're not capable of understanding (and to the degree that we do understand them, diversity and adaptability of methods seems to be how evolution achieves it's end function of propagation, even in the behavior of humans).
Evolution really gives Aristotle's teleology quite a hard time in my opinion. Because he didn't realize how so much variation, complexity, and change could come to exist, he must have supposed that all the different forms must exist as intrinsic archetypes of elementary categories of "things that can/do exist". He supposed then that if he could define these archetypal categories that he could then better understand how things relate to and differ from one another as a part of his pursuit to comprehend the world around him.
Maybe the world is divided into discrete categories of form (and categories of soul for living objects), but poor Aristotle was missing a shit ton of information about the nuance of form. Genetic mechanisms and the information they store is a much more interesting description of the form of the human body, and it's a world neither you, nor I, nor Aristotle can speak authoritatively about...
And after an unconscionable hiatus, we may now return to our regularly scheduled topical musical programming:
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Because I said you are having trouble being philosophical. Then you say:
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Or:
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I am going to do my best to avoid most of the nonsense that you write and try to find the best parts of your argument, because it is clear that you are a broken record incapable of thinking beyond your little world and that somehow writing lengthy posts would enable you to present yourself as an authority on this subject when, by your own admission, you have stated that you enjoy such argumentative tact. I personally find that distasteful.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
This is the last time I am going to say this to you. I am NOT talking about individual, case-by-case situations. I am talking sexual morality. Do you understand that? It is not harmful to them - we are not discussing a problem of ethics - I specifically wrote it is about the person' intent, what you think, how you perceive. You keep on going back to the same thing, hence the broken record.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
It is the other way around; through friendship one becomes morally conscious, they begin to experience empathy. The pursuit of a sexual relationship should follow and not precede this. As I said, to become morally conscious - which is established by friendship - enables one to feel empathy and thus ultimately love, the cognition and capacity to connect to the external world and identify other people.
I remain an 'object' that one passively experiences, a non-being that exists merely as a benefit rather than actually seeing and experiencing 'me' or my identity. One becomes trapped in their own cognitive limitation that adheres merely to instinctual drives and follows morality only as is dictated by their environment rather than autonomously.
And as I will reiterate (again :-d ) that seeking a genuine bond with a man does not suddenly mean that I am averse to sex, on the contrary, so I would appreciate your coercive subtleties to be kept to a minimum; was it not you that said that you should not be concerned about the emotional well-being of women?
So despite your attempt at an open marriage, you have a monogamous one. That's life right there for you. If you're still holding hands, that's a very good sign :)
I wish you would communicate your arguments as clearly as your insults...
Quoting TimeLine
More virtue ethics....
O.k, let me rephrase your position: "approaching women (ever) with sexual intentions prior to being friends with them is immoral because... Because.... Because it's immoral?"
OR
"Certain thoughts and intentions are immoral, and wanting to have sex with a woman and approaching her on that basis is one such inherently immoral/un-virtuous thought"
That sound about right?
Quoting TimeLine
My coercive subtleties :-O
Do you want me to wield a moral hatchet like yourself?
I don't actually need to be friends with someone to empathize or sympathize with them. I even sympathize with my "enemies" (people who don't like me?). I even sympathize with you, which is why I say honest things like "be prepared to be approached by men in bars" or "avoid certain establishments". I understand that you have very high standards for intimacy and respect and when and with whom you choose to have sex with, but not everyone else shares those standards. The majority of men and women who go to night clubs do not share those high standards, and that's why the environment produces interactions that offend you. I get that you're offended, but that's life in a world where everyone else prefers to treat sex more crudely than yourself. You may look down on us, that's fine, but unless one of us transgresses against you in a way more substantial than thought crime, you're not going to persuade very many people that your own lofty standards are what's good for them (or moral).
P.S: I can even empathize/sympathize with the women I'm physically attracted to even while I approach them with sexual interests in mind... (for example, i only intend to approach women with sexual interests in mind in reasonable settings, such as a club setting, although circumstances can make this a bit of a grey area (i.e, body language)).
Isn't that what you are attempting to do, only conversely? I am not playing a game here, this is not a competition of who will win and I am quite literally trying to have a discussion, but this attempt is being swallowed and it is frustrating that you are resorting to the abovementioned.
It is not just me who identifies the importance of morality, neither does one need to be religious as many would agree it to be an important aspect to human nature.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes. Now, that we have established this, can we move forward? What I am interested in is not whether mutually consensual casual sex between two single adults is immoral (which is a case-by-case situation that depends on a number of factors), but this very assumption that enables one to assume the right to approach a woman with the sole intent of having sex with her. This objectifies the woman - turns her into an object or a thing - that who she is, what she thinks, what she has done etc., are all irrelevant as you yourself have confirmed. When your objective has been fulfilled, her as an object is no longer necessary and she becomes disposable.
Without this intention, is it not true that approaching a woman for casual sex no longer becomes possible?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Don't contradict yourself. Was it not you who said:
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Sympathy and empathy are two very different concepts and I certainly do not need your sympathy, no matter how difficult my circumstances may have been. To acknowledge is very different to feeling and empathy is a personal connection, a felt experience and not simply being able to agree that a given situation is bad.
Friendship itself enables the opportunity to experience mutual care and trust and other duties that are constitutive of a relationship and this relationship draws two close enough to begin a teleological purpose and where one becomes motivated by concern and affection for their said-friendship. This shared interest in one another' well being enhances the experience of empathy, because they begin to share a genuine bond and a shared sense of what is important.
When two people who lack this friendship or said-bond are in a relationship based on mutual need rather than empathy and love, it always results in unhappiness. There may exist deception and lies, blanketed by an external show that is bound together by social or perhaps even familial expectations.
To pursue a sexual relationship preceding friendship would mean that you are not seeking to form this bond or that you desire to learn more about and experience the person. This is wrong and why any sexual relationship should be initiated only after forming a friendship.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
A 'grey area' is not good enough. You should be concerned about the intent itself and the formulation of categories that hastily generalise.
Quoting AgustinoQuoting TimeLine
Quoting Agustino
Quoting TimeLine
Ok so what does the fact that I call a tramp a tramp have to do with the fact that I think some of your behaviour is not kind, nice or virtuous? :s How is that a contradiction? The only way I can see it as a contradiction is if you assume that calling an actual tramp a tramp is wrong, and that's precisely what I've asked you - if it is wrong. So you cannot answer me by the contradiction story, since that would be to beg the question.
Quoting TimeLine
When did I claim to be? :s Really, you keep making up shit, the same way you made up shit that I called you a dog. I never called you a dog - I said you were foaming at the mouth LIKE A DOG. Which was true, since you had an entire post written all in caps, combined with repeatedly insulting me for no reason by calling me an idiot, a moron, etc. Comments which by the way, you removed - good that I managed to quote them before you did. So I'm not quite sure which one of us is running away from responsibility.
Quoting TimeLine
Funny that you project that on me. I'm not sure how I'm trying to get out of anything - I answered all your questions, the same cannot be said about you - you've avoided all my questions.
Quoting TimeLine
No, only ONE post was deleted, and in my opinion that shouldn't have been deleted as I had a valid point. You tempered with your comments to remove evidence, that's not what a person with integrity does. It is true that it was quite a harsh post, but it nevertheless had a valid point.
Quoting TimeLine
No it's absolutely not a game, and I never claimed not to have been aggressive, so why do you keep imputing shit to me that I've never said? You always do this. Always. Almost every single sentence contains a lie.
