tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post3509104323371541810..comments2024-03-18T15:57:33.286-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: How to be a pervertEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger280125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90495991917329721372021-03-19T10:52:16.673-07:002021-03-19T10:52:16.673-07:00Why is breast pumping not analogous to masturbatio...Why is breast pumping not analogous to masturbation? Contra page 407 of your perverted faculty paper, milk production is *not* an end (any more than semen production is an end.) The end is nourishment of the baby. It seems then that breast pumping is a very close analogy to masturbation, yet you find one morally permissible and the other not. I would appreciate very much your comment on this Steve Baughmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10174580917790766005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26541905470811983572019-03-18T12:45:18.285-07:002019-03-18T12:45:18.285-07:00Yes, really. Yes, really. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502635616494970234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36676963604569609752018-04-22T13:47:19.197-07:002018-04-22T13:47:19.197-07:00Isn't the (not just bodily but most importantl...Isn't the (not just bodily but most importantly the spiritual) unity of husband and wife necessarily for the proper use of the sexual faculties? In other words: The unitive aspect of sexuality necessarily contains/implies the procreative aspect.<br /><br />Ch. 8 <a href="https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=6786" rel="nofollow"><i>The Theology of Marriage</i></a> by Msgr. Cormac Burke does a good job presenting showing weaknesses of the "perverted faculty argument" against contraception and presents a much stronger argument based on the inextricable connection between the unitive and procreative aspects.Geremiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11812810552682098086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53737544847847660442018-04-06T22:04:02.657-07:002018-04-06T22:04:02.657-07:00Somebody help me out here: Why can't we just a...Somebody help me out here: Why can't we just apply the three fonts of morality to sexuality? An unnatural sexual act is any type of sexual act that is not unitive and procreative. Examples of unnatural sexual acts include oral sexual acts, anal sexual acts, and manipulative sexual acts (i.e. masturbation of self or of another). All unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral because these acts lack the unitive and procreative meanings, which are required by God for sexual acts to be moral.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07523587788528234219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88917124179691736012017-04-20T14:01:39.307-07:002017-04-20T14:01:39.307-07:00Isn't it part of the Catholic faith that some ...Isn't it part of the Catholic faith that some men must submit to a vow of celibacy in order to become part of the priesthood? <br />I don't think it's medically possible or even healthy for a person to stay without sexual intercouse and without masturbation their entire lives. If this is true, than either there is a problem with the reasoning that masturbation is wrong, or there is a problem with the Catholic doctrine of Clerical celibacy. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-227266716834878512017-03-27T13:52:24.343-07:002017-03-27T13:52:24.343-07:00Don: Curiously that's both a straw man and a n...<i>Don: Curiously that's both a straw man and a non sequitur.</i><br /><br />No, just a bit poetic, but if you missed that, it's the least of our worries.<br /><br /><i>We've both had our say on the XOR thing and I don't see that you've done what you think you've done.</i><br /><br />So you say, but you haven't been able to refute what I've said. In fact, you could easily refute it by answering the XOR question, which was supposed to be easy. And yet you haven't. Not very persuasive if I'm supposedly so wrong.<br /><br /><i>Perversion is a judgment.</i><br /><br />Well, no, *judgments* about perversion are judgments. Which is irrelevant, because in one case we are judging what a physical process DOES and in the other we are judging what a physical process MEANS. Meaning and doing are still different, which is the whole point, one that I have demonstrated over and over again this thread, and which proves your attempt to say one argument contradicts the other is wrong. That's before we even get to how the arguments work, it's clear they are ABOUT two different things. Again, nothing you've said refutes this -- how could it when one argument explicitly talks about the <b>meaning</b> of processes and the other explicitly talks about the <b>biology</b> of processes?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-35224692385016278622017-03-25T12:52:46.257-07:002017-03-25T12:52:46.257-07:00Anonymous,
