Author Topic: Premarital Sex  (Read 5165 times)

Foolish Boy

  • Earthbound (+15)
  • *
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Premarital Sex
« Reply #15 on: December 19, 2009, 01:43:11 am »

I do wonder what Immanuel Kant would have to say about all this.

Kant's categorical imperative is a ridiculous concept:


You presume that what I said was a universal rule.

Quote from: Immanuel Kant
"Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature."


It assumes that one believes that he or she is completely equal with everyone else. Everyone has an ego and at the root of all choices and actions lies an egotistical reason. Kant, like many philosophers, shaped his ideas around predisposed beliefs he held.

As far as the sexual conversation goes, there isn't much more to say. I read the first 10 or so posts and quit after I realized the same things were just being said back and forth with different words. So excuse me if any of this has been said already.

Sex is a simple biological action that humans have manipulated over thousands of years to mean something much more than it does. However, this attitude was necessary for the human civilization to advance as it has. How could Albert Einstein ever come up with the Theory of Relativity if he was just running around all willy nilly fucking anything that moves? The same goes for most other kinds of intellectual advancements. The family unit couldn't exist as we know it if we lived like other animals. People are bred into their views on sexuality and pretty much everything else they believe. It doesn't mean one side is right or wrong or good or bad. Humans are animals with higher intellect. We know that from science. We have developed morality IMO to establish controllable societies in which most everyone benefits (food, water, shelter are more readily available). Morality gives order to an otherwise very disorderly universe. It varies from one culture to another. It has been enforced through religious and cultural beliefs, and in Christianity it is enforced through otherworldly punishment or reward. Without the moral constraints of sexuality, we are simply animals that enjoy sex because of the pleasure it brings. People (myself included), follow a set of morals influenced by our culture as a method of survival whether consciously or subconsciously.

I am not a Christian. I am not a follower of any other religions either. Religious organizations have provided beneficial services to many in our more modern day, so I would not completely tear them down.

The original topic though had to do with religious ridiculousness. I think Jesus Camp is a good representation of the real crazies out there.

Eske

  • Enlightened One (+200)
  • *
  • Posts: 248
    • View Profile
Premarital Sex
« Reply #16 on: December 19, 2009, 02:42:12 am »
Wow this really blew up in just a few hours, gotta love the Compendium!  8)
Thanks for the re-welcoming Thought, I've been pretty busy with military matters lol.

Oh yea, staying on topic.....

I cannot argue nearly as well as Lord J or some others here, but I don't really need to....

It is obvious that any elevated value associated with sex that is pushed beyond the individual to the community with implications of lower worth or punishment for noncompliance is simply a means of control.  Sex is for making babies, pleasure, and social bonding sometimes  :D - oh and its fun.    That's it, complications not required.

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Premarital Sex
« Reply #17 on: December 19, 2009, 03:24:47 am »
You are an intriguing person, FaustWolf...and I must say a fair bit more satisfying to interact with. You're also quite tactful, oh ho hoh!

GenesisOne

  • Bounty Seeker
  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1215
  • "Time Travel? Possible? Don't make me laugh!"
    • View Profile
Premarital Sex
« Reply #18 on: December 19, 2009, 03:55:22 am »
This may be my biggest post yet.  Then again, the biggest fish is the one that always gets away.  Oh, well.  Let the ordeal begin.



Forgive me. I continually toil under the false impression, no doubt instilled in me at a young age by watching scripted drama, that people are at all reasonable in their capacity to accept criticism, and will admit when they are wrong. No doubt if I had wanted to have any chance of advancing your thinking I should have catered to your feeble ego by saying only nice and flattering things to you, or by being perfectly neutral, despite the fact that either would have been a deceitful show of respect on my part toward someone who clearly has little or no grasp of the subjects he engages.

0 for 1. You don’t win arguments by attacking your opponent’s thought process and demeanor.  I thought we went over this.  Try again.

Tinpots and mooks, however, deserve nothing but a great big rebuke. This is all some big academic abstraction to you. You talk about sex and all these other things without any regard for the practical consequences of your ill-considered beliefs, and tribalistic contempt (or sheer bewilderment!) toward anything that does not bend to your view of the world. The only thing more unsettling than to imagine you as an inexperienced youngling is to imagine that you have actually been in a relationship already. It would be like putting a dog in charge of a nuclear reactor.

0 for 2, Lord J. You sure know how to wine ‘em and dine ‘em.  And what’s with the dog and nuclear reactor? Such processes are automated for maximum security, after all.

