Are our attitudes toward pedos actually endangering our children?

[AutumnParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Autumn wrote:

Why?

You talk as if there was the Torah, then the Bible, then nothing happened or changed until the 20th century. I’m saying that during the intervening time, religion went overboard culturally in oppressing “deviants”.

I don’t. My initial comment in this tangent was clear. You’re now on a tangent off that tangent, which is fine, but I’m not accountable for that. Also, as one of the ‘deviants’ I’ve spent enough of my life unpacking present day homophobia/ transphobia.

I agree with your earlier statement that misogyny is a significant factor in present-day homophobia. Perceivedly ‘effeminate’ behaviour in men is maligned, and women’s sexuality is shuffled off into the margins as a possible holdover from women being treated as chattel throughout parts of our history.

Then there’s the generic xenophobia. If you’re a minister tending to your flock, you can give a big ol’ pat on the back for not succumbing to a temptation most of them never had in the first place. And if a member of the flock can’t or won’t abstain, you can rally the congregation in a game of shun the perverted outsider. (If you look at homophobic and transphobic propaganda, you’ll often find language that marks queer folx as foreigners i.e. “Why can’t they be gay over there; why do they have to come here and do it?”). Of course the ‘common enemy’ and ‘wedge issue’ tropes aren’t limited to religion. Militaries, for instance, have long tried to foster a sense of unrealistic uniformity that precluded women and gay people amongst others.

Then you have your internalized queerphobia. Look at some of the most prominent “ex-gay” conversion therapists/ ministers and you’ll probably find a higher percentage of queer people than you would in the general population.

And again, the population thing still plays its hand. As late as the twentieth century, having the most people mattered whether it was nations or work forces or religions or consumers. White supremacists also voice similar concerns that the ‘gay agenda’ is an attempt to stop white people from breeding. The Catholic Church, in particular, is still so damn hung up on sex for reproduction. Of course some have moved on to realize that keeping 2SLGBTQ+ butts in the pews or the shopping aisles is good for business, and as I’ve mention, many queer people these day prioritize having children of their own or fostering/ adopting, but the baby-making thing is still a holdover issue. I think it was one of the barriers for many parents who lamented the fact that their progeny might ‘choose’ not continue the family line in an era when most people believed it was a choice.

And speaking of parents, one of the more relatable yet ironic forms of homophobia was the fear that their children would suffer homophobia if they were openly gay. It’s not entirely irrational, and it doesn’t always result in homophobic behaviour, yet it’s quite self-defeating when it does.

[UnseenParticipant]

Davis wrote:

Unseen, how can someone make a decision if they cannot have done otherwise?

And yet, that is how decisions happen. They either have necessary and sufficient causes or they are quantum-like uncaused miracles in defiance of the laws that make everything else happen. To be “free” is to make choices without constraints at the shallow level, but there’s no escaping the mechanism down at the deep level where what ultimately happens is actually determined.

So my answer to your question is that we can make decisions because of the language we use when talking about them at the shallow level.

• This reply was modified 4 months ago by  Unseen.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Autumn wrote:

I agree with your earlier statement that misogyny is a significant factor in present-day homophobia. Perceivedly ‘effeminate’ behaviour in men is maligned, and women’s sexuality is shuffled off into the margins as a possible holdover from women being treated as chattel throughout parts of our history.

It just strikes me that any sexual “immorality” is a deviation from the male-female family-making pair-bond, and this overlaps with patriarchy (controlling women) and with the morality of parenting.

[DavisModerator]

So my answer to your question is that we can make decisions because of the language we use when talking about them at the shallow level.

So you’ve introduced a magical shallow level where this all magically makes sense. Bravo unseen, you’ve attempted to answer my question by giving me a post-modernesque non-answer. Groan.

• This reply was modified 4 months ago by  Davis.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Davis,

(see Enco…see how easy it is to concede a point and admit you misconstrued someone else’s argument)!

So what have I misconstrued?

[AutumnParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Autumn wrote:

I agree with your earlier statement that misogyny is a significant factor in present-day homophobia. Perceivedly ‘effeminate’ behaviour in men is maligned, and women’s sexuality is shuffled off into the margins as a possible holdover from women being treated as chattel throughout parts of our history.

It just strikes me that any sexual “immorality” is a deviation from the male-female family-making pair-bond, and this overlaps with patriarchy (controlling women) and with the morality of parenting.

Sex between men is quite compatible with patriarchy as we’ve seen in certain periods of ancient Roman history as one prominent example. Homophobia is also pretty compatible with patriarchy as well, as we’ve seen throughout history, but it doesn’t offer up much explanation of why the Abrahamic faiths became such hardliners on the issue in itself.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Autumn wrote:

it doesn’t offer up much explanation of why the Abrahamic faiths became such hardliners on the issue in itself.

There must be some reasons why the Abrahamic faiths condemn homosexuality so heavily, when it is alive and well “in the wild”.  For example, chimpanzees and bonobos often engage in same-sex activity.