"... but we certainly do have sub...Anonymous,<br /><br /><i>"... but we certainly do have subjective states and rocks certainly do not. Therefore, we can't be made up just of rocks."</i><br /><br />Curiously that's both a straw man and a <i>non sequitur</i>.<br /><br /><br /><i>"After a bit of going around in circles, you promptly dropped the XOR stuff and started repeating the "trivial" "one disproves the other" stuff that you began with."</i><br /><br />That's a poor interpretation of what has happened here. I'm not going to respond to every thought in a post. I've been down that road and it's a long and winding one. We've both had our say on the XOR thing and I don't see that you've done what you think you've done. Even if you had, it only serves to bolster my case against perversion. Furthermore, I never claimed *every* physical process is determinate (though it probably is). So I don't have to defend every case. Ross, otoh, does claim that in every case a physical process is indeterminate. So I come back to Ross: "Some thinking (judgment) is determinate in a way no physical process can be. Consequently, such thinking cannot be (wholly) a physical process. If all thinking, all judgment, is determinate in that way, no physical process can be (the whole of) any judgment at all. "<br /><br />Perversion is a judgment. It's a looser form of judgment than mathematics, but that's irrelevant. It's a judgment that says, in effect, a physical process has a natural end, and a "good" one at that. Nobody has offered a compelling explanation as to how this judgment can be (wholly) objective if it's only possible by using subjective standards.<br /><br /><br />Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67450206498158586662017-03-24T14:52:17.277-07:002017-03-24T14:52:17.277-07:00Don: By your interpretation this is all Ross means...<i>Don: By your interpretation this is all Ross means: We have a subjective, navel gazing state of mind and a rock does not.</i><br /><br />I don't know what navels have to do with it, but we certainly do have subjective states and rocks certainly do not. Therefore, we can't be made up just of rocks. Ross of course spells this out more formally. Repeatedly calling it trivial doesn't show in any way that his argument is wrong.<br /><br /><i>it might follow that our 'perversion of nature' is merely a form of navel gazing. </i><br /><br />Now you're contradicting yourself again. You originally wanted to claim that there was no difference in basis for Ross's argument and perverted nature arguments, so they both couldn't be true. I proved that they are in fact talking about different things: meaning vs. doing. First you tried to define meaning as doing, which not only wrong according to the everyday definition, but is clearly inapplicable to the definition as used by Feser and Ross. Then you challenged me to show the difference between the two, which I did by showing that you could distinguish digesting from walking, but not one example of XOR from the other example. After a bit of going around in circles, you promptly dropped the XOR stuff and started repeating the "trivial" "one disproves the other" stuff that you began with.<br /><br />But your problem hasn't gone anywhere. If we piece together your own admissions from previous comments, then there is something different going on between meaning and doing, so even if both arguments were wrong, they couldn't be wrong because they contradict each other.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30231912337358728872017-03-24T06:02:52.639-07:002017-03-24T06:02:52.639-07:00Anonymous,
By your interpretation this is all Ros...Anonymous,<br /><br />By your interpretation this is all Ross means: We have a subjective, navel gazing state of mind and a rock does not. Nothing important follows from that. It certainly does not follow that mind is not a physical process. However, depending on how seriously someone takes this triviality, it might follow that our 'perversion of nature' is merely a form of navel gazing.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29130874324741783642017-03-23T12:49:04.373-07:002017-03-23T12:49:04.373-07:00Don: This is *not* what Ross means.
