24 Jan 18
Originally posted by @fmfI don't believe in thawab or ithim (in Islam), but that doesn't matter. I don't believe in karma, but that doesn't matter. I don't believe in secularism, but that doesn't matter.
The notion of "sin" is meaningless to people who do not believe in supernatural causality and divine intervention. A non-superstitious moral argument can easily be made against "murder, theft, etc." and thus established as being morally unsound by common consensus. But what non-superstitious moral argument can be made for "having sex before marriage" being deemed to be morally unsound?
Point being: I will respect and follow laws and cultural norms in Islamic, Buddhist, and secular societies without complaining because even if I am a Christian in Iran, Burma, or China, I should respect the majority culture's view and live to be a positive member of that society.
The Iranians and Burmese do not have to justify their laws to non-Muslims or non-Buddhists. The Chinese do not have to justify their laws to non-Communists.
We're all smart and we can understand the very simple idea behind fornication being a social negative. Even though the bulk of the time you can simply use protection and have nothing occur, it isn't exactly rocket science to know that social conservatives have very good reasons to want to safeguard cultural norms from degredation.
Society isn't ruled by trying to convince nihilists to fully adopt the local culture.
Society is ruled by the local culture.
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleI'd say you have dodged the question. And if you think this is a valid answer ... "Social conservatives have very good reasons to want to safeguard cultural norms from degradation [through "fornication"]" ... then I don't think you have answered what I asked you.
I don't believe in thawab or ithim (in Islam), but that doesn't matter. I don't believe in karma, but that doesn't matter. I don't believe in secularism, but that doesn't matter.
Point being: I will respect and follow laws and cultural norms in Islamic, Buddhist, and secular societies without complaining because even if I am a Christian in Iran, ...[text shortened]... convince nihilists to fully adopt the local culture.
Society is ruled by the local culture.
what non-superstitious moral argument can be made for "having sex before marriage" being deemed to be morally unsound?
Was your attempted answer really "It's not rocket science", like it appears to be?
24 Jan 18
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleWhat does you saying "Muh Rights" - instead of just the words right or civil rights - mean? With the contrived affectation - capital M, capital R, and the quotation marks - what are you seeking to achieve, specifically? Is it a code with which you are signalling to likeminded people? Is it a signal of your respect for the people you imagine are saying 'muh'? Or a kind of woolly condescension?
I just think it is proper grammar. These things are references to what amount to proper nouns. It also helps to emphasize them and indicate that I am aware of the cluster of ideas around them.
24 Jan 18
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleYou favour government control of the mass media then?
Signal against it on TV broadcasts; have a code where all popular entertainment never promotes any line of thought where this is acceptable or normal, and generally makes story lines that are designed to dissaude from the practice, and encourage crafting messages that promote virtuous and prosocial behavior. Basically: just run the airwaves with a traditionalist message instead of an active libertine message.
24 Jan 18
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleI'm sorry, but what are you going on about?
But if you think that it is OK that these places curtail nationalist speech, then, you would also be OK with blasphemy laws, right? I mean you can say other things and are pretty free, but you just can't blaspheme against God.
24 Jan 18
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleI'm fine with it if you "do not believe in multiculturalism". What do you mean by "ideological blasphemy laws"? You've read what I said and you think I believe in some kind of notion of 'blasphemy'? Please explain.
Plenty of people obviously do not believe in multiculturalism but they have to put up with the ideological blasphemy laws and you still call it a free country.
Can a country be free if it prohibits blaspheming God, or prohibits the promotion of the "gay agenda"?
It wouldn't be free enough to my way of thinking if you were prohibited from speaking out against such restrictions and mobilizing opposition to them.
You want me to outline reasons why sexual chastity is objectively good? There's a lot.
Some of them are rooted in objective social science -- such as women are happier in their marriages who never slept around:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2733220/Women-don-t-sleep-wedding-happier-marriages-men-play-field-without-worry-study-finds.html
... and marriages are quite necessary as children in two parent homes are far better off:
https://fee.org/articles/fatherless-families-are-far-too-common/
Indeed, it seems that fornication is linked to depression in teens:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2733220/Women-don-t-sleep-wedding-happier-marriages-men-play-field-without-worry-study-finds.html
Of course, sexual mores change, and it is entirely possible for someone to not feel bad about these things.
But there are other just great arguments to:
- STDs are bad.
- Unwanted pregnancies are bad.
- Overindulgence, in anything, is generally bad. Of course, this does not mean that monogamous unmarried 20-somethings are overindulging. It merely suggests that any kind of imbalanced sexual behavior is a negative and this is perhaps more likely to correlate with casual promiscuity.