Let's just cut out the passive-aggressive crap and get to where you're going with that line of interrogation. You think sex is something which it is not. You get your ideas either from abject Christian morality or else from society's cultural obsession with elevating sex into all manner of things it isn't. There. Agree to disagree. End of conversation. Anything more on the matter would be a waste of time, until and unless you ever realize that sex is not some glorious festival with trumpets and angels that exceeds in profundity and significance all baser human instincts but that ultimate expression of love, without which you feel sex is inappropriate or, worse, defiled. Hah! That'll be the day. Maybe someone more patient than I will give you a nice bop on the head to clear your mind of this Victorian rubbish.

So our views of sex differ from each other.  It’s called relativism.  I doesn’t take a thought-terminating cliché like “Agree to Disagree” to wedge that between us.  I will say, though, that you paint a prettier picture of sexual intercourse than I do.  Kudos.

As soon as you learn that not everything which is at least 100 years old is outdated, including ideals, maybe then I will take your arguments more seriously.  0 for 3.

The biggest reason that relationships don't last is that one or more of the participants is a mook, or is at best naive and grossly inexperienced (an excuse that wears thin after the first couple of relationships). Your laughable attempt to pin premarital sex to broken relationships is so off-base that it doesn't even show up on the wall on which the dartboard hangs. Let's face it: Most people are losers, and most relationships aren't healthy. They ought to break up once one of the parties realizes and accepts that. The fact that traditional lifelong marriage declined in popularity once divorce became more socially permissible and females gained greater economic independence and legal protections should tell you a thing or two about your precious "sanctity of marriage," because by your current logic the liberation of females is detrimental to society.

And your attempts to pin broken relationships and divorces on outdated ideals are equally laughable.  Who’s to say that both our reasons for failed relationships aren’t applicable, or even mutually exclusive?  Think about that.

Ah, yes, the old “sanctity of marriage” stand-by.  People like you support same-sex marriage, divorce, and anytime sex while actively engaging in such acts; then you turn around and say “How sacred is your marriage now?” to those who value marriage and families.  It’s hypocrisy like that that grinds my teeth.
Never assume anything, because it makes an ass out of you and me.

You don't realize how sexist your views on sex are. You don't realize how controlling it is for you to try and set sex aside as something that should only rightly be accessed on very special occasions or in a very narrow context. You have no recognition whatsoever of the ramifications of these ideas which to you are bubblegum and candy canes of ideological self-indulgence. And, worse, you're not the one who gets the tooth decay and the tummy ache. Instead these punishments are passed along to society at large.

There are such things as limits, even when it comes to sex, or did they not teach you that in Sex Ed? 

You’re confusing controlling with caring.  Don’t do that.

Oh, my!  I actually save my virginity for that one woman I care the most about and love the most in my life as does she, because we both respect each other and share the same values.  That automatically makes me selfish… or not.

I think everyone should have as much sex as they want with as many people as are willing, just to catch in the craw of puritans like yourself. There's nothing more infuriating to a religious punk as to see society casting off the yoke of religious oppression, only to not collapse, not implode, and in fact chug happily along even better than before.

Your progressive views not only encourage sexual extravagance, but it’s outright insulting to the religiously inclined who actually see physical intimacy as sacrosanct while people like you get your kicks from your lame attempts to piss them off.

You say I have a lot to learn? Well, look who’s calling the kettle black.  0 for 4.

See...here's a prime example of you not thinking for yourself and instead just passing along what you've heard from others. At the risk of being a broken record, you are so utterly clueless that it boggles the mind. I don't even know where to begin to tell you just how badly you've gotten it wrong. You have no basis for appreciating it. This is all so simplistic in your mind...so easy, so straightforward and pithy and matter-of-fact, when in fact the truth of the matter is twenty thousand leagues over the top of your head.

The fact that I passed along someone else’s words like a messenger doesn’t make the message any less substantial.  And yes, I too like the Jules Verne novel of the same name.

The fact that you’re resorting to name-calling shows me that you have no real arguments that merit a response, let alone a rebuttal. 0 for 5.

You can play dirty of you want to, but that’s not me.

I wonder how much we could mine this passage for in a game of "count the logical fallacies"...

I wonder, indeed.


Kind sir...let me try and explain this to you: There is not a person on this Compendium who "agrees" with me. I am enough of my own Josh that even my closest philosophical allies are not in agreement with me on most issues except in the broadest sense of ideological orientation and perhaps in sharing some specific concepts to frame the questions. Agreement is a continuum, and not a very important one at that. It is not disagreement with me that opens the floodgates of condemnation.

Finally, something we can both agree on.

It is ideas themselves. Yours suck. I don't just mean that they're childish or foolish. I mean they're genuinely stupid...the kind of stupid you have to work at to accomplish. You go about this all wrong, by being uncritical of your own positions and reacting poorly to valid criticism from others. You give people of conviction a bad name!

You’ve yet to provide one valid criticism of my arguments outside of name-calling and the use of straw men and false assumptions, so you’ve proven nothing by saying such.