Of course it ...<i>Don: This is *not* what Ross means.</i><br /><br />Of course it is. He doesn't go into that in his paper because he takes it for granted that everyone knows meaning != doing. You might find it clearer if you read some of Feser's posts since he goes into more detail. But that's the starting point, and since you agree that it's trivial, then his conclusion inevitably follows. Glad we got that sorted out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40794672170954794832017-03-22T07:51:11.415-07:002017-03-22T07:51:11.415-07:00Anonymous,
"If you used digestion to mean so...Anonymous,<br /><br /><i>"If you used digestion to mean something, i.e. if you invented a secret code that meant "digestion if by land, walking if by sea", then according to Ross, I would not be able to determine that meaning by studying your anatomy. And he is obviously right: I could tell whether you were walking or digesting, but I could not tell whether you meant by it land or by sea, because that just is not present in your biological processes."</i><br /><br />I wish you had said this earlier. This is *not* what Ross means. If he meant simply that, it's too trivial to cause any commotion. You have misread Ross. So I'll ignore the rest of your post.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56870337898275284892017-03-21T14:10:46.732-07:002017-03-21T14:10:46.732-07:00Don: False. I can easily distinguish the real thin...<i>Don: False. I can easily distinguish the real thing objectively, by how the circuit functions. </i><br /><br />I told you how it functions, but you could not distinguish them. In fact, you are now contradicting your immediately previous claim that BOTH examples "implement" XOR. How can you distinguish them if they are both doing the same thing, according to you? If you really want to look at circuits, I'll give actual code you can run on your computer:<br /><br />#!/usr/bin/python<br />first = input("Enter 0 or 1: ")<br />second = input("Enter 0 or 1: ")<br />if first == 0 and second == 0: print "0"<br />elif first == 0 and second == 1: print "1"<br />elif first == 1 and second == 0: print "1"<br />elif first == 1 and second == 1: print "0"<br />else: print "Invalid values"<br /><br /><br />And here's the other one:<br /><br />#!/usr/bin/python<br />first = input("Enter 0 or 1: ")<br />second = input("Enter 0 or 1: ")<br />if first == 0 and second == 0: print "1"<br />elif first == 0 and second == 1: print "0"<br />elif first == 1 and second == 0: print "0"<br />elif first == 1 and second == 1: print "1"<br />else: print "Invalid values"<br /><br />Is one of those the real XOR? or neither? or both? or multiplication? You tell me.<br /><br /><br /><i>Meaning: 1. what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action. -- Dictionary definitions will be of little help on this.</i><br /><br />If you don't know how to work a dictionary, I think we've found the root of the problem.<br /><br /><i>Then please tell me what you think that is. I can guarantee you that we can plug that definition into my argument and it will result in a contradiction.</i><br /><br />You will need to spell out each step of your argument, because nobody is at all clear what it is actually amounts to. So far you are going around in circles.<br /><br /><i>You permit yourself to look at the physics. That's how you decide, contra Ross. Yet you expect me to find the *action* of XOR on a paper representation. Theses are the "two different things" -- it's your doing, not mine. </i><br /><br />This is extraordinarily confused. It is not in the least contrary to Ross, because his argument is not talking about identifying the physics of walking or digestion. If he were to talk about those things, I can guarantee you he would agree with me. Digesting and waking ARE physical actions, knowing the physical process is all that is needed to distinguish one from the other. Ross's argument is all about MEANING. If you used digestion to mean something, i.e. if you invented a secret code that meant "digestion if by land, walking if by sea", then according to Ross, I would not be able to determine that meaning by studying your anatomy. And he is obviously right: I could tell whether you were walking or digesting, but I could not tell whether you meant by it land or by sea, because that just is not present in your biological processes. I would have to know what the code MEANT some other way. Two different things: the process and the meaning. Ross's argument applies to the latter, not the former. The fact that you are still confusing the two is why you don't understand his argument.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56537684281253967072017-03-20T05:22:47.018-07:002017-03-20T05:22:47.018-07:00Anonymous,