Overindulgence would result in addiction to certain practices or awakening of stronger desires. Someone who begins drinking too much, for instance, develops a drinking problem, and likewise, over-engagement in any behavior might be seen of some unhealthy addiction.
- People value the virginity of inexperience of others when choosing mates; people lose social capital through engaging in this.
Even in highly secular and areligious societies, like Korea (where I live), you will find godless and areligious peoples that are very conservative about sexual mores.
I see the point that someone who doesn't believe in marriage engaging in sex with their longterm relationship can hardly be said to being indulgent or anything, but you get the point.
24 Jan 18
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleWikipedia writes it as "social justice warrior" but you say you are using 'proper grammar' when you capitalize each word? It seems that it is a pejorative term for an individual who promotes change the user of the word doesn't like. So, "the cluster of ideas" you are seeking to communicate is first and foremost that you feel the need to use a pejorative word to refer to your dissenters and you also feel the need to emphasise its derogatory sense and impact by capitalizing the three words, is that right?
I just think it is proper grammar. These things are references to what amount to proper nouns. It also helps to emphasize them and indicate that I am aware of the cluster of ideas around them.
24 Jan 18
Originally posted by @fmfIt's actually just a reference to cluster of Libertarian/Classical liberal ideas. Of course, it is a bit pejorative.
What does you saying "Muh Rights" - instead of just the words right or civil rights - mean? With the contrived affectation - capital M, capital R, and the quotation marks - what are you seeking to achieve, specifically? Is it a code with which you are signalling to likeminded people? Is it a signal of your respect for the people you imagine are saying 'muh'? Or a kind of woolly condescension?
But it also helps me dog signal to likeminded people.
24 Jan 18
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleI think everyone should be free to have sex before marriage if they choose to. I have no objection to people having access to information about the risks they might face. The Daily Mail only reaches a relatively small number of people. Would you use your takeover of the TV/media to promote the Daily Mail's line on premarital sex?
You want me to outline reasons why sexual chastity is objectively good? There's a lot.
Some of them are rooted in objective social science -- such as women are happier in their marriages who never slept around:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2733220/Women-don-t-sleep-wedding-happier-marriages-men-play-field-without-worry-study-finds.ht ...[text shortened]... longterm relationship can hardly be said to being indulgent or anything, but you get the point.
24 Jan 18
Originally posted by @fmfYes.
You favour government control of the mass media then?
Which is already what happens by default.
Public opinion and political elections are basically determined by the media. The media acts as gatekeepers and tries to frame arguments and policies in very specific ways to serve their own vision or interest.
What, you thinkt he mass media and government do not have a connection? Literally, every Presidential election billions of dollars of advertisements are bought which prop up the media...
Do you really believe that the 'Fourth Estate' is some objective, rational force that only pursues the welfare of the people, and doesn't have any ulterior motives or an ideological ax they're grinding?
The thought alone is making me blush.
24 Jan 18
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleIf it's pejorative, why did you use it when talking to me and in reference to my views?
It's actually just a reference to cluster of Libertarian/Classical liberal ideas. Of course, it is a bit pejorative.
But it also helps me dog signal to likeminded people.
24 Jan 18
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleAre you a fan of Alex Jones?
Yes.
Which is already what happens by default.
Public opinion and political elections are basically determined by the media. The media acts as gatekeepers and tries to frame arguments and policies in very specific ways to serve their own vision or interest.
What, you thinkt he mass media and government do not have a connection? Literally, ...[text shortened]... lterior motives or an ideological ax they're grinding?
The thought alone is making me blush.
24 Jan 18
Originally posted by @fmfRight, so germany can arrest an 80 year old woman because she denies the Holocaust, and Sweden can arrest a racist blogger, and through default positions of mass ostracism and legal fines and sanctions, as well as loss of employment, etc... society can pressure everyone to live in fear of saying something wrong about race...
I'm fine with it if you "do not believe in multiculturalism". What do you mean by "ideological blasphemy laws"? You've read what I said and you think I believe in some kind of notion of 'blasphemy'? Please explain.
[b]Can a country be free if it prohibits blaspheming God, or prohibits the promotion of the "gay agenda"?
It wouldn't be free enough to my ...[text shortened]... u were prohibited from speaking out against such restrictions and mobilizing opposition to them.[/b]
No problem.
I assure you, we don't need to proceed.
I'd never do anything that extreme.
And you are OK with those 'free' nations. We're good here.