This is false. Buddhists for example don't believe in God, and yet they'd disagree that evolution alone is responsible for what love is, if you take evolution to be a purely physical process.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Good question, we will answer it in due course.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Why must love be designed in the first place?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
And there is actual evidence, namely our experience of love.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No, you cannot back that up with evidence at all. You cannot show that love is just a chemical cocktail, you yourself have just admitted this. Maybe what you want to say is that you can back up with evidence the fact that the experience of love involves the release of certain chemicals within the body, but that is an entirely different story. Correlation does not necessarily entail a causal link.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Okay, I don't think you have the right understanding of what a soul is in Aristotelian terms, but for now we'll work with yours. So you say that a "rational soul" is the form of a living thing with nutritive, perceptual, and mind components. You also say that "the actual form that humans take can be understood by the actions/functions that they manifest". So if the form is understood by the actions/functions they manifest, then clearly the test to determine the existence of the form is to see if they manifest the respective actions/functions that the respective form would entail. But previously you said:
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I believe that it's time to retract this statement, since we have shown that forms are understood by the actions/functions they manifest (just like atoms would be understood by the actions/functions they manifest) and we do know that human beings have nutritive, perceptual and mind components - we know it from direct observation.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No it's not satisfactory. Substances per Aristotelian ontology are composed of form & matter - hence the doctrine of hylomorphism. This isn't a very controversial thing, since both matter (potential) and form (actuality) are required to have an actual, real substance.
The form of the living body, as Aristotle writes in De Anima, is known as the soul. The form of the body has nothing to do with the shape of the body. Rather, the soul is the principle by virtue of which the body is a living body, instead of a dead body. The soul is not some ghosty thing which has the shape of the body, and leaves the body upon death to go up to heaven, or whatever you may have imagined when you made the silly statement that there is no scientific evidence for the soul.
Now forms give the matter that they govern the powers that it has, and only those powers. Forms are absolutely necessary to explain the behaviour we notice in matter. Take the simplest particle, the quark. Why does it have the behaviour that it does, and not some other behaviour? Clearly to explain this we have to postulate a principle which governs its behaviour. Even if, via the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle that behaviour happens to be somewhat random, we still require a reason why it's random, and not non-random.
Also think about genes. You say that genes are responsible for the features that we have. So why do genes have such powers? This is more besides the point, but you have to understand why Aristotle postulated forms in the first place.
Now - we have discovered that the soul is the form of the living body, and together they constitute the creature in question. If either the soul is gone, or the living body is gone, then we cannot have the creature. Once the creature dies, the soul disappears or dies - and the body stops being ANIMATED (Anima = soul). That's why, for example, Epicurus the atheist and materialist believed in souls - he, unlike Aristotle, thought that the soul dies with the body.
Now a rational soul is distinguished by the powers it gives the respective body. Namely all the powers the vegetative soul has (nutritional, reproduction, etc.), all the powers of the animal soul (locomotion, sensory, etc.), and in addition to those, will and intellect, which are uniquely human powers (as far as we know). There's nothing primitive about Aristotelianism, in recent years in fact it's been coming back very strongly in philosophy of science.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Okay. So then that seems a bit contradictory to me because on the one hand you do not want to stick to the very well defined philosophical terminology of Aristotelianism, but at the same time you want to avoid the vagueness that exists in other more colloquial terminology.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
How do we go about choosing correct premises? A conclusion is only as good as the premises, but mostly because the premises already contain the conclusion. But clearly we decide on the premises before we decide on the conclusion. Therefore it is at least logically possible to get to the conclusion without any premises, right? Certainly it's not the argument that will decide what the truth is, for the argument always presupposes premises, and premises always presuppose some other source - other than arguments.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I would hope the premises don't follow logically FROM the conclusions.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Your objection to my premises can always happen - it's not constrained by anything, except your honesty and your experience.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Okay I see. So then I think you'll also agree that a good watch is one which tells the time right, a good hairdresser is one which does your hair right, and a good eye is one which allows you to see well, correct?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes we don't but I don't wish to talk about language, but rather the underlying concepts.
Would you agree that a moral man is a good man?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
But would you agree that if anyone, regardless of who they are, understands what we mean by doctor, then they will also understand that a good doctor is one who is good at what we mean by healing? I'm trying to talk about the underlying concepts now, not about whatever words we use to refer to the concepts, so just checking if you're still with me. Because concepts are objectively related to each other in a certain way - such as doctor with healing.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Okay!
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Right, so I think you should retract the statement that there is no evidence for the tradition, since quite clearly you do not wish to prove a negative. So we can cross this one out.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
So if I say that the function of the heart and the cardiovascular system is to pump blood that is my personal definition, and no more true than saying that the function of the heart and cardiovascular system is to stare at the moon?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Well it's quite peculiar that you complain that my morality is based on experience, on what is yours based?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Your body cannot actualise a form, rather a form actualises your body, and together they make the substance you consider to be "you".
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Okay, so let's see, why do you think evolution is opposed to Aristotelian teleology? I think that quite the contrary, evolution requires Aristotelian teleology to make sense. If you think about it, a certain combination of genes produces a certain effect. Clearly it seems that specific genes are directed towards producing a certain range of effects, which is exactly what modern molecular biology is discovering. If specific genes weren't directed towards a specific range of effects, then evolution wouldn't even get off the ground, because everything would be chaotic. One day gene X caused blonde hair, and the next day the same gene would cause purple hair! So natural selection would have nothing to select from if there wasn't this underlying teleology.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Sure, I agree with you, but this genetic mechanism in no way negates teleology, because it is itself teleological as I've illustrated above. It just has to be to even get off the ground. Teleology just explains why a certain cause is directed towards certain effects and not towards others, which is just as needed today to account for science, as it was 2000 years ago. When we say for example that pollen particles suspended in water seem to undergo random motion as noticed even by the materialist Lucretius more than 2000 years ago, then clearly we have to attribute to something - in this case atoms - the power to produce such an effect on the pollen particle. We know this as Brownian motion in modern science today. But we must attribute only such a power to the collisions that atoms cause, and not for example the power to make the pollen particle fly to the moon. Clearly the underlying causes are teleologically oriented towards those effects.
From the original statement we started from we seem to have discussed the issues I crossed out so far:
Quoting VagabondSpectre
It's a good sign but it is not without it's trials and tribulations. The best part of getting older with someone is: one is usually in good health of the body and the other is in good health of the mind. He made the mistake of saying that it didn't surprise him when I hurt my back because of what he called my "fragility" to which I loudly objected to while wincing in pain.
However, my husband has finally admitted to forgetting things and I swear he is not trying to retain knowledge about certain topics on purpose.
I told you that to explain that now, when I manage to slam my head in the Jeep door or twist the wrong way and he forgets that we had made arrangements to meet up with family, we call our selves F&F. I am Fragile and he is Forgetful and together we will find our way through life~
If love isn't designed then the necessary ends of love (what you suggest are morally necessary to uphold) become the result of evolutionary dice rolls that have resulted in a random human telos.
If someone were born with a physical or mental deformity, then their teleology could define contrary moral positions compared to what we consider to be moral for average humans (i.e, can't reproduce or can't communicate). If such a deformity was an aberration from some essential standard, then we might say that the normal human telos still applies, but if the telos of an individual is defined by the form that they take, and our morality is based upon our telos, then morality for that individual becomes defined by their form.