"You keep asking me how the meani...Anonymous,<br /><br /><i>"You keep asking me how the meaning argument can be different from the perversion argument, but it's there in your own words: in one case, we have two things that are both the same (either they are both XOR or neither are, depending on what you do with the subjectivity), and we have two things that are easily distinguished (digesting from walking). You've answered your own question, repeatedly."</i><br /><br />False. I can easily distinguish the real thing objectively, by how the circuit functions. Draw a picture of a stomach on paper and then try to tell me it's digesting. You can't do it. And neither can anyone claim a pictorial representation of XOR is *doing* XOR. The function is its doing, not its symbolic representation. You can't claim I couldn't distinguish XOR when you didn't even produce an instance of it.<br /><br />Meaning: 1. what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action. -- Dictionary definitions will be of little help on this.<br /><br /><br /><i>"If you want to show a problem with Ross's argument, then you have to use his definition, as he's using it in his argument."</i><br /><br />Then please tell me what you think that is. I can guarantee you that we can plug that definition into my argument and it will result in a contradiction.<br /><br /><br /><i>"digestion and walking ARE physical actions, so looking at the physics is all we need."</i><br /><br />-- and there is your contradiction and equivocation. You have just used an example of *action* as I suggested above. You permit yourself to look at the physics. That's how you decide, contra Ross. Yet you expect me to find the *action* of XOR on a paper representation. Theses are the "two different things" -- it's your doing, not mine.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41595635292270121842017-03-19T18:34:16.854-07:002017-03-19T18:34:16.854-07:00Don: You're the one who claimed I should not b...<i>Don: You're the one who claimed I should not be able to identify XOR when I in fact did and can. Both your examples are XOR if they operate that way in a circuit.</i><br /><br />Then you *couldn't* distinguish one from the other, which is my point. Claiming, oh well, they're ALL xor is just as much an inability to tell the two apart. You keep asking me how the meaning argument can be different from the perversion argument, but it's there in your own words: in one case, we have two things that are both the same (either they are both XOR or neither are, depending on what you do with the subjectivity), and we have two things that are easily distinguished (digesting from walking). You've answered your own question, repeatedly.<br /><br /><i> I claim meaning is primarily about what something *does*. It's in the physics.</i><br /><br />Unfotunately it's not in the dictionary. If you want to use a different definition of "meaning" from everyone else's you can't use that definition to "prove" someone else's argument is wrong. If you want to show a problem with Ross's argument, then you have to use his definition, as he's using it in his argument. That's the claim you have to make him stick to -- your own definition of "how" shouldn't come into it.<br /><br /><i>Yes, I am able to tell the difference between digestion and walking just by looking at the physics, as I can tell the difference between XOR and AND just by looking at the physics.</i><br /><br />But you couldn't! You couldn't tell the difference between AND vs multiplication, or between XOR and the non-XOR. Until you decided well, they were "both" AND/multiplication or "both" XOR. Could both examples be *implementations* of XOR? Sure, not that anyone asked about that. But so what? How is that even relevant, unless you are saying that walking could be an "implementation" of digestion? Is that what you are saying?<br /><br /><i>It's you who has the problem. I'm asking what allows you to tell the difference between digestion and walking just by looking at the physics? You keep ignoring that question.</i><br /><br />It's should be pretty obvious from what I've said. You not understanding the answer is not the same as me not answering the question, but in case you actually don't know how to tell digestion and walking apart yourself, it is generally what you would call "how", by looking at the "implementation", because digestion and walking ARE physical actions, so looking at the physics is all we need. Nobody ever said otherwise. The meaning issue, though, is something different, which is why I couldn't pick just one out as XOR either, if you gave me the same info. I am just happy to admit that I couldn't tell whereas you keep insisting that you could even though you can't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78116490040868114602017-03-18T05:19:24.287-07:002017-03-18T05:19:24.287-07:00Anonymous,