And what’s your conviction? To have everyone help themselves to a sexual buffet?  Well, what are we waiting for?  Let’s organize a mass circle jerk and ice cream sandwich in a public park!  Break out the Vaseline and pillows!

I don't want to give you a hard time. But when you bring a steaming bowl of shit to the table, I lose my appetite. What do you want me to do? Hrm? Leave well enough alone and let you eat whatever you want? No way. If you want to play the game of ideas, you have to accept the possibility of criticism.

I see you have another conviction to add to your plate; to save poor, mindless sheep like me.  How noble of you.  No really, give yourself a medal.

You have to accept the reality that (*gasp*) your opponent may actually have a point once in a while (according to you, anyways).  It’s not a weakness to admit that you might be wrong about something you believe you’re right about.  I’ll go first, but that’s only if you’ll follow suit.


 I think about what I write--that, while the propagation of the species is crucial to our existence, the actual process of sexual intercourse is only one tiny portion of the overall reproduction and rearing of new life. It is a male-centric, puritanical view which forces male ownership not only on the next generation but on females, by downplaying everything about raising a child that comes after having sex. If you're going to open that can of worms--which you did--then you would still have to admit that sex isn't at the center of everything, you incredible mook, because sex is but one player in an ensemble cast that also includes gestation, childbirth, nursing, providing for, protecting, playing with, and parenting.

Granted, but you must agree with me when I say that sex is square one to all those wonderful processes that lay ahead in the world of child rearing.

This is a new record for name-calling, even for you, Mister J.


You walked right into my trap, but, because this is not scripted drama and not the physical world, you don't even realize it. Surely you can sympathize with my plight! I'm the scheming schemer who has laid an excellent scheme indeed, only to have the bumbling village idiot fall into my web without his ever realizing how dismayed he should be. Be dismayed, for the love of Christ Jesus!

Oh, so you were waiting for an “A-ha!” in this whole verbal exchange?  Give yourself a pat on the back.  You still write as though this were scripted drama. 

Oh, I hate mooks!!

I love you, too. :D

So wrong about everything, yet so oblivious...you should all collapse into black holes. I can't believe the universe has a stable equation for you! Proof if ever there was of the existence of No Deity Whatsoever! To quote Captain Picard: The universe is not so badly designed! Thus it must not be designed at all.

Funny, I think the same about you, except it actually proves to me that there is a Deity.  How about that?  And leave Picard out of this!  He’s an actor!  He reads whatever’s put in front of him, whether it’s true or not.

 :picardno

So you cherry-pick the areas where your arguments will operate. Anything inconvenient to you, you ignore! How wonderful for you. Which gets you a failing grade for the course, I might add. No philosophy of any worth can be suspended when it is exposed to stress.

And any area within a concept you and anybody else doesn’t agree on, you call them all sorts of things without answering the accusation. 

Wait!  We were assigning grades?  Well, do unto others, so…

No debate team would accept you, but that was made evident a long time ago when you laid down the first keystroke that took this away from a fervent, level-headed discussion about sex within a meaningful relationship and turned it into punditry and mud-slinging.  What’s it like up there on that pedestal of yours?

Personal experience is certainly not the only avenue to comprehension. Likewise, personal experience is no guarantee of comprehension. Nevertheless, in certain cases it makes for the shortest line between assertion and proof. But I would have argued the same thing without having any personal experience in the matter. Your complaint is a diversion, and is declared invalid.

If it’s a diversion, why did you include with your list of rebuttals in the first place?

How loving it would be, indeed. But since you phrased this hypothetical sarcastically, I can see how very much farther you have to evolve as a person before you are capable of this simple act of maturity and goodwill.

This, I will apologize for (if you’re even capable of doing so).  I meant to phrase that in the form of a question.  So, it would run “How loving would it be if…?”  Nice to know that you divined the meaning behind the question… not.

This will come as a shock to you, but there is also the possibility that I'm right, that I know more about this subject than you do, and that you're wrong without realizing it.

I made that shock apparent to you earlier in this post.  Use the up arrow for clarification when you get the chance.  You’ve yet to show me how I am wrong.  Keep trying.

I mentioned earlier that you give people of conviction a bad name. This is because it's very important for a person to be able to speak in the absolute when it is necessary to protect or advance the interests of society. Yet the absolute is also a favorite haunt of every two-bit believer of This, That, or The Other. You and I differ in the quality of our comprehension as compared to the rigidity of our statements. We're very much alike in both being of a strong opinion on this subject. I wouldn't have swooped down and assailed you if your attitudes on sex were not a serious threat to society.

Slam on your brakes.  You think my attitudes on sex are a threat?  Didn’t you just say earlier that you wanted everybody to have consensual sex whenever and wherever they want to just to stick it to the religiously inclined?  Yeah, but I guess that doesn’t count as a threat to society, but you already knew that, right?