Another way to think about it: if male humans had hardened knuckles and hardened heads that were designed for us to compete by knocking one another out, then according to our teleology it would be a morally necessary end to use the tools we are given toward their intrinsic purpose (one might argue a society based around the numbest skulls would be moral) Morality in this case becomes evolutionary happenstance. (side note: my personal moral position accounts for evolutionary happenstance, but because I found my morality on only the most universally shared values (like the desire to be free from pain and freedom to pursue happiness) they are therefore more common and more applicable (more persuasive to the individual) when considering the outlying dilemmas).
Quoting Agustino
People experience love differently, I think that much is clear. People also tend to value it differently given different preexisting psychologies and actual experiences of love. "Love" (the exclusive monogamous and romantic kind) is not actually a universally shared experience or value. Because our feelings toward that specific kind of love differ so much, it becomes very difficult for us to come to agreements about what is morally obligatory when it comes to love (among other things).
Quoting Agustino
Just to clarify, I'm not making the hard claim that love is nothing more than it's physical description, but I am making the argument that love is causally linked to the physical brain. My strong evidence has to do with case studies involving things like brain damage and brain tumors which can drastically impact the behavior of individuals, and in addition to what we know about the effects of various kinds of lobotomies. Further evidence can be found in the correlation between the use of psycho-active drugs and sometimes drastic impacts on human behavior. Some very compelling evidence comes from degenerative brain diseases which tend to produce drastic and irreversible changes in behavior, up to and including utterly losing the ability to even remember who your spouse is, let alone love them.
I can show that the evolution endowed biological/physical component of love actually exists (to such a strong inductive degree that disagreement is unreasonable). Can you show that any additional metaphysical components of love actually exist? If not, as a devil's Aristotelian, why should I accept any telos which you try to base on unsubstantiated metaphysics?
Quoting Agustino
Here's my beef with this approach: It's difficult enough to try and classify something by "function from form" when they exhibit very many and varied (and often contradictory) behaviors and actions, but to even begin by arbitrarily categorizing human functions along "nutritive" and "animal/mind" lines implies that the parts of us which "seek out nutrition" (which lacks an explanation of how) are wholly separated from the parts of us which perform other kinds of functions (like intimacy). This separation in the first place could be the result of a misunderstanding of the underlying causal mechanisms.
It's as if you're categorizing elementary attributes of humans but you're not taking into account any real causal structures or fundamental relationships between them; it seems like approximation and guess work from mostly behavioral norms. I won't retract my statement that the "rational soul" is not scientific because I don't see how even the claim that human function can be divided into the aforementioned arbitrary categories is justifiable or scientific from the get go.
All you're really saying with "rational soul" is that humans have the ability to think, and the drive to consume energy to say alive, but you're saying nothing about the why and how of these human attributes, so at best it amounts only to a general observation...
Quoting Agustino I meant that it's not an adequately testable or precise regime of interpreting the differences between objects (and how they change), and it doesn't lead to any predictive power...
Quoting Agustino
According to deconstructionism yes we [s]need[/s] want a reason for the quark's special qualities, but slapping the label [FORM OF: QUARK] and then saying "quark = what quark forms do" isn't an actual reason or explanation of why quarks do what they do, it's just a sloppy means of categorization. Such categorizations can be quite charming but we mustn't forget that these categories are actually just placeholders for actual physical descriptions we do not yet and may never have (or metaphysical one's we'll probably never have).
Quoting Agustino
He wanted to try and understand the world, the things in it, why they're different, and how they change.
When you say "substance" I understand what Aristotle would have meant: "matter of different types which have different inherent characteristics and mysterious qualities" (note that the mysterious qualities of actual matter (i.e, why bronze shines) was an impassable end-point for Aristotle), but when I try to square that with my own understanding of the world I can see that variations in substance actually comes from different combinations and compositions of molecular and atomic complexity and environmental conditions that work on relatively few fundamental principles or "rules" and with relatively few building blocks as starting points. Protons, neutrons (standing in for quarks) and electrons can be rearranged to form any kind of matter that exists. Differentiating between the characteristics of certain arrangements in certain conditions can be quite useful, but for a full understanding (including predictive power) over these things we must go beyond simply categorizing their various behaviors (along with presumed teleological final causes) as a behaviorist would. We may be forced to accept the behaviors of certain elementary particles for what they are (being unable to delve further into the physical world) but we need not think of human psychology or human function as an elementary or fundamental thing by any stretch.
Quoting Agustino
I have not the gumption to assent to the position that my existence has purchase in any realm beyond the physical world we share (I do not have the evidence). As far as I understand what animates the body is not "the powers given to it by the rational soul" but rather that the body animates itself (describable by fundamental and elementary particles/forces), along with producing the end behaviors they exhibit such as movement, reproduction, and complex thought.
As far as I understand it, a human thought is the result of networks of neurons firing in sequence: it's bio-chemical/mechanical. It's all body... If we want to think of human conscious as non-physical, sure, but all evidence suggests that it's the body which empowers/produces/animates the consciousness, not the consciousness which empowers or animates the body on a fundamental level. Yes the consciousness is permitted to do some high level steering (not always though ;)), but it's not pulling the strings on the lower levels (which govern the higher)...
Stopping at "will/desire and intellect/creativity" or "love" as fundamental or elementary parts instead of going deeper with science seems primitive to me.
Quoting Agustino
Yes. If you want to use a term in a very specific way, whether it be a term with colloquial meaning or special meaning pertaining to a particular school of thought, then just be careful to give a robust and precise definition of exactly what you mean when you use that specific term.
This way not only will I always know what you mean, but I will have easier access to the underlying premises and justifications which support your conclusions.
Quoting Agustino
The answer to choosing robust premises is to apply doubt to them and test them in every conceivable way. Usually premises themselves have supporting arguments, and so attacking the premises of the argument supporting one of your chosen premises can also be an effective way of falsifying premises.
Generally, the harder we try to falsify a premise, and the more we continue to fail, the more confident we become in the truthiness of that premise.
Strictly speaking, the premises of an argument don't "contain" their conclusion, but are rather indicate or point to that conclusion (sometimes via probability, sometimes via necessity). If a single premise contains a conclusion, then it's circular logic, and really what should be considered is the argument for the premise in the first place.
When we get down to fundamental premises though (premises with no traditional logic behind them, such as the premises underlying logic itself) (let's call them brute facts) they're really only as good as they are demonstrably inviolable. A good first premise is a truism that you can rhetorically and through physical demonstration beat someone over the head with until the cognitive capacity of their brain submits to it as true (brute experiential/experimental force). The existence of gravity is a good example of a starting assumption whose underlying argument involves simply observing it bunch of times and becoming confident that the phenomenon of gravity is reliably and consistently existent.
The best fundamental premises are those premises which are very easy to falsify, but despite all attempts remain un-falsified.
Quoting Agustino
It's constrained by my cognitive/logical capability primarily though, so if you show me my objections are unreasonable then any self-deception should be overcome.
Quoting Agustino
Yes, but it might also be worth noting that anything we call "good" can be also considered "not good" by someone with different standards of quality or even decency. A good doctor from WW1 is a butcher by today's standards who wouldn't be qualified to treat a horse. A "good" performer for example is hard to justify on any objectively measurable quality other than how successfully they entertain people, but the problem there is that different types of people might be highly entertained by a given performance, and a different crowd might be entirely offended by it. We should keep this subjective nuance to the word "good" in mind going forward.
Quoting Agustino
Sure, but what if we disagree about what is "moral" and how might we come to moral agreement?
Quoting Agustino
The relationship with doctor and healing is a very robust distinction (making it a good basis for a word to refer to a category of healers) but again keep in mind that what people consider to be "good doctor" qualities can differ drastically.