"You're saying that his defin...Anonymous,<br /><br /><i>"You're saying that his definition of 'meaning' is irrelevant to his claims about meaning. Which of course is silly."</i><br /><br />That's a straw man. But on the outside chance that Ross says meaning is what is 'blue' and nothing physical can be blue, I'll make him stick to that claim in all circumstances.<br /><br /><br /><i>"You've already shown that what something means (like XOR) is different from what something does (like digestion) because you could identify digestion but you couldn't identify the XOR."</i><br /><br />You're the one who claimed I should not be able to identify XOR when I in fact did and can. Both your examples are XOR if they operate that way in a circuit. I claim meaning is primarily about what something *does*. It's in the physics. I also claim meaning not merely what we call what it does. XOR is not something "on paper." It's a physical thing that actively reacts to inputs.<br /><br /><br /><i>"You are able to tell the difference between digestion and walking just by looking at the physics."</i><br /><br />Yes, I am able to tell the difference between digestion and walking just by looking at the physics, as I can tell the difference between XOR and AND just by looking at the physics. I'm allowed to since I've always claimed the physics can be determinate. It's you who has the problem. I'm asking what allows you to tell the difference between digestion and walking just by looking at the physics? You keep ignoring that question. You're so busy trying to pin me down on a contradiction that you forget it's you who has that contradiction staring you in the face.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2555321834594944672017-03-18T01:22:23.172-07:002017-03-18T01:22:23.172-07:00Don: I said, "A calculator really does add.&q...<i>Don: I said, "A calculator really does add." I did not say, a calculator really is a calculator.</i><br /><br />Since a "calculator" is simply "a thing that does addition" that doesn't sound like much of a difference.<br /><br /><i>I'm saying that whatever Ross sees as meaning, it still follows that if physical processes are always indeterminate</i><br /><br />You're saying that his definition of "meaning" is irrelevant to his claims about meaning. Which of course is silly. If you don't understand his definition, then you don't understand what "indeterminate" refers to, and you don't understand his argument.<br /><br /><i>If you disagree with that, please explain why, using any sense of meaning you wish.</i><br /><br />I'll use the sense which is different "what something does" or "how it does it". You've already shown that what something means (like XOR) is different from what something does (like digestion) because you could identify digestion but you couldn't identify the XOR. All you had to do to prove your point was identify which of my two examples was XOR, but you couldn't. I gave you the whole "how", the complete implementation was written out, but that wasn't enough.<br /><br /><i>That same reasoning applies to digestion. How are you going to avoid the result that digestion is therefore a subjective interpretation of the physics?</i><br /><br />Again, you've already shown it yourself. You are able to tell the difference between digestion and walking just by looking at the physics. You were not able to distinguish XOR from XNOR by looking at the physics. You could determine the "how", the process, but not the meaning. If you were right, then you could pick out the XOR example. Or else, you could say you that you were wrong and really you can't tell the difference between walking and digesting after all. Which is it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-70541638691360110302017-03-17T06:36:58.273-07:002017-03-17T06:36:58.273-07:00Anonymous,
I said, "A calculator really does...Anonymous,<br /><br />I said, "A calculator really does add." I did not say, a calculator really is a calculator. "Is" is much different than "does." It's surely not a bad idea to clarify what we mean by meaning. But recall that this issue came up in response to a question that I thought was nonsense in its original form.<br /><br /><i>"That's still clearly not how Ross or Feser or the dictionary defines it, so my point still stands that they are talking about two different things, and you are not actually addressing the arguments as given because you are applying a non-standard definition of 'meaning'."</i><br /><br />Forget what you think I mean by meaning. I'm saying that whatever Ross sees as meaning, it still follows that if physical processes are always indeterminate (and by this he means that physical processes don't care what they do, they don't *mean* to do what they do, they don't care to correct themselves, etc.) then there is no way we can call digestion determinate. And if it's not determinate, there's no way we can claim what it does is a perversion, because that becomes a claim that perversion exists in indeterminate processes and that's nonsense. If you disagree with that, please explain why, using any sense of meaning you wish.<br /><br /><i>"I can find the implementation, but it isn't XOR until I bring my understanding of specifically what "XOR" means as opposed to all the other things it equally well implements."</i><br /><br />That same reasoning applies to digestion. How are you going to avoid the result that digestion is therefore a subjective interpretation of the physics?<br /><br />Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-19946165622661207692017-03-16T21:47:40.437-07:002017-03-16T21:47:40.437-07:00Billy said"
