Sex and the Religious-Left

[Gary Childress]

Try this: take the idea, entertain it, do some work in relation to it, and then submit your thoughts here.

Surely you must have something to say about the sense or meaning expressed? Or is it for you *completely unintelligible*?

If you engage with the idea, I will engage with you in relation to it.

"Slaves" are "free" and "kings" are "slaves"? I would have thought the opposite. Not true, eh?

Speaking as Augustine might have: If a man is a king and enjoys all the temporal accoutrements of kingly position, but yet (let's say) is a sex addict or some other sort of addict (let's assume ones that are not chemical, like alcoholism) in which he debases himself in relation to his temporal sovereignty, or abuses his position as sovereign, and shows himself a slave to his passions and not in some level of control over himself, is it possible that you can gain an insight into what Augustine was referring to?

(If you need to we can linger over this for a series of posts. Do your very best Gary and let me know what you think.)

Similarly, a man who might be enslaved and have no exterior freedom (a slave within the palace let's say), may have no vices or addictions of the sort mentioned above, and therefore on that inner or psychological plane may be vastly freer than the king who suffers under his vice.

See my post directly above. ^^^

[Alexis Jacobi]

I see no reason why your connection to your *anchor* is threatened by somebody else not connecting to your *anchor* and choosing their own. Surely we all have a preference for liberty?

Nice. Then you are in agreement that men will, in one way or another, define anchors for themselves.

Woo hoo! You have done a wee bit of intellectual work. You should feel proud.

The issue of *liberty*, and definitely in a Platonic or Aristotelean sense, seems to want to come to the surface for examination.

However, you have made (another) moronic statement.

If my anchor, you fool, is grounded in an ethics that defines it as a bad to holocaust Jews

But your anchor is grounded in an ethics that defines it as good to holocaust Jews

And if I declare you to be bad and evil as a result of your *anchor* and I oppose any liberty that you deem actionable, I have a sense that you can kinda see the problem you face.

Boy, this is going to be tough Flash. Take it slow!

Obviously, in some areas you will not be allowed to *choose your own*. And this points to the purpose of education: to train them in ordinate affections.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Gary, see this post right here ↓

But maybe I'm wrong. I haven't read about "replacement theory" so there are all sorts of things I'm probably ignorant about.

Well said. Yet illumination is in your own hands and within your grasp.

Do you keep up with the obsessive masturbation you wrote about once? Perhaps that is a way to tie this ethical or moral issue to one of behavior. It might cast some light.

Augustine makes use of a king and a slave only in the context of a formula to express the idea, which does not depend on either a king or a slave.

[Gary Childress]

But maybe I'm wrong. I haven't read about "replacement theory" so there are all sorts of things I'm probably ignorant about.

Do you keep up with the obsessive masturbation you wrote about once? Perhaps that is a way to tie this ethical or moral issue to one of behavior. It might cast some light.

Augustine makes use of a king and a slave only in the context of a furmula to express the idea, which does not depend on either a king or a slave.

Are all masterbators "good" or "wicked"? It's like asking if all who've read about replacement theory are competent thinkers.

[FlashDangerpants]

Oh dear, let's try this again. Here I'll add some detail and colour so that you can follow without getting petulant.

What I suggest is that the individual will have to ask very basic questions about *value* and will have to interrogate himself about what he really and truly values. The question, the issue, is ultimately and also profoundly philosophical in the original and the most important sense. Do I really need to spell this out for you?

Yes please do. By definition, if one must interrogate oneself to find out some piece of information, that information cannot be objective - you interrogate things external to oneself to find out objective information. The self is the subject, and the information that comes from it is therefore.... SUBJECTIVE. Which is a concern if you are attempting to uncover universals à la Plato, but you do you.

You may as well explain the acidic thing too while you are at it because I don't know what you mean by it.

I STILL think you might be conflating a certain amount of Aristotle into your ideas about Plato. The stuff about mutability suggests you are actually thinking about Aristotle's view of the spheres with the Earthly sphere being made of corruptible, mutable substance, while the heavenly is made of celestial immutable substance.

I see no reason why your connection to your *anchor* is threatened by somebody else not connecting to your *anchor* and choosing their own. Surely we all have a preference for liberty? Is liberty not one of these *anchors* too?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Are all masterbators "good" or "wicked"? It's like asking if all who've read about replacement theory are competent thinkers.

It is less the act itself, though that certainly is relevant, and more the issue of loss of sovereignty because a vice has possession of the man. That is what Augustine (and Plato and Aristotle) refer to.

Can you discern the distinction?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Oh Heavens! Flash is resorting to bold face, giant type, and color! Run for the electronic hills!