Quoting Agustino
Well, technically I said that what you've written contains no actual evidence, and that referencing a tradition is not actual evidence. Demanding that I rebuke a tradition in order to justify my lack of belief instead of providing the evidence yourself wont persuade me
You're telling me to prove that X does not exist (or that there is no evidence for X) in order to justify my exclamation that I see no reason/evidence to believe in X (or for you to provide evidence for X). The idea that love goes beyond the physical in the ways that I've described is a central part of your claim that there is a necessary final cause of love that ought to be upheld above and beyond the varied final ends that evolution can be shown to have developed (presuming we're basing morality on teleological final causes in the first place).
Quoting Agustino
We understand what hearts are and what hearts do with much more fully than we understand what humans are and how/why they do what they do. The reason we should refrain from defining "the final causes" of humans is because we understand ourselves so poorly and the reality of our complexity is quite beyond us.
If we were to write out that hypothetical long list of what humans are, and the variations of what they can do and why, why is it that you pick out certain bits and bobs like "intimacy" and "reproduction" over other random bits and bobs "conflict" and "destruction"?
Quoting Agustino
Shared experience...
I might have trouble persuading you than something is not harmful (promiscuity and sex) due to some extra beliefs that you hold, but I reckon I would have no trouble persuading you that something IS harmful per my own moral beliefs. In my moral reasoning I try to only use the most universally shared positions as starting points (the most brute-fact realities of the human condition), and from there if I use good reasoning then I wind up with very persuasive and agreeable moral arguments and positions. The fact that both you and I want to be free from the oppression of others is simple but powerful, and as a starting moral value stands on it's own like a brute fact that cannot be disagreed with. With this idea alone we could tear down a tyrannical monarchy and contrive a system of governance, by us and for us, in pursuit of a system which promotes freedom of the individual while also seeking to protect them harm done to them by others (including the new government itself).
Quoting Agustino
Since I believe that the form is caused by the body (see: my substantiation of the causal link between love and neural-chemistry), I cannot assent to the idea that an extra "form" is required for the body (made from matter/substance) to behave as if it behaves.
Essentially I believe we're all automatons, mechanical beings whose will and behavior comes from (bio)mechanical goings on of our bodies and brains. It's all bottom up physical action, all substance/matter in particular arrangements where those arrangements give rise to end functions.
I want to highlight my distinction thatthe body does what the body does (which I believe includes the mind/consciousness) and that the "rational soul" or final cause/function/form of humans is just our attempt to categorize what it is that the body does, and that the rational soul doesn't "actualize" anything beyond an arbitrary and invented category used to differentiate humans from other beings and objects.
Quoting Agustino
It's actually incorrect to think that individual genes do anything specific and necessary (in fact, "genetic markers" are vast swaths of individual base pairs in DNA which more or less work together - somehow - to achieve more complex results down-the causal line). The best we can currently do is to look at the prevalence (recurrence) of specific genetic markers in the overall code of an individual and make correlation based assumptions about what those genes might actually have some influence over (we're beginning to get at the first steps of "how" but we're no where close to bringing it full circle to "here's it's range of possible behaviors"). The trouble is that these genetic markers in all likelihood influence many things and in many different ways (through spurious and hidden factors we don't yet understand), and layers of complexity we cannot consciously grasp, and this lack of understanding renders us only able to make approximate guesses about what final/necessary effects a higher and lower prevalence of specific genetic markers actually have. It's actually a good analogy that demonstrates the pitfalls of assuming discrete categories and functions of things without understanding the full scope of how they actually interact and behave.
The biggest problem that I see though is not how frighteningly incomplete our categories actually are, it's that evolutionary teleological ends to me seem like a more rational basis for a resulting moral argument (if we're going to appeal to teleological function/form/rational soul in the first place) than presumed metaphysical realities of poorly understood phenomena such as "love".
I eagerly await your argument that demonstrates the moral importance/necessity of adhering to teleological final causes in the first place...
Regarding my musical selection for this evening, this time it's got some actual class. Pyotor Ilych Tchaikovsky was a homosexual man who went through a failed marriage and as far as I know produced no children. And yet, he managed to create music of such lasting beauty that it rivals love and intimacy itself. Among that hypothetical long list of human functions, enjoying life and it's beauty is among the final causes that I choose for myself...
You're presuming too much: "what she thinks" is not irrelevant and describing sex as my "sole intention" is a bit misleading. It might be a main intention, but I'm not going to approach her and start having sex with her regardless of what she thinks.
People are not "disposable" as such.
Regarding "the moral obligation to constantly consider everyone's emotional well being", I'll clarify what I mean by this below.
Quoting TimeLine
I don't believe it is morally obligatory to go to all necessary lengths to avoid any possible harm to anyone and everyone's emotional well being. There are reasonable degrees of consideration, such as the reasonable expectation that harassment will result in emotional harm, or that sexual advanced in an inappropriate setting will be emotionally harmful, but essentially I am arguing that I'm not morally obligated to presume that every woman in a night club will be emotionally damaged by me approaching them with any degree of sexual interest. Just because I act on sexual drives doesn't mean that I'll suddenly forego other moral considerations and stop treating individual women as they want to be treated in wild pursuit of sexual gratification.
That's the rub I suppose; I treat women as individuals, and I don't presume that all of them will take offense or experience any kind of harm if I approach them. I don't treat them like they're incapable of making their own decisions, decisions such as finding a temporary sexual partner.
To assume that having sexual interest in a woman and approaching her is immoral presumes too much about human psychology (if you mean to argue that I therefore stop perceiving women I'm sexually interested in as people with thoughts desires and moral rights.
Quoting TimeLine
Teleology...? Not you too... NOT YOU TOO!
Oh gosh... Umm.... Friendship is important and all that but I still don't understand why it's a moral obligation prior to sex. I don't subscribe to virtue ethics, notions of thought crime, or slippery and presumptuous of presuming that wanting sex must somehow mean not wanting to be moral...
Quoting TimeLine Well that's quite bleek and negative...
If I am not friends or in love with someone then interacting with them on a regular basis will make me unhappy and conceal it with lies?
No?
If I told you that our interaction makes me happy and yet we're not friends or in love, would you accuse me of lying?
Quoting TimeLine
I still don't understand why mutually consensual and casual sex between two non-friends constitutes some kind of unvirtuous thought crime that should be considered a worthwhile moral standard...
Quoting TimeLine
I'm scratching me head trying to figure out what category I've invented that you're unsatisfied with...
"a bit of a grey area" isn't a hasty category, it's a palce-holder for a discussion we've yet to have which presumably will be difficult to have.
My claim has to do with the qualifiers I have actually defined, not any ramble of cases you think I've neglected to exclude. My claim is that in a night club setting, when a woman is displaying certain body language, eye-contact even, with a certain kind of attire, it's entirely reasonable to approach her with the expectation that sex is the primary and mutually desired outcome from the encounter. Unless you can convince me that the thought crime of sexual interest prior to friendship will reasonably lead to some kind of harm, I've no reason to think that two mutually satisfied non-friend sexual partners have committed any moral infractions against one another.