People need to understand--and if not you, then others reading--that the idea that "sex is sacred," and all variations on that claim, are in fact the product of age-old religious measure of control and subjugation. Sex may very well be The Bee's Knees to some people, but, by placing it as this spiffy, pure thing that can so easily be sullied to the detriment of all individuals involved and even to society at large, you corrupt what sexuality really is, and what sex can be all about. In so doing, you reaffirm the same ideas which for thousands of years have been used to dominate the lives of females and keep the masses docile and obedient. And you don't realize it.

Oh, but you don’t corrupt what sexuality is with your convictions?  I should call the Vatican and nominate you for Sainthood.

So by sanctifying sex, I’m actually corrupting it and reaffirming “the same ideas which for thousands of years have been used to dominate the lives of females and keep the masses docile and obedient”?  What Orwellian doublespeak is this?

The risk we face in this day and age is that, even as organized Christianity fades, the true depths of Christian evil in our society linger on, and are reborn in new, Christianless skins, to be heralded by the next generation as something totally new and original...a way forward...a secret path to the future. But it's not. It's the villains of history preying on the ignorant.

That’s funny.  Societies that focused on the repression of religion have done more damage in the last century alone.  If you’re looking for the villains of history, you’re pointing fingers at the wrong people.

Sex is not worth more or less than a person decides for it to be. You don't know better than that. You should stop believing that you do.

And neither do you.  So stop acting like you know better than me, because I won’t, even if you won’t.  At least that’s respectful unto itself.

Ignorance is evil, Genesis. I don't mean it's an evil. I mean that it is evil. Ignorance, and the willful embrace of ignorance, are the root of all evil. I say ignorant as easily as I would say "imperfect," or "not-a-knower-of-everything," because we are. We're all ignorant. It's just that some of us are more ignorant than others, and are more willful in our ignorance than others.

I beg to differ.  I’d have to say envy is the root of all evil.  Every terrible thing that ever happened in the course of human history is the result of someone (or some people) that desired for something that he or she couldn’t get and got pissed off over.  So such people use shortcuts to get what they want to reaffirm their status as a person.  From there, the other deadly sins kick in.

Ignorance isn’t even a deadly sin, believe it or not.

And the only way you'll ever learn is to stop thinking you're such hot shit and listen to what other people tell you, and think about it for yourself, critically, and thoroughly, and thoughtfully, always.

Because that’s what you do too, right?  Just like you won’t cater to ignorant mooks, I won’t cater to insulting, self-absorbed hypocrites.

Ideas are not toys; they're dangerous; and you're playing with them so foolishly. Here, the Compendium is a small beacon of light. There are many communities where reason is so badly repressed that ignorance flaunts itself without any risk at all. But not here. So long as people say stupid shit here, I hope there will be someone to correct them.

If indeed this Compendium is the beacon of light you’re proclaiming it to be, don’t use it to blind people and drive them away.  You apparently believe that men who haven’t seen the light haven’t been enlightened (play-on words).

I think it would be too ironic to end this with a discussion of my thoughts on "the ultimate expression of love"--your phrasing, not mine. Ask me another time.

If I wanted an answer like that, I would’ve shaken a Magic 8-Ball.



Sorry, but you need a taste of your own medicine once in a while.

Come on, Lord J.  Don’t burn a bridge over the several misunderstandings between the two of us.  I’m getting pretty tired of the two of us having to find everything wrong with what we have to say to each other, anyway.  Truce? (Not the village in Chrono Trigger) 


Trebuchet

  • Guardian (+100)
  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • Mister Jean
    • View Profile
Premarital Sex
« Reply #19 on: December 19, 2009, 04:14:13 am »
This is such a touchy topic, I don't know if I should respond. But, being Jewish by blood and Agnostic by choice, this honestly disgusts me. These people and everything they stand for piss me off oh so very much. It's their way of life, and their opinion, but boycotting the GAP for having commercials that say 'celebrate what you want to'?
Being offended when somebody says 'Happy holidays'?
What the Hell?
I don't have any extremely Christian friends, but I can assume these people are giving them a bad name. I know I'm being intolerant in a way, too, but holy shit, this is insane. They get indignant because they think all Americans are Spiritual Christians. I understand that this is a culture in it's own, but it infuriates me oh so very much.

BTW: Lord J Esq. is my new hero for that Picard quote. Look at the bulldog, and tell me it's intelligent design.

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Premarital Sex
« Reply #20 on: December 19, 2009, 05:40:12 am »
You wrote all of those zingers only to ask for a truce? Well, at least I got a medal out of it! Don't worry: We're not burning any bridges here. I have exactly as much respect for you now as I did before this topic began.

You will forgive me if I consider the majority of your rebuttal unworthy of a reply.

0 for 1. You don’t win arguments by attacking your opponent’s thought process and demeanor.

