tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post4390797988766477512..comments2024-03-28T13:39:03.094-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: The sexual revolution devours its childrenEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73939039261237466142019-03-14T06:15:20.694-07:002019-03-14T06:15:20.694-07:00The natural law theory does not say that each part...The natural law theory does not say that each part of the body has only one function. And Dr. Feser's <i><a href="https://es.scribd.com/document/357177346/Feser-Perverted-Faculty-Argument" rel="nofollow">In Defense of the Perverted Faculty Argument</a></i> acknowledges exactly that. The paper also goes to length to observe that there is nothing wrong <i>per se</i> in using a faculty for some purpose other than its natural ends, or even refraining from using said faculty altogether; the problem is using it in a way which actively frustrates these ends.<br />You try to get around this by suggesting that homosexuality could be consistent with at least some of these ends. Even if this is so,* you need more than that. You implicitly assume that the different functions are on a par and independent. In reality, we know that all of the other functions are finally subordinated to reproduction. This is why sex exists in the first place, and those other hypothetical functions would either serve no purpose, or would be coopted into other systems, if we did not reproduce sexually.<br /><br />* Your hypothetical fails.<br />1. Sodomy doesn't promote well-being (a strike against 'stress relief'):<br />https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/11/44732/<br />http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/physical-health/<br />2. Sex is pleasurable to encourage us to reproduce, and binds couples together so they will cooperate to raise their children.Parádoxohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05501803561895808925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71438922637921837342019-03-07T11:18:59.870-08:002019-03-07T11:18:59.870-08:00A mouth has many uses, more than we think given th...A mouth has many uses, more than we think given the anthropological designation of the mouth as the "third hand". It can be used to effect to kiss, to signal, to speak, to eat, to drink, to sing. Like a hand, there is an unknown but vast number of uses a mouth can be put to. So how can the mouth be said to have any particular function under natural law? How can any function it might have be ruled out by said law?<br /><br />If a land animal, which possesses legs with the natural function of walking, goes swimming, those legs will naturally be repurposed into attempting to swim. Given enough amphibian evolution and the legs may become adapted solely for swimming and become useless for walking. But in the in-between state, how can the natural use of legs be said to be exclusively walking or swimming?<br /><br />So with sexuality. Sex has one purpose (reproduction) but it also has another (binding couples), and another (pleasure for pleasure's sake), and another (stress relief), and perhaps others yet to be defined. How do we know that homosexuality, for instance, is not merely an example of evolution whereby sexuality is in an "in-between" state like that of a half-leg, half-fin? How can we be scientifically certain of this, such to admit the social suppression and theological damnation of homosexuals?Cpl Ferrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07613747721697703908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62620025159477180922019-01-04T19:55:40.660-08:002019-01-04T19:55:40.660-08:00Yes, the "Daughters of Lust." But that i...Yes, the "Daughters of Lust." But that is no problem for a Catholic. Simply go to confession and you will automatically receive absolution. Yes, one can resolve to sin no more, but if one does well, one can always go to confession again. And again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60957771577607129702019-01-04T17:53:52.032-08:002019-01-04T17:53:52.032-08:00It's like Marx's materialistic dialectic: ...It's like Marx's materialistic dialectic: he taught that all social norms are a product of the capitalist system. But he was too poorly trained in logic to follow this to its conclusion: it meant that leftist radicalism and Communism per necessity were products of capitalism and hence perpetuated the status quo, which he pretended he was revolting against. Hundreds of millions died pointlessly from a simple application of logic to one man's ideas.Timocrateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09193160283946135425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32310617940058039982019-01-04T04:57:08.291-08:002019-01-04T04:57:08.291-08:00Hi Stephen
Mined semiconductor materials are part...Hi Stephen<br /><br />Mined semiconductor materials are part of the rocks, so a.i. may end up being the equivalent.<br /><br />In fact, artifactual agents freak out the elites precisely because they're not going to put up with all the glib self-referential contradictoriness. That's why from year to year billionaires like Gates show themselves to be so love-me/love-me-not conflicted about a.i.<br /><br />But blockchain is the clincher for the new neo-Luddite paranoiac elites. The a.i.-powered war is coming, and the determinists/reductionists sense it. Let the heart attacks begin.<br />machinephilosophyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07715878687266064548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73592220103189523792019-01-04T04:46:55.352-08:002019-01-04T04:46:55.352-08:00Hey Charles