Not necessarily, because love may be a basic metaphysical fact of the world, in which case it would not be designed, but it would simply be there.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
A deformed triangle is still a triangle, just like a deformed human person is still a human person, therefore their teleologies are the same. A crooked triangle still shows the form of a triangle, even though quite imperfectly.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
If such was the case, then perhaps our happiness too would revolve around how well we use our hardened heads, so yes, I don't see why not.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Sure, but then differences are never so big such that we don't recognise someone else's description of love, are they? The mere fact we recognise someone else's description as a description of love, shows that our different experiences have commonalities. Furthermore, you're speaking of love in a very narrow sense (simply erotic love), but love is much larger than this, and even erotic love presupposes charity (love of neighbour) - for your beloved is always first your neighbour and only secondly your beloved.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I don't think you can make this argument. This would be a metaphysical, not a physical argument. Love is correlated with the state of the physical brain, that's what we do know scientifically, but to go beyond that would be to overstep the boundaries of science.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
And equally compelling evidence comes from people like this man:
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes, you are correct! But your misunderstanding is in thinking that Aristotelians disagree with you, they don't. Distinctions are matters of the intellect and they don't exist as distinctions in reality. The functions which the intellect takes to be separate are actually one thing in reality.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Right, but even so, it does not lack scientific evidence, which is what your initial claim was stating. So that claim is false, we can clearly discard it.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
The test is simple. Do people have such capacities? If they do, then it is clear. It has a lot of predictive power - we rely on that predictive power even in this discussion. For example on prediction is that you have will and intellect - if you didn't, I wouldn't be trying to have this conversation with you.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
This is not true. Metaphysical categories, such as forms, aren't just placeholders, they are absolutely essential to give a final account of reality - a metaphysical account - above and beyond physics. Whatever the ultimate level in physics happens to be, we must still account for why that level is such as it is. And to do that, we'll have to make an appeal to its nature - to its form. It simply has such a nature so as to have such properties. If we don't do that, we cannot explain why it does have the properties that it does. And this is true regardless of what ultimate physical constituent we land on.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
It still is true today - quarks display these mysterious qualities - as does quantum mechanics as well. Why should it behave the way it does rather than another way? It's just as mysterious today.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
This is actually false. It has never been described by fundamental and elementary particles. Physicists think it can IN PRINCIPLE be so described, but it has never actually been done.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Clearly it's not just the body, because the same body can also be a dead body, which is not animated at all. So something - the form - which we would describe via a process in the brain most likely - is so responsible.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
This is false. You cannot assert a causal link based purely on correlation. For all you know, idealism could be the case, and everything is thought, and indeed then neurons firing in sequence are the result of thought (though not of your thought, or conscious thought that is)
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Nobody stopped at them as fundamental at all.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Ok, I feel this is very important. Doubt presupposes a different set of premises, so this doesn't work. If I have statement A, I cannot just doubt it. To doubt it I need to first believe statement B, which is contrary to A or an implication of A, and then I will start having GROUNDS TO DOUBT. Without grounds to doubt, my doubt is irrational.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
But those supporting arguments will ultimately also be composed of premises, just like the main argument is correct? So what use? We'll still have to return to some premises which are totally unsupported by anything else, except our PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. If we don't, then we'll have an infinite regress of premises, backed by arguments which are supported by other premises, which are backed by argument, ad infinitum. Sextus Empiricus proved this clearly in his Outlines of Pyrrhonism, and Plato and Aristotle were well aware of it, that's why their main question was how to come to correct premises.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
It can never be by probability, since the conclusion must necessarily follow from the premises to be valid.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Agreed.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
This isn't so simple, because what counts as being violable must be determined, via an argument as well.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
:s gravity would in no way count as a first principle.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Is this premise easy to falsify as well?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
There is no subjectivity in the meaning of it though. The WW1 good doctor is "bad" only in reference to the better doctor of today. But what it means to be a good doctor - to be good at healing, never changes so long as the terms are understood.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Okay, so it seems that so far you agree that we describe something as good if does its function well, and a moral man is a good man. Thus to determine what a moral man is would be equivalent to determine what a good man is. So, since we appeal to the function of a thing/person to determine whether they are good in a certain context (like for the watch, hairdresser, doctor, etc.) it seems quite intuitive that we should appeal to a man's function in order to determine whether he is a good or a bad man, and thus whether he is moral or immoral. But in the past, you were quite obnoxious about morality being dependent on teleology, in multiple instances, here's one of them:
Quoting VagabondSpectre
You even called it bullshit, but it seems to be quite reasonable now. You seemed to say that we can't establish what man's ends/functions are, which may be true, but that doesn't invalidate the claim that morality must be based on teleology (if it is to be based on anything at all), which we have just shown to be true. So by your own words now you admit that it isn't bullshit at all, and it's not a silly assumption to make at all, but quite the contrary, it is dictated by the very logic we have so far pursued. So I think you should retract that statement.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
We weren't discussing about their qualities now.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No, this isn't what I asked you to retract. I asked you to retract your definite statement that there is no evidence. Not that you do not see that there is any evidence. That is an entirely different thing.
One thing that is important in this discussion if it is to be productive is that we each stick with what we have said. If we start moving goal posts, and changing what we say, etc. we'll get nowhere. You said something, and we've just shown that it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. If you meant something else, that's all fine and good, but you must agree to retract what you first said.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Sure!
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Well that depends. Is morality important for human beings? If it is, then we better make an effort to define our final causes, because as we have shown, to be moral we have to know our final causes and direct ourselves towards them. Even an inkling of an idea, a hypothesis, is better than nothing, for at least it will enable us to act in a certain way which may take us closer to our goal.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Well this is very quaint, because if we are to go by shared experience, then I think we'll have to conclude the very opposite of what you do in fact conclude. As I have illustrated, most large societies that have ever lived have been quite conservative with their sexual norms - certainly more conservative than we are today. So if we are to go by shared experience, then we should not only prioritise today, but the whole of human history. And if we do, then you'll remark that the number of large civilisations (to take into account population) which have held to conservative sexual standards, far outweighs the opposite. Sure, there were tribes here and there who lived nude, and who didn't think casual sex immoral. But then virtually all the large religions of today have a very conservative sexual morality, and we're talking even atheistic religions like Buddhism now. So if we are to take mankind's experience as a whole, I'm afraid we'll have to conclude that casual sex is immoral.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
This is all fine and good, but it would of course depend on what you mean by being free of oppression. I do want to be free of oppression, but what I consider oppression may not be oppression to you, and inversely, what you consider oppression may not be oppression to me. So it's still not very simple, even though we do agree fundamentally that we want to be free of oppression - but what we mean by this is actually different, and our superficial agreement would only hide this.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Ah, but it seems you yourself have argued for this better than I could!
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Indeed, but we have managed to isolate genes, and determine that certain genes for example lead to higher risks of certain diseases.
Anyway, going back to the initial statement:
Quoting VagabondSpectre
It seems we have gone through everything, apart from why some ends are more valuable than others, more precisely why the ends belonging to the rational part of the soul are more valuable than the ends belonging to the animal part of the soul. This is a relatively minor point granted that we've gone past the two bigger hurdles, but that's what we'll discuss next.
Do you like those walls of text? (L) Or are they too powerful for you?
I don't agree that our "telos" or "final causes" are morally obligatory to pursue or uphold. Your moral argument from teleology indicates that I should adhere to some average standard in order to be moral (find happiness?), but what if I'm not average?.
I'm also not trying to argue that morality equates to whatever makes individuals happy but rather that morality is a mutually shared/cooperative agreement that we generally figure out based on what makes us both happy/unhappy (shared values) such that we find ways to avoid/promote those things (oppression for instance)(note: the controversial sentiments of a few people aren't sufficient for my standards of moral argument. The values which I do base moral arguments on are the most universally shared values available).
Chimpanzees will instinctively try to castrate other males when in a fight with them. According to their telos, castrating one another is what's moral. Conversely if humans had an extra appendage designed to castrate men, our telos would define it as moral to use it per your reasoning, correct?.