"To avoid conception occurr...Billy said"<br /><br />"To avoid conception occurring is easy: don't have sex." <br /><br /> I think that most Americans in 1965 (as well as now) did't want to have just two choices: No sex or don't ejaculate in the vagina. And "Griswold" gave them the choice of having sex while greatly reducing the chances of conception, thereby giving them the freedom to decide how to plan their families.<br /><br />"This is effectively like granting the right to acquire artificial means to throw up, and calling it digestive control, saying that it lets people determine when digestion occurs."<br /><br />Physicians use agents called emetics to induce vomiting. I don't think they would equate them to contraceptives.<br />RMJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32357113631705956302017-03-16T19:53:14.773-07:002017-03-16T19:53:14.773-07:00Don: I don't define meaning as "is"....<i>Don: I don't define meaning as "is". I don't see how you got that out of what I've said.</i><br /><br />WhenI asked, this is what you came up with: <i>There are inherent meanings in physical processes. A calculator really does add. A stomach really does digest</i> and <i>"What does your digestive act mean?" Now at least it looks like more than nonsense. It means to digest.</i> And when I clarified by stating: 'But apparently your definition of "meaning" = "is",' you didn't deny it or provide any corrections. Saying that the meaning of an act of digestion is just digesting is hard to interpret any other way other than saying the meaning of something is just what it is, but you're welcome to provide a better definition.<br /><br /><i>I could understand it if you claimed I defined meaning as "how", as in, how is XOR implemented?</i><br /><br />OK, so in Don-speak, "meaning" = "how". That's still clearly not how Ross or Feser or the dictionary defines it, so my point still stands that they are talking about two different things, and you are not actually addressing the arguments as given because you are applying a non-standard definition of "meaning".<br /><br /><i>If you admit you can't find an objective "XOR" in a circuit that clearly implements it, I don't see how you can let someone claim there is an objective "right" use in biology.</i><br /><br />I can find the implementation, but it isn't XOR until I bring my understanding of specifically what "XOR" means as opposed to all the other things it equally well implements. Or, at most, it qualifies as XOR *and* all the other possible things it implements at once. There's no way to single out the XOR without bringing some subjective element into it. Otherwise it really would have been easy for you to pick out the "real" XOR out of my two examples.<br /><br /><i>It makes it too easy to dismiss the "natural law" position and I'm not so sure I like that idea.</i><br /><br />All right, you disagree with Feser about the indeterminacy thing, but therefore you agree about the perversion issue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51919841096006651032017-03-16T14:18:59.263-07:002017-03-16T14:18:59.263-07:00@ Tony,
By mistake I posted my answer to your lat...@ Tony,<br /><br />By mistake I posted my answer to your latest comments in the next discussion thread <a href="https://edwardfeser.blogspot.gr/2017/03/supervenience-on-hands-of-angry-god.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34484807559539624762017-03-16T08:20:18.575-07:002017-03-16T08:20:18.575-07:00"The right to birth control granted by the &q..."The right to birth control granted by the "Griswold" case let couples (not the state) determine when they wanted conception to occur."<br /><br />Clearly not true. Even without birth control, couples already could determine when they want conception to occur. To avoid conception occurring is easy: don't have sex, or just don't ejaculate in to the vagina. The state was not forcing couples for have sex, so conception was already in the hands of the couples. <br /><br />The Griswold case gave the right to <i>acquire</i> artificial birth control. And birth control is rather twisted wording, because you are not controlling any birth. This is effectively like granting the right to acquire artificial means to throw up, and calling it digestive control, saying that it lets people determine when digestion occurs. Billynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-45573426717140789372017-03-16T01:07:59.041-07:002017-03-16T01:07:59.041-07:00Doubter,
This began as my reply to what jmhenry s...Doubter,<br /><br />This began as my reply to what jmhenry said about "Humanae Vitae" and birth control that it "(4) give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the intimate responsibilities of husband and wife." and my reply that the right to birth control granted by the "Griswold" case let couples (not the state) determine when they wanted conception to occur. That case and the others I cited forbade the state from criminalizing oral and anal sex between adult consenting couples. If my statement that "the state cannot tell consenting adults how they should engage in sexual activity" was overly broad, it remains a correct statement for couples of legal age in a non-consanguineous relationship.<br /><br />"What the US allows at a point in time does not determine moral reality."<br /><br />The state cannot in a metaphysical sense determine moral reality, but it can enforce laws that regulate our moral choices.