I think it’s a combination of these things: 1) it is seen as a violation of the male-female pair bond; 2) men are not supposed to act like women (patriarchy).

It’s not surprising that the male-female pair-bond is made sacred, since it leads to reproduction, and reproduction is the fundamental genetic purpose in life.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Immanuel Kant apparently said that masturbation is wrong but he didn’t know why.  Probably because it’s sexual behaviour outside of the male-female pair bond.

Masturbation is in some ways a worse vice than the horror of murdering oneself, and “debases [the masturbator] below the beasts”. Kant writes:

But it is not so easy to produce a rational proof that unnatural, and even merely unpurposive, use of one’s sexual attribute is inadmissible as being a violation of duty to oneself (and indeed, as far as its unnatural use is concerned, a violation in the highest degree). The ground of proof is, indeed, that by it a man surrenders his personality (throwing it away), since he uses himself as a means to satisfy an animal impulse. But this does not explain the high degree of violation of the humanity in one’s own person by such a vice in its unnaturalness, which seems in terms of its form (the disposition it involves) to exceed even murdering oneself. It consists, then, in this: That a man who defiantly casts off life as a burden is at least not making a feeble surrender to animal impulse in throwing himself away

[_Robert_Participant]

Immanuel Kant also said:

“this fellow was quite black from head to foot, a clear proof that what he said was stupid.”

He was a defender of jeebus and religion, so I never really expect much worthwhile insight from philosophers selected by a xtian society to be the great ones. I get more from the ancient Greeks who often trashed their cities’ gods out the side of their mouths.

[UnseenParticipant]

Davis wrote:

So my answer to your question is that we can make decisions because of the language we use when talking about them at the shallow level.

So you’ve introduced a magical shallow level where this all magically makes sense. Bravo unseen, you’ve attempted to answer my question by giving me a post-modernesque non-answer. Groan.

There’s nothing “magical” about positing the everyday world where we all make decisions all day but due to processes going on we know must be there but are unaware of and also unable to control.

The “magic” is thinking there’s some way around it.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Simon,

Immanuel Kant apparently said that masturbation is wrong but he didn’t know why. Probably because it’s sexual behaviour outside of the male-female pair bond.

The old fart just wasn’t doing it right. 🤓😁

How could it possibly be “beastly” if it is accompanied by fanciful conceptual thoughts about other rational beings? And while orgasm is called le petit mort by the French, barring something like Autoerotic Asphyxiation, masturbation doesn’t even begin to approach “murdering oneself,” as he called suicide.

Hey, masturbation is treating yourself as an end-in-yourself…and a very happy ending “end” at that! 😊

• This reply was modified 4 months ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Closing a tag

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Robert,

Immanuel Kant also said:

“this fellow was quite black from head to foot, a clear proof that what he said was stupid.”

He was a defender of jeebus and religion, so I never really expect much worthwhile insight from philosophers selected by a xtian society to be the great ones. I get more from the ancient Greeks who often trashed their cities’ gods out the side of their mouths.

Kant really was full of cant! 🤡

[_Robert_Participant]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

Robert,

Immanuel Kant also said: “this fellow was quite black from head to foot, a clear proof that what he said was stupid.” He was a defender of jeebus and religion, so I never really expect much worthwhile insight from philosophers selected by a xtian society to be the great ones. I get more from the ancient Greeks who often trashed their cities’ gods out the side of their mouths.

Kant really was full of cant! 🤡

Yeah, the guy was even named after jeebus. He was probably wanking one out while writing that, thinking about his cousin. Christians are basically full of shit

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Davis,

Unseen, how can someone make a decision if they cannot have done otherwise? That is like saying a computer makes a decision when in reality it is following a code it cannot but follow. It is not even that different to saying a rock makes a decision in which way it rolls down a hill. That the human phenomena is vastly more complex is irrelevant, if the human could not have done any differently, which is not meaningfully any different than the rock. Morality is meaningless in a world without free will. In such, blaming anyone for anything is absurd.

A wise observation. As I had pointed out to Unseen earlier, to deny Volition and yet to speak of moral responsibility is contradictory. “One these things is not like the other…”

• This reply was modified 4 months ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Closing a tag

[UnseenParticipant]

jakelafort wrote:

I agree with you at least as to those who are convinced of strict determinism. I’ve indicated already that position is incompatible with moral responsibility.

Your argument seems to be that determinism can’t be true because were it so, there would be no moral responsibility.

It just now occurred to me that that’s a variation on a commonly-offered argument for God the argument from morality. “God must exist because if He didn’t, then people would have no reason to be moral.” (That’s just one of several variations on it.)

So, not only do you think that a deterministic world is a world without a moral dimension, but you must also follow your logic to believe in God.

• This reply was modified 4 months ago by  Unseen.
• This reply was modified 4 months ago by  Unseen.

[Author]

Posts