Quoting Agustino
I can recognize anyone's concept of love (although occasionally with some strain) but that doesn't mean our definitions are common enough that I therefore agree with your teleological and moral positions. Our experience of love isn't common enough to base such a specific and objective claim like "intimacy and reproduction are morally necessary per the necessary teleology of love".
Quoting Agustino
All scientific arguments are inexorably based on strong correlation. To show causation with scientific standards (using reliable experimentation for instance) employs no metaphysical supposition.
The strong inductive argument supporting gravity isn't metaphysical, and it doesn't overstep the boundaries of science so much as it defines them (repeatable observation and successful prediction)
If you don't think that brain damage/disease or psychoactive drugs can causally affect someone's feeling of love, I'm not sure where else to go but to lectures in human behavioral/neuroscience and more examples of brain damage affecting behavior.
Quoting Agustino
What is compelling here? Am I missing something?
Quoting Agustino
But if you're only making distinctions based on invented categories from observed norms, why should we hold that the "final cause" of a human is required to be upheld for morality (happiness?).
Quoting Agustino
I want evidence for the claim that "frustrating the necessary ends of sex" necessarily leads to unhappiness, or that "love" is anything more than the chemical cocktail that evolution has designed (and as I have previously described) it to be. Even a description of what love is (more precise than "a metaphysical force") would be a good starting point
Quoting Agustino
The problem is that "love" and "intellect cannot be adequately defined when they are not adequately understood. We might conflate what we think are "final causes" with intermediate and spurious other factors/ends.
Quoting Agustino
It's only true for fundamental particles and forces, like gravity. We're not providing a final account of reality by creating an incomplete system of categories to try and differentiate between more complex combinations of matter, especially not in the context of "love" or "intellect".
We don't actually need metaphysics if we found our starting positions on physical evidence (i.e: the test-ability of gravity). I cannot demonstrate the physical mechanism that makes gravity work, but I can at least demonstrate it's consistency with strong inductive arguments that have massively persuasive power.
Quoting Agustino
The fundamental forces and particles are mysterious, yes, and some aspects of human cognition/emotion are not fully understood, but we're well on our way to filling in this knowledge gap. Looking at higher "forms" as if they're fundamental or elementary becomes fallacious because all complex forms depend on the goings-on of the more basic and fundamental forms (elementary particles and forces) which combine in certain ways and produce variations of effects. Observing that something nourishes itself doesn't provide any insight into the mechanism (the how, the why) of how humans actually nourish themselves. The way plants nourish themselves is drastically different from humans, and if i was satisfied with a description of the world that says "plants nourish themselves because they have a nutritive soul" I would never bother to learn more. "Love" is actually less mysterious than gravity because we can actually point to (some)causal mechanisms...
Quoting Agustino
How many pieces of the puzzle do you need before you will agree that we're on the right track by assuming that the goings-on of the brain dictate the goings-on of the mind?
Quoting Agustino
Actually living bodies are different from dead bodies. Living bodies have organismic activity (moving organs, firing neurons, flowing blood, respiring lungs (or adequate replacements), etc... The main thing is that the brain be kept with a steady flow of oxygen rich blood and at a certain temperature/pressure, once brain death occurs (irreversible damage/loss of function due to whatever cause) we consider the "person" to be dead, but the "body" could actually remain alive if we kept it on life support.
The difference between our approaches to understanding death is that I point to the actual mechanisms and physical causes of death while your teleology only points to end results.
Quoting Agustino
Inductive reasoning has a long and proud tradition of providing strong reasoning which has carried many a person towards the successful ends they've sought. Personally I try to speak of inductive reasoning in terms of "strong" and "weak" rather than "valid" and "invalid" (such as is the case for deductive reasoning). Presuming that premises are true (we must still appraise the strength of premises involved in inductive arguments (such as "sample size" in statistics)) a strong inductive argument is an argument whose conclusion is made probable or likely by it's premises while a weak inductive argument does not make it's conclusion persuasively probable. In legal courts, the kind of standard they aim for is "beyond reasonable doubt", where it's sometimes left up to a jury to decide whether the arguments presented strongly indicate a specific truth.
Gravity has been physically demonstrated to exist beyond a reasonable doubt, and so too has the the necessity of the human brain (and it's mechanics) for the human consciousness (and it's emotions). At some point correlation can become so reliable and consistently un-violated that it becomes like a brute and undeniable fact of existence; a starting point for good arguments.
Quoting Agustino
If you can make a prediction from something and then test to see whether that prediction holds true (using sufficiently precise experimental constraints), then you're able to possibly violate it. Once the premise/conclusion with predictive power fails at making a prediction, we then consider it falsified or at the very least compromised/less than accurate.
You violate something through experimentation, which is why it's useful to make predictions from knowledge (as a continuing correlation/induction based test of it's accuracy).
Quoting Agustino
Oh but it does by my standards. It's one of the four fundamental forces. It's one of the premises with no underlying explanation other than strong correlation (like the behavior of a quark), and it's at the heart of so much of our successful physics.
Maybe one day we will deconstruct gravity with some understanding that is currently hidden to us, at which point gravity will finally gain supporting premises of it's own other than the sheer experimental consistency that tests of gravity produce (observation and experience).
Quoting Agustino
There are two issues here. The statement "a moral man is a good man" uses a different and colloquial meaning of the term "good" that the statement "my watch works good" employs. The "goodness" of a moral man has to do with what I believe to be moral in the first place while the "goodness" of a watch has to do with how well it performs it's function. This is known as equivocation.
The second issue is that even if you could convince me that "teleological final causes" are somehow morally obligatory to pursue and uphold, you could n ever convince everyone that your idea of "proper human function" actually applies to them or that their contrary definition of proper human function is not superior to your own. The reality is that human function seems endlessly diverse, and I see no good reason to cherry pick a few variants and hold them to be the moral ones...
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Agustino
If I thought that it was morally obligatory to pursue reproduction, or intimacy, or to uphold and conform to some ideal form, I think I would be aware....
Your strange equivocation of "good/moral man" and "good watch" (to conclude that morality = human function) readily leads to ridiculous moral scenarios as I've already shown (you basically assented to the idea that a society and morality organized around ritualistic headbutting (the eminent function of an evolutionary endowed numb-skull) would become moral per the telos of such an adapted species). To continue on with this dilemma, let's imagine that one day a human is born with horns in addition to their severely numbed skull. He has deviated from the human form and can be considered a broken/malformed human under your teleological framework, and so would his participating in the headbutting be moral? With his horns he could gore the faces and necks of any challenger and might quickly rise to the top of the social hierarchy as a result. Would it be moral according to his telos to use his equipment in a novel and accidental way which gives him unfair advantage? Once his horned children eventually kill off all the competing males and everyone on earth has horns, does the human telos overall change and hence our morality along with it, where the new selective forces leading to bigger and more pointed horns cause humans to progress toward a new ideal form?
I ask this question honestly: how can you say that what you describe as sexual aberration from the ideal form (promiscuity, casual sex, homosexuality, transsexualism (presuming the last one)) are not actually adapted and successful components or future components of how the human species organizes/propagates?
So far, your claims rest on your ability to argue that your own framing of what constitutes "the ideal human form" is stronger or more valid than someone who claims that the ideal form is broader or that ti is different (you're supposing that your highly controversial experience based classification of "love" (see Christian Puritanism) is actually shared by everyone or even most people). And this is then predicated on the idea that my colloquial use the word "good" to describe "a moral man" is logically equivalent to the way I would use it to describe "a good watch" (equivocation). I stand by my statements.