On the contrary, one's thought process cannot be separated from their conclusions. That's why I wouldn't have you on my side even on the occasions when we agree.

0 for 2, Lord J. You sure know how to wine ‘em and dine ‘em.  And what’s with the dog and nuclear reactor? Such processes are automated for maximum security, after all.

You undertook to give yourself a point just because? Or are you going somewhere with your fascinating intellectual sortie that nobody human runs nuclear reactors?

As soon as you learn that not everything which is at least 100 years old is outdated, including ideals, maybe then I will take your arguments more seriously.  0 for 3.

You accuse me falsely, sir! Your sexual puritanism is bogus, but plenty of old ideas are not. Your beloved Categorical Imperative is an excellent example of that.

How did you get to three points without actually saying anything? What kind of system are we using here? Is this one of those deals where you get points just for showing up? Did you bribe the scorekeepers? Should I call for an audit? Do we need institutional reform to curb the abuses?

Who’s to say that both our reasons for failed relationships aren’t applicable, or even mutually exclusive?

I'm to say. Or, more accurately, the facts are to say. Do you really think that this is some Star Wars plotline where I have forgotten to put a grill on the stupid exhaust port? Because that's what you're saying: You're asserting that you possess the legitimacy to gainsay me on one of my strongest subjects. And what you're offering in support of your claim is the kind of drivel that a third-grader could come up with at recess.

You've missed the key points here: Your view on sex is exclusionary, repressive, and demeaning. Your view is exclusionary because you argue that sex has a very narrow zone of appropriateness, precluding all but "husband and wife" sex, thus denying a wide and significant aspect of the human experience. Your view is repressive because sexual compatibility is a key aspect of a relationship's overall compatibility, and your opposition would force people into the unenviable position of being in doomed marriages, forced either to seek divorce or to put up with decades of suffering followed by ambivalent resignation. Your view is demeaning because sexuality is very important to the human identity, and you are essentially telling people that this aspect of themselves can only be practiced in a narrow sense, on your terms.

Not only is your view totally wrong and unjustifiable, but you haven't actually defended yourself against my numerous criticisms of your ideas themselves. You were unwilling or unable to answer the charges. That means you lose, regardless of what your fantasy land score tells you.

You don't understand how debate works, Genesis: You don't get to tangle with me or anybody and come away from it with a smugger sense of self-satisfaction if the only thing you did was ignore criticisms and make a few baseless assertions that only barely even make sense. I don't know what passes for intellectual debate in your life, but clearly you are not fulfilling your obligation to educate and discipline yourself. You need to practice humility right now. Maybe someday you would have the standing to skate around all fancy-like, but for today the simple truth of the matter is that you're both stupid and arrogant--a deadly combination. You need to ask a lot of questions and do a lot of listening. You're not capable of getting into an argument with the stronger-minded people here. You're just not. You keep getting your ass handed to you, by me and others--right down to Radical_friggin_Dreamer, who is famous around these parts for being huggably non-confrontational!...and you don't even seem to realize it. You're not learning. You've built a wall of stubbornness around your worldview and you are not learning. You've shut yourself off from progress. You've become immune to enlightenment. That isn't a good place to be! Never mind that you'd never have a prayer of defeating me in an argument: Far more important things are at stake, like your worth as a person and your ability to shape your destiny.

People like you support same-sex marriage, divorce, and anytime sex while actively engaging in such acts; then you turn around and say “How sacred is your marriage now?” to those who value marriage and families.

For the record, I've never been in a same-sex marriage or a divorce, and my sexual history is not exactly Captain Kirk-esque. But of course none of that matters. Here is an instance where you, in upholding your own view of marriage, put down the lives of so many other people. That's dangerous business, Genesis. I've spent years trying to understand how to balance the two--upholding what is just without causing undue injustice to those who stand to lose from the advancement of humanity.

Marriage, to you, may stand for something different than what it does to all those scary gays and licentious females. I sympathize with your frustration at what you perceive as an attack on something you hold dear. Nevertheless, your role here is that of the bigot, and I will not support you or even relent my criticism of you. Your views are wrong and, the sooner they are wiped out of the minds of every living person, the better off we will all be.

You’re confusing controlling with caring.  Don’t do that. Oh, my!  I actually save my virginity for that one woman I care the most about and love the most in my life as does she, because we both respect each other and share the same values.

It makes you controlling, not caring, because you extend your personal preferences to encompass all people. Being controlling is not necessarily a bad thing, but in this case it most definitely is, because your control is unjustifiable. Go ahead and try, if you want...but there's no acceptable justification for imposing your virginal-until-sex prescription on the rest of society.