[Alexis Jacobi]

You may as well explain the acidic thing too while you are at it because I don't know what you mean by it

Let's start at the very very beginning.

Do you know what an acid is?

[Gary Childress]

Are all masterbators "good" or "wicked"? It's like asking if all who've read about replacement theory are competent thinkers.

It is less the act itself, though that certainly is relevant, and more the issue of loss of sovereignty because a vice has possession of the man. That is what Augustine (and Plato and Aristotle) refer to.

Can you discern the distinction?

What's wrong with masturbation? Why is it a "vice"?

[Gary Childress]

Are all masterbators "good" or "wicked"? It's like asking if all who've read about replacement theory are competent thinkers.

It is less the act itself, though that certainly is relevant, and more the issue of loss of sovereignty because a vice has possession of the man. That is what Augustine (and Plato and Aristotle) refer to.

Can you discern the distinction?

What's wrong with masturbation? Why is it a "vice"?

I mean, is it a "vice" because it's kind of gross to watch? If so, then wouldn't that make shitting a vice also? And yet there's no commandment saying, "thou shalt not shit". I mean that would get pretty uncomfortable after a couple of days.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What's wrong with masturbation? Why is it a vice?

Augistine's message had less to do with some act and more to do with the problem of vice.

We must have a full definition:

vice

1. an immoral, wicked, or evil habit, action, or trait
2. habitual or frequent indulgence in pernicious, immoral, or degrading practices
3. a specific form of pernicious conduct, esp prostitution or sexual perversion
4. a failing or imperfection in character, conduct, etc: smoking is his only vice.
5. (Pathology) pathol obsolete any physical defect or imperfection
6. a bad trick or disposition, as of horses, dogs, etc
[C13: via Old French from Latin vitium a defect]

Do you accept any elements in this category to be valid?

[Gary Childress]

What's wrong with masturbation? Why is it a vice?

Augistine's message had less to do with some act and more to do with the problem of vice.

We must have a full definition:

vice

1. an immoral, wicked, or evil habit, action, or trait
2. habitual or frequent indulgence in pernicious, immoral, or degrading practices
3. a specific form of pernicious conduct, esp prostitution or sexual perversion
4. a failing or imperfection in character, conduct, etc: smoking is his only vice.
5. (Pathology) pathol obsolete any physical defect or imperfection
6. a bad trick or disposition, as of horses, dogs, etc
[C13: via Old French from Latin vitium a defect]

Do you accept any elements in this category to be valid?

Why is masturbation "immoral"? Why is it "pernicious"? Why is it a "defect"?

[Gary Childress]

also, am I to believe that you have never masturbated, Alexis Jacobi. Be honest.

[FlashDangerpants]

I see no reason why your connection to your *anchor* is threatened by somebody else not connecting to your *anchor* and choosing their own. Surely we all have a preference for liberty?

Nice. Then you are in agreement that men will, in one way or another, define anchors for themselves.

Woo hoo! You have done a wee bit of intellectual work. You should feel proud.

The issue of *liberty*, and definitely in a Platonic or Aristotelean sense, seems to want to come to the surface for examination.

However, you have made (another) moronic statement.

If my anchor, you fool, is grounded in an ethics that defines it as a bad to holocaust Jews

But your anchor is grounded in an ethics that defines it as good to holocaust Jews

And if I declare you to be bad and evil as a result of your *anchor* and I oppose any liberty that you deem actionable, I have a sense that you can kinda see the problem you face.

Boy, this is going to be tough Flash. Take it slow!

Obviously, in some areas you will not be allowed to *choose your own*. And this points to the purpose of education: to train them in ordinate affections.

Which bit of that do you suppose is problematic? After a decade of being a moral skeptic do you suppose I haven't encountered an argument predicated on moral difference before? The only difference between moral realism and moral antirealism lies in whether one of the parties can say with accuracy that the other is demonstrably wrong according to some aspect of the world around us or some property of supernatural entity etc. Other than that it all comes down to persuasion without reliance upon or access to a proof. Given that you are obviously not in posession of a proof, even if I am wrong in the grand scheme of things, this is all distinction without difference in the here and now.

I would suggest that your concept of anchors would be more practical if it endorses certain moral primitives (sharing, kindness and equality etc) than grounding things in complex arrangements such as holocausts, but you do you again. If you want your #anchor# to be attached, embedded, or whatever in a some enourmous mess of a total morality, then that simply makes the metaphor even more unweildy as it renders no two people even able to grasp the same ^anchor^.

[FlashDangerpants]

You may as well explain the acidic thing too while you are at it because I don't know what you mean by it

Let's start at the very very beginning.

Do you know what an acid is?

a molecule or other species which can donate a proton or accept an electron pair in reactions.