Quoting Agustino
Well technically I said that what you had presented contains no evidence and that referencing a tradition and thinking that shifts the burden of proof is also not evidence. It's your burden to show the proof of your claims about teleology and morality, human function, and love.
Quoting Agustino
I disagree. I can find many examples of societies with diverse and sexually liberal norms. I think this generalization is hasty. The fact that many exceptions exist indicates that the telos of human sexuality does not conform to the singular strategy of heterosexual monogamy.
Quoting Agustino
Just because society decides something is a norm really is no sound basis for determining morality. What makes the telos that society decides more valid than the telos that an individual decides for themselves? (again, presuming a teleology based moral framework is useful in the first place).
Quoting Agustino
We can hammer out some pretty hard specifics though. For instance, the people of society should be free to practice (or not practice) the religion of their choosing. Do you find that to be agreeable? (keep in mind, if someone invents a religion whose practice involves harming others, then we can outlaw that practice with additional laws and enshrine rights protecting people from that kind of jarm). For instance, the legal right to control and enforce control of your own property (like land?). Would that be an agreeable standard that we could make a moral handshake on?
Quoting Agustino
Oh come now. You think that the function of these genes is to increase the prevalence of some disease!?
Certain combinations of genetic markers (whose functions we do not understand and pertain to our long evolutionary history) can cause catastrophic problems for complex reasons that we also do not understand. We make very loose correlations in such statements, and while we can reason that certain genes have something to do with the diseases they correlate with, presumably their original or intended functions pertain to many other things.
Your statement "You cannot assert a causal link based purely on correlation. For all you know, idealism could be the case, and everything is thought, and indeed then neurons firing in sequence are the result of thought (though not of your thought, or conscious thought that is)", brought a childhood favorite to mind.
Not at all, my moral argument from teleology holds that we all, as human beings, have the same telos, which is by no means "average", but quite the contrary. Our telos is what human excellence itself would be.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
This is demonstrably false. A cannibal may look for a victim who wants to be eaten. It would not be moral for that action to happen, even though they both share the same values and would think they are profited from it.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
This is false, and a form of argumentum ad populum, which is a fallacy.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Then the function of that appendage would be to castrate. That, however, does not mean that castrating would be moral in all circumstances. It wouldn't be moral in circumstances where it would contradict the telos of other parts (perhaps more important) of the body/soul. It would for example contradict the telos of brotherhood among men, and thus would be immoral in most circumstances, unless perhaps you used it on someone trying to kill you, etc.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
You're now moving goalposts again. If you can recognise their concepts as being concepts of love instead of something else, then they clearly do share commonalities.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Sorry, science isn't in the business of deciding on metaphysical questions. Science just had to find predictabilities and understand how one thing is associated with another. Science is in the business of identifying correlations.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
:s Gravity being nothing else than the apple falling to the ground when you drop it, I understand. That's just a predictability that you observe in the world.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Yes of course they affect ability to think/feel so what? That doesn't mean that ability to think/feel doesn't also affect the physical brain - gasp - it does! It's called neuroplasticity. Glasses affect your ability to see, but so do your eyes.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I think you are.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
This is a strawman - the categories are neither invented, nor are we speaking of norms. And finally, it's also a non-sequitur.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
>:O >:O >:O Good one, you must be one of those people who does metaphysics while they're thinking they're not doing it.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Even if you had all the pieces of the puzzle you would STILL not be able to assume that, since it's a matter of metaphysics, not of physics.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
ORGANISMIC ACTIVITY >:O >:O - sounds like a soul to me! In fact PRECISELY like a soul, for the soul also is an activity, and not a thing ;) (don't forget forms are act, matter is potency)
Quoting VagabondSpectre
>:O Yes, but it's not all about how you can manipulate the world to do your will. That's a very selfish view of things.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No it hasn't. All that has been demonstrated is that objects in the Universe we have observed seem to currently attract each other. There's no statement there about this happening in the future, why it happens, or whether it even happens outside of what we know as the visible Universe. And in fact it's worse - things are actually not even attracting, so we postulated this weird dark energy that we don't have a fucking clue what it is. Maybe just our understanding of gravity is wrong. That's what my money is on actually. Einstein overcame Newton, and someone will overcome Einstein. That's science - always looking for more and never reaching an end.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
That's scientism at its best. No we have a piss poor understanding of our emotions, and the like in all truth. A large of the so called understanding we have is culturally mediated and only valid in certain cultures.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Today, but wait till tomorrow. It wouldn't be the first or last time science changed its mind ;) - if you base your life off science, you may soon find the ground under your feet running away.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
That's false. We're looking for objective morality, and we have shown that a good doctor is objectively one who is good at healing, where healing is the doctor's function - and objectively so. A good man also depends on his function, in similar manner. There is no equivocation between the terms, the terms good have the same sense in both phrases. It's funny how now you're all backpeddling and moving goalposts - soon you'll be falling off the pitch!
Quoting VagabondSpectre
So what if I can't convince you? That means I wouldn't be right? :s That's certainly a very strange way to establish what right and wrong is. But clearly when you run out of other means, you appeal even to those!
But alas, you can sleep well, it's not my purpose to convince you in particular that casual sex is wrong. I've done my purpose in this thread by educating you on Aristotelian philosophy, so that at least you understand the basics correctly and see the motivations behind the distinctions Aristotle drew. Maybe you'll come to your own conclusions later.
So then Tchaikovsky was a failed and sub-par human because he divorced and failed to have children or be successfully intimate with a woman.
What makes your definition of human excellence the actual objective human telos?
What if there is no objective human telos and instead each individual has their own objective telos?
Quoting Agustino I address this in the very next sentence and I've addressed it previously in this thread
Quoting Agustino
The point of making moral arguments based on values which are nearly universal (as opposed to not universal at all, like your notions about love, intimacy, and sex) is that people will agree on the importance of those values, and be persuaded by moral arguments which promote those values.
I define morality as cooperative agreement based on shared values, therefore the more universal the value, the more persuasive and widely held the moral position becomes. Since I define morality as pertaining to individual human desires, not to and broad objective human "telos" this is why it makes sense for me to found moral arguments on the desires of the populace.
Quoting Agustino
You do realize that I'm able to entertain the ideas of others (even ideas opposed to my own) while simultaneously holding belief in my own?
Just because I'm able to comprehend the diverse emotional experiences of others doesn't mean that our emotions share sufficient common grounds to define a "necessary final cause" like monogamy or reproduction.
I'm not moving goalposts, you're just demanding that I accept your inaccurate premises.
Quoting Agustino
So is everything metaphysical?
When we add gasoline, oxygen, and a spark, there's no physical cause of combustion, it's just some metaphysical cause that for all we know is playing out in the "physical world" like some abstract reflection that we're unable to understand? (see:post-modernism?)
Quoting Agustino
No, gravity is the strength of attraction which is proportional to the masses times the distance squared. It's what causes apples to fall to the ground, but our description of gravity is more than "apples fall to the ground".
It's a precise measurement of a consistent relationship that gives us predictive power well beyond "apples fall".
Quoting Agustino
You're still presuming that thought is somehow separate from the brain. "Ability to think/feel" is first and foremost dependent on the brain, evidenced by the fact that if I damage your brain, it doesn't matter what you were thinking or feeling prior to that damage, the effects of the damage will still manifest.
My point is that thoughts like love are the result of the brain, and in so far as they affect the brain themselves in on-going and complex processes, it's still inevitably the brain affecting the brain... Unless you can prove some sort of metaphysical quality of emotion or the mind actually exists......
Quoting Agustino
You linked me a video of a man that appears to have some sort of mental/psychological issues who is rambling somewhat incoherently about his religious beliefs...