If you would at least go so far as to concede that other people can do with their lives as they like without it being wrong for them in the way that it would be wrong for you if you were to do the same, then, even though I would still disagree with your personal preferences, I would be content to leave them well enough alone...or at least the intensity of my criticism would let up from "Defend Civilization" mode to "Offer Perspective" mode.

Your progressive views not only encourage sexual extravagance, but it’s outright insulting to the religiously inclined who actually see physical intimacy as sacrosanct while people like you get your kicks from your lame attempts to piss them off.

You invite these counterstrokes. I hope you realize that. If I can piss you off, I will, because you are an enemy of humanity. And I'll do more than play with your emotions: I will grant you no quarter anywhere. I will antagonize you whenever you open your tired mouth to spew your tired bigotry. The world has seen enough of it, and I will be there to educate, defeat, or silence you wherever possible, because in my assessment there is no place in the future for the institutions of sexual puritanism. Too many wrongdoings, too many injustices, persist because of your philosophy.

The fact that I passed along someone else’s words like a messenger doesn’t make the message any less substantial.

Here you are wrong. It is not that you are passing along other people's ideas that makes your arguments insubstantial: It's that you didn't think for yourself. You can take other people's ideas and still think them through for yourself! That's a lot more common than the alternative of being purely original. But when you take other people's ideas, you don't analyze them critically. You neglect your essential responsibility! That makes your claims meaningless. Even if you were right, you wouldn't know it.

You’ve yet to provide one valid criticism of my arguments...

Either you're in denial or you're truly oblivious. Either way, you're a fool and this is the end of the line. I've indulged myself enough and you too much. Wallow in your ignorance, then. You are a speck of ugliness on this Compendium. I cannot muster any further regard for you. The rest will be matter-of-fact.

And what’s your conviction? To have everyone help themselves to a sexual buffet?

My conviction on this matter is that people develop their sexuality free from the confines of Christian morality.

Granted, but you must agree with me when I say that sex is square one to all those wonderful processes that lay ahead in the world of child rearing.

You said that sex is so significant because of speciary propagation. You ignored everything else that comes with this propagation. "Square one" is a meaningless measure of significance when the end result can be spoiled at any point in the chain.

And leave Picard out of this!  He’s an actor!  He reads whatever’s put in front of him, whether it’s true or not.

Patrick Stewart is an actor. Captain Picard is a paragon of human excellence. You are not fit to speak his name, let alone employ the Picard Maneuver.

No debate team would accept you, but that was made evident a long time ago when you laid down the first keystroke that took this away from a fervent, level-headed discussion about sex within a meaningful relationship and turned it into punditry and mud-slinging.  What’s it like up there on that pedestal of yours?

I was on the debate team in school, Slick.

If you want a level-headed discussion, Genesis, bring an open mind and some humbleness. Without that, you're incapable of experiencing what you've asked for.

Oh, but you don’t corrupt what sexuality is with your convictions?

I'm not the one telling people how to cultivate their sexuality. I'm not that pompous and delusional.

So by sanctifying sex, I’m actually corrupting it and reaffirming “the same ideas which for thousands of years have been used to dominate the lives of females and keep the masses docile and obedient”?  What Orwellian doublespeak is this?

Abrahamic religion exists in the first place in large part to control females specifically and society generally. You're not "sanctifying" sex: You're outlawing it in your book of morals, except as practiced by people who live their lives according to your will.

Societies that focused on the repression of religion have done more damage in the last century alone.  If you’re looking for the villains of history, you’re pointing fingers at the wrong people.

You're wrong, of course. But even if we grant you your Hitler-and-Stalin insinuation, the only difference is that the the religions they built were not Christian. You would be hard-pressed to find examples of tyranny in history that were not justified in religious terms.

So stop acting like you know better than me, because I won’t, even if you won’t.

Your writing has broken down to the point of incoherence.

I’d have to say envy is the root of all evil. Every terrible thing that ever happened in the course of human history is the result of someone (or some people) that desired for something that he or she couldn’t get and got pissed off over.

Of course, whereas my definition of evil fits all conceivable instances, yours fails even with the simple daily tragedy of some kid getting drunk, hitting the road, and killing another motorist. Reconcile that with "envy," you conceited shit. Tell me how your precious theory, cooked up in all of two seconds, accounts for Milgram, for AIDS, for lead poisoning.

Ignorance isn’t even a deadly sin, believe it or not.

I know what Christianity's seven deadly sins are, believe it or not.

If indeed this Compendium is the beacon of light you’re proclaiming it to be, don’t use it to blind people and drive them away.  You apparently believe that men who haven’t seen the light haven’t been enlightened (play-on words).

I'm less concerned with salvation for The Irredeemable than I am in protecting and nurturing the minds of the innocent. I have written you off as a lost cause, but, like many before you, I am compelled to do a service to this Compendium by exposing your absurdities as absurd and your profanities and profane.