<br /><br /><br /><br />RMJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72204992552108767342017-03-15T18:55:32.813-07:002017-03-15T18:55:32.813-07:00What I meant by "intervention" is that t...<i>What I meant by "intervention" is that the state cannot tell consenting adults how they should engage in sexual activity.</i> <br /><br />And yet there are state laws against incest among adults. <br /><br />https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8316983252570269955<br /><br />I get that you don't think there SHOULD be state laws intervening in adult sexual behavior. Your wishes, though, don't make reality. <br /><br />Nor does the Supreme Court's wishes. They can knock down laws all they want, the result is not gay marriage, it is and will be ever only gay "marriage", a thing called marriage by some but not actually marriage. <br /><br /><i>As for your third example, when I said "couple," I meant an adult couple, not minors, because the state can and does prohibit certain activities for minors(not all of which are sexual)that it does not prohibit for adults.</i><br /><br />In one state the legal age is 16, in another it is 17. Since it is impossible to argue that the ontological condition (not legal condition) of the 16 year old is that of "capacity to consent" in one state and "without capacity to consent" when she crosses over to the other state, then the correct way to describe this is that the second state is intervening in the affairs of a woman <b>actually</b> capable of consenting and telling her she may not have sex with her 18-year old adult boyfriend. <br /><br />But it really doesn't matter: "consent" is all a mirage and hogwash anyway. There are plenty of post-modernists who despise the theory that sex is only OK among consenting adults. It all depends on your point of view, and if there is no normative point of view, you have no right to privilege the quasi-Kantian / Rawlsian point of view over Neitzsche's. At the moment the American states are intervening in ways and not others, and in a few decades it will turn and they will intervene in new ways and not some of the ways they do now. What the US allows at a point in time does not determine moral reality. doubternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79781478254190271172017-03-14T22:17:19.849-07:002017-03-14T22:17:19.849-07:00Doubter said,
"You're smoking something ...Doubter said,<br /><br />"You're smoking something if you imagine that "the state can no longer intervene". All the court did was take away ONE way for the state to intervene."<br /><br />Your first two examples are the consequences of sexual behavior, for which the state can seek sanctions. There are also other sanctions. In some states, if a spouse can prove the other spouse committed adultery, they may be entitled to more alimony in a divorce or are less likely to be awarded custody of children. As for your third example, when I said "couple," I meant an adult couple, not minors, because the state can and does prohibit certain activities for minors(not all of which are sexual)that it does not prohibit for adults.<br /><br />What I meant by "intervention" is that the state cannot tell consenting adults how they should engage in sexual activity. In "Eisenstadt v. Baird" (1972), the Court expanded sexual privacy rights to unmarried persons. In "Lawrence v. Texas" (2005), the Court struck down sodomy laws in all 13 states, some of which applied to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples.<br /><br />"If the feminazis get their way" Huh? You have been drinking Rush Limbaugh's Kool Aid.<br />RMJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27790270542182936402017-03-14T20:22:32.564-07:002017-03-14T20:22:32.564-07:00Anonymous,
I don't define meaning as "is...Anonymous,<br /><br />I don't define meaning as "is". I don't see how you got that out of what I've said. So your accusation fails. I could understand it if you claimed I defined meaning as "how", as in, how is XOR implemented? how does it work (function)? how do I recognize it if it's there? At least this would kind of match with what I've said. You continue to side-step the issue, though. If you admit you can't find an objective "XOR" in a circuit that clearly implements it, I don't see how you can let someone claim there is an objective "right" use in biology. If you say the XOR I see is my subjective interpretation, I'm justified in saying your "functions in biology" are also a subjective interpretation. Please tell me what difference you see in the two cases because I see none. It makes it too easy to dismiss the "natural law" position and I'm not so sure I like that idea.<br /><br />Btw, I dispute your assertion that others aren't talking about "is" whereas I am. It's that old is/ought thing that in this case is not a dichotomy. What "is" the case in biology (at least what is interpreted as the case) must be a continuing, sanctified "is". I'm suggesting that according to the "indeterminacy of the physical," there is no appropriate "is" there. So I'm not talking about "is". I'm talking about isn't. I claim it follows from Ross that perversion is the finding of moral meaning in the isn't.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.com