If you would be so kind as to give some indication of what your point is (where it's not obvious), I would feel much obliged to respond.
Quoting Agustino
In my opinion the difference between physics and metaphysics is that physics bases itself on the material and observable world while metaphysics tends to be based on nothing at all.
Quoting Agustino
What you really seem to be saying here is even if science could give a full account of human consciousness and emotion you would still assume that love is something more... That's metaphysics for you...
Quoting Agustino
Once again you reduce your definition of the rational soul merely to "is alive", while I actually point to underlying causal mechanisms. "Sounds like a soul to me" is a vague and ambiguous standard to be forced into.
But if you want to reduce the human soul to "however any living human acts" (implying that all living humans share the same kind of "rational soul"), then given all the morally contradictory human actions I don't know where your moral compass comes from other than your own personal intuition and emotion.
Quoting Agustino
The theory of gravity makes predictions: statements about the future.
Thew cosmological principle can be used to inductively argue that gravity is consistent outside of the visible universe.
Einstein did not overcome Newton. GR and SR added precision to Newtonian calculations (especially concerning gravity) it did not overturn them. All of modern Newtonian scale physics still works, Einstein just enhanced it.
Things are actually attracting, and dark energy is still being explored... Were all scientists Aristotelians, they would have gave up and fucked off long ago thinking that the differences and nuances perceivable to them at the time must have constituted a full rubric of "elementary forms".
If our understanding of gravity is flawed why do our calculations/predictions of the motions of celestial bodies so stunningly and accurately correlate with observed data?
Scientists hold that gravity causes attraction between all masses because it's among the most repeated experiments and repeated observations in all of science. They view it as a fundamental force...
Quoting Agustino
We understand enough about the brain to confidently make certain approximations regarding it's mechanics, and we can say with the highest confidence that "without a functioning brain a functioning mind cannot exist". Surely you will demand proof of this, and all I can offer is the repeatable experiment where you try to interact with things with no brain or a dead/broken/non-functional brain as if it had a functional mind, and see if they ever answer back... (Hint: they won't answer back, and never have).
I know you would like to believe that the consciousness has some kind of metaphysical/spiritual transcendent force attached to it, but all the evidence points to the contrary. Psychic phenomenon like telekinesis or remote viewing or astral projection have never been shown to actually exist. You try to deride me for "scientism" while yourself buying directly into superstitious fairy tales.
(a quick note: you're resisting the widely accepted scientific fact that the brain produces the consciousness, but this is not a necessary aspect of your teleological position. You could posit teleological ends from some standard form of a human brain, and so the only reasons for you to resist this which I can fathom are that you're trying to avoid having to make teleological conclusions based on evolutionary endowed design, or else you're trying to leave room for some extra magical nonsense (leading to god possibly?). I need to know which is the case so I can adjust my criticism of this appropriately...)
Quoting Agustino
Let's unpack the argument in question starting with precise definitions of "good" (I'll include the definitions you equivocate with as well, and within the context of applying them to men and watches)
"A good watch": Definition 1: A good watch is a watch which performs it's function well.
"A good watch" Definition 2: A good watch is a watch that satisfies my personal watch-standards.
"A good man" Definition 1: A good man is a man which performs his function well.
"A good man" Definition 2 : A good man is a man that satisfies my personal "goodness/morality" standards.
You use definition 1 for "a good watch" but then you use definition two of "A moral man".
The first sense of "good" applies to watches in the sense of fulfills it's design efficiently but clearly when applied to "a moral man", it refers to more than just "performs his function well".
You're literally equating "objective morality" with "function" and expecting other people to agree with your personal notion of what proper human function is (let alone agree that objective morality is dependent on "human function" to begin with). You most certainly are equivocating because "tells time effectively" isn't analogous to "is objectively moral".
To rephrase, just because we use "good" to describe objects which perform their designed and intended functions well and also use "good" to describe moral views which we agree with doesn't mean that objective morality is based on how well we achieve some notion of intended or proper function.
Quoting Agustino
The main issue I take with your moral framework is that it from the outset presumes that morality is whatever human function is. I could spend more time trying to show you why your personal assessment of human function is limited and therefore alter your moral conclusions, but we must come full stop until you can square up your argument as to why objective morality ought to come from "human function" in the first place, because as it stands "well we say good watches are good when they perform their function well" is an entirely confused appeal to equivocated and colloquial word usage.
It's like one day you looked down at your watch, saw that it was keeping time effectively and then wondered if your watch was moral... "EUREKA! FUNCTION = OBJECTIVE MORALITY!"...
Causality is actually a metaphysical not a physical category. That's why there are actually attempts, including by atheists like Bertrand Russell, to eliminate it from science altogether. You add gasoline, oxygen and a spark and you get combustion. That's a physical correlation. The causality is explained metaphysically through the natures of the elements added.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
That's wrong. Metaphysics is required in the first place to make sense of any kind of physics whatsoever. It observes and categorises non-empirical first principles which we need in order to make sense of the world. Causality is one such principle that it needs to discover. Metaphysics works by establishing coherence mainly, but also correspondence. We certainly compare different metaphysics by how coherent they are.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
They do work, but the theory is false. The reason for example why objects attract one another via gravity given by Newton is false. We now know that it's the curvature of space-time that accounts for gravity, with mass having the property of bending the space-time continuum.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
I actually do mean definition 1 in both cases. A man who performs his function well is a moral man. That's what Plato illustrated if you read, for example his Republic, or if you read Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics.
In fact, a moral man simply could not be someone who doesn't perform his function well.
Quoting Agustino
Give me an example of a "non-empirical first principle" other than a fundamental particle or force.
These are the only things necessarily constrained to having no underlying causal explanation. If you want to think of metaphysics in this way, that's fine, but scientists prefer to think of fundamental forces as observed brute facts which may one day be better understood...
Let's try not to argue about the semantics of metaphysics though, I care only about your teleological ethics.
Quoting Agustino
Newton didn't give a reason, he gave a description of the relationship of attraction. He charted it, he didn't give a reason or explanation of it's origin, and what he described still holds true (GR and SR add precision to Newtonian calculations involving masses of certain scales).
So the theory is true, because the theory is that the strength of attraction between masses is proportional to their masses and their distance squared. Do you understand this distinction?
Quoting Agustino
I know you mean that, but nobody else does.
Just because we know the designed or intrinsic function of watches doesn't mean we know the designed or intrinsic function of humans, or whether or not those intrinsic functions have moral gravity or importance, or whether or not different humans have different intrinsic functions, or whether or not the purposes defined by individual human will/desire morally supersedes those intrinsic functions.
I'm telling you that when I say "a moral man is a good man" I'm not trying to equate "objective morality" with whatever notion of "proper function" you cook up for yourself at that moment.
Causality.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
These are empirical, sorry to disappoint.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
He actually did.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Suuuuure, nobody, just several philosophical traditions :s
Give me an example of a "non-empirical first principle" of causation which does not involve a fundamental particle or force.... ... ...
Quoting Agustino
I'm trying to understand what you mean then by "non-empirical first principle". If an electron is empirical, then so is the way a photon gets generated when electrons get excited... What's causality?
Quoting Agustino
What was the reason? Newton's theory of universal gravitation describes a relationship, not a mediating mechanism.
Quoting Agustino
Several antiquated traditions which make no useful account of individuality...
Once again, stating that objective morality is objective human function because "good watches are watches that work" is an irrational leap based on equivocation which you then follow up by presupposing that your definition of "proper human function" is the correct one.