If I wanted an answer like that, I would’ve shaken a Magic 8-Ball.

Here at the end we see how you have allowed yourself to become a contrarian caricature. Having failed to answer any of my earlier charges, you settled for giving yourself "points" and passing off zingers in lieu of substance. Now, here, we see that you have spoiled your ability to participate in this discussion reasonable, and have degraded yourself to the point of such inanities as that.

Sorry, but you need a taste of your own medicine once in a while.

Right...

MsBlack

  • Squaretable Knight (+400)
  • *
  • Posts: 458
    • View Profile
Premarital Sex
« Reply #21 on: December 19, 2009, 06:39:36 am »
Not to discourage this line, but this thread is not the place for it. Continue here for now, but could someone who can split from this post onwards into its own topic, and copy (but not move) Sajainta's post too for context? Thanks.

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Premarital Sex
« Reply #22 on: December 19, 2009, 03:58:02 pm »
The Representative from Marmitsylvania has spoken. I shall meekly retreat back to my cave to slobberingly growl at butterflies and flowers in bloom.

Foolish Boy

  • Earthbound (+15)
  • *
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Re: Premarital Sex
« Reply #23 on: December 19, 2009, 04:14:54 pm »
No one wants to respond to my criticism of Immanuel Kant? Or my views on sex? Oh boy, that's no fun. I figured I'd at least get someone going.

Schala Zeal

  • Radical Dreamer (+2000)
  • *
  • Posts: 2147
  • 7th Elemental Innate, and vtuber
    • View Profile
Re: Premarital Sex
« Reply #24 on: December 19, 2009, 04:19:53 pm »
"Your virginity is the greatest gift you can give your husband."

Did you get that off a Christian website? I wouldn't be surprised if so. I don't know why christianity has so many followers when one of its own beliefs is to objectify women... That's what I've heard about the bible implying anyway. By the way, notice I don't bother to capitalise christianity or bible...

Did you ever notice that, oh I don't know... that we're the only species who endorse religion, and the most violent? Yes, animals can be violent, but they don't possess WMDs. Even our predecessors, Neanderthals, had no religion. You know what they did? They lived their lives doing what matters! They had sex without marriage! *gasp* They hunted their own food and clothes! *gasp* How disgraceful and un-american!

Ironic how we're considered the most intelligent species, but because someone thousands of years ago got bit in the ass by the stupid bug and decided "Hey, I got an idea! Let's personify natural occurance and worship it!" that we have a more restrictive social order than any animal.

I think I know why people get insulted when they're compared to animals now. "How dare you compare me to a better example of life!"
« Last Edit: December 19, 2009, 04:28:42 pm by Princess Schala Zeal »

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Re: Premarital Sex
« Reply #25 on: December 19, 2009, 04:33:10 pm »
No one wants to respond to my criticism of Immanuel Kant? Or my views on sex? Oh boy, that's no fun. I figured I'd at least get someone going.

Well, since you asked...

Quote
It assumes that one believes that he or she is completely equal with everyone else. Everyone has an ego and at the root of all choices and actions lies an egotistical reason. Kant, like many philosophers, shaped his ideas around predisposed beliefs he held.

That's more of a musing than an actual criticism. I think what you were getting at is the assertion that people operating from different premises cannot be held to the same standards of thought, word, and deed.* That holds true, but only insofar as you are able to maintain that people cannot or should not or need not be judged objectively...and I haven't met many people who can make a good case for it.

~~~~~
* Example:
Person 1: I love pie. I shall write a book describing the best way to prepare and consume pie. It will be the ultimate pie resource.
Person 2: I hate pie. Why would I care about your book?

Radical_Dreamer

  • Entity
  • Zurvan Surfer (+2500)
  • *
  • Posts: 2778
    • View Profile
    • The Chrono Compendium
Re: Premarital Sex
« Reply #26 on: December 19, 2009, 04:39:56 pm »
You also presume that the act of premarital sex is without consequence. Partners who have different values, education, previous relationships, and family of origins (intact or broken) have greater risk of breaking up. Multiple failures results in an inability to maintain commitment - the most important part of a loving relationship.

Most young people think that love is just a strong feeling one has toward another person. However, the elated, "high" feeling we get when we "fall in love" is really infatuation, be it biological or otherwise. This kind of "love" is something that is typically short-lived, and unless replaced by true love, results in broken relationships. Those who think the infatuation phase of a relationship will last for a lifetime are setting themselves up for disappointment and failure. Life happens, and people make mistakes that hurt others. The ability to forgive and rebuild trust is required for any marriage relationship to succeed. Those who are used to moving on to the next relationship at the first sign of trouble will not make a good marriage partner, which is why living together leads to bad habits.

Josh has exposed the absurdity and wickedness of your views on this topic quite well, but this is something I want to comment on, and has not been addressed in this thread. This view of yours essentially comes down to the following: Humans always become less capable from their failures. That you think human beings are incapable of learning or growing from their failures is trivially at odds with reality, and further, is despicably hopeless.

You assert than anyone who has made an error can only be less able where they have faltered. If this were true, humanity would not have made it as far as it has, and propagating this ignorant view only serves to act in opposition to the growth and progress of human morality. It is an active rejection of the idea of a world that can be better than it is. It pains me that I cannot with sincerity describe your arrogance and ignorance as unbelievable.

In summary: Your view is a rejection, in whole, of humanity. It is self defeating and absurd, and is wicked, in that it deliberately strives to prevent all progress, both at the individual and the societal levels.

Foolish Boy

  • Earthbound (+15)
  • *
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Re: Premarital Sex
« Reply #27 on: December 19, 2009, 05:52:15 pm »


Quote
It assumes that one believes that he or she is completely equal with everyone else. Everyone has an ego and at the root of all choices and actions lies an egotistical reason. Kant, like many philosophers, shaped his ideas around predisposed beliefs he held.

That's more of a musing than an actual criticism. I think what you were getting at is the assertion that people operating from different premises cannot be held to the same standards of thought, word, and deed.* That holds true, but only insofar as you are able to maintain that people cannot or should not or need not be judged objectively...and I haven't met many people who can make a good case for it.

~~~~~
* Example:
Person 1: I love pie. I shall write a book describing the best way to prepare and consume pie. It will be the ultimate pie resource.
Person 2: I hate pie. Why would I care about your book?

Thank you for responding Lord J. My criticism was not just a musing. What I was getting at is simply this: An individual is egotistical at their root. One will always act in ways that will benefit him or herself in one way or another. These actions may be in order to "get to heaven" or to have fun, or anything else you could imagine but it always boils down to self satisfaction. Many times their choices and actions will be conflicting with the Categorical Imperative. For instance: getting drunk. One might get drunk in order to have a fun and entertaining night doing some crazy shit. Most would say that they definitely do not think everyone should be able to do that, especially public figures. So they can justify their actions in context, yet according to Kant's categorical imperative it should be seen as morally wrong. Cutting down trees could be another simple less moralistic example. I might cut down some trees for fire wood. It does not mean everyone should be able to cut down trees for firewood, otherwise we would deforest this world at a much faster rate. Individuals do not hold themselves as equal with others under a moral system even if they believe they do. Every individual puts themself on a higher level morally. That is why "sinning" exists in Christianity.

 I'm criticizing Kant. Setting universal maxims of right and wrong based on whether or not actions should be universally performed has no foundation in its argument. The only way you can believe this viewpoint is if you believe that there are moral standards for all peoples aka Moral Objectivity. (I feel I argued fairly strongly against that concept in my first post). After all, setting these OBJECTIVE rights and wrongs are done from a SUBJECTIVE standpoint! How can they then be accepted as universally objective? Kant used philosophy to justify all beliefs he already held. He did not ever take any stances of objectivity even though he tries to present it that way.

I am not a total relativist. I am a moral relativist though in belief, not in action. Like I said in my first post, I believe our society's moral system is our new code for survival. If we lived by our animal instincts neglecting our cultural intelligence, we would not be able to survive in modern society. We would not be able to survive happily anyways because of our moral programming. We cannot escape the fact that we believe certain things are right and wrong, it does not mean that there is any truth to it.  
« Last Edit: December 19, 2009, 05:57:47 pm by Foolish Boy »

Ramsus

  • Entity
  • Chronopolitan (+300)
  • *
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
Re: Premarital Sex
« Reply #28 on: December 19, 2009, 11:27:39 pm »
As long as you acknowledge the risks (having a kid, catching a disease, being falsely accused by rape and blackmailed, etc.) and it's really someone you can trust, there's nothing wrong with pre-marital sex. There's nothing wrong with casual sex either. Sex is a natural part of human behavior, just like eating or sleeping, and though you can fight it, you probably shouldn't if there's no reason not to.

Now if your religious beliefs tell you to limit sex, eat only certain types of meat, work hard, and avoid sleeping all day long, then by all means, live your life that way, but I honestly don't see any of those things as having anything to do with morality.

Adultery and cheating, on the other hand, are more like stealing or assault, in that you're hurting the person that you're still in a relationship with if you do it. Sex when placed in that context does become a moral issue. Of course, if you don't have it in you to stick to your current relationship, just break up. There's no point in even calling it a relationship then (certainly not a marriage).

Mr Bekkler

  • Bounty Hunter
  • Zurvan Surfer (+2500)
  • *
  • Posts: 2736
  • So it goes.
    • View Profile
Re: Premarital Sex
« Reply #29 on: December 19, 2009, 11:38:31 pm »
I actually agree with Ramsus 100%