You should be fine just quoting Ed...Hey Charles<br /><br />You should be fine just quoting Ed's post in part or in full, and then either encapsulating the URL for it within something like "In a recent post . . ." at the top, or else just putting the link itself at the bottom, saying something like, "See the original post at: . . ." with the URL either pasted in or else embedded in the reference as mentioned above.<br />machinephilosophyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07715878687266064548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41324085944524403822019-01-03T15:16:26.095-08:002019-01-03T15:16:26.095-08:00There are people with transgender tendencies who r...<i>There are people with transgender tendencies who rejoice that they were born in the wrong body with regard to sex, because it helps them understand and pray for others, and hence to bring others to Heaven. They may not be all that visible, but such people - many of whom are intensely loved by someone of the opposite sex - are not necessarily "deformed" in any way.</i> <br /><br />Whether or not they can produce some good out of their deformity, it is still a deformity to have one sex and perceive yourself to belong to the other sex. When they come to the resurrection of the body in eternal life, they will no longer have that mis-perception, their body and their perception will be unified, whole. THAT is the properly formed state. <br /><br />They may well rejoice that God has given them a burden to suffer so that they can assist in the salvation of others: to do so, though, is to ACCEPT that their condition is a burden because it is a deformity. That God has willed to allow that deformity for a time (until the resurrection) does not alter its condition as a deformity; God <i>permits</i> evils of the natural order in order to bring goods out of them. <br /><br />But yes, I agree that there can be people who accept their trans state as a condition in which they can work for the salvation of others. What they cannot do (well, properly) is to voice a thesis that God wants them to have that condition because it is <i>per se</i> a good state. It is only a "good" insofar as it can be used for some other good, which is not per se but per accidens. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30081865258423181952019-01-02T18:56:16.451-08:002019-01-02T18:56:16.451-08:00When someone tells me that x is a social construct...When someone tells me that x is a social construct, I point out that 'social construct' is a social construct. So how does one know there's reality behind the concept? The answer from the extreme left seems to be that everything is a social construct. One can't get much more irrational or political than that.<br /><br />But even in fantasy-land there's a problem. Only groups can define social constructs. If “identificationism” is allowed to rule, then 'social' is deleted. Cultures no longer construct. Brutes construct. And we're back to square one.<br /><br /><br />Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74257057740289392812019-01-02T09:23:10.912-08:002019-01-02T09:23:10.912-08:00I agree with Ben Shapiro, all of this, mental illn...I agree with Ben Shapiro, all of this, mental illness.Vicarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00720410937025922370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-24663375111492999212019-01-02T07:23:14.330-08:002019-01-02T07:23:14.330-08:00Since most people in today's society do not fo...Since most people in today's society do not follow a natural law approach to ethics, it would be difficult to persuade them that transgenderism is a problem. Since Utilitarianism is the most popular ethical theory in current society, I wonder if it might be possible to show the immorality in purely utilitarian terms. If good means the maximum happiness for the maximum number of people, then being transgendered could be very bad. Transgendered people have one of the highest suicide rates of any group. Obviously there is great unhappiness within the transgender community. Jonathan Lewishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16544588222060966241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62256589636236569822019-01-02T07:04:59.171-08:002019-01-02T07:04:59.171-08:00Ed, what are your requirements for someone to repo...Ed, what are your requirements for someone to repost your work within their own? Do you even permit it? Curious. I wanted to repost this in my own blog. Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01780274978328678260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88581143287624909392019-01-01T13:26:17.030-08:002019-01-01T13:26:17.030-08:00@
Matjaž Horvat
Pictures only though? Otherwise ...@ <br />Matjaž Horvat<br /><br />Pictures only though? Otherwise it must be so uncomfortable for you in work, serious abnormality man.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85970446603148976562019-01-01T13:22:03.705-08:002019-01-01T13:22:03.705-08:00I'll have to keep my eyes open for that one......I'll have to keep my eyes open for that one...<br />If whoever wrote that wasn't another Anonymouse, then maybe I'll start following him for a few kicks.Parádoxohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05501803561895808925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-81897112799800868352018-12-31T07:03:02.150-08:002018-12-31T07:03:02.150-08:00Tony
Yes, those restrictions are big, and I don&#...Tony<br /><br />Yes, those restrictions are big, and I don't think the government should interfere in everything. <br />I have no problem with subsidiarity as a principle, but the govenment has a duty to interfere when subsidiarity doesn't work. And there are lots of cases in which it doesn't work, so I think community-intervention is required as well as possible in many cases.<br /><br />As far as giving support to A's view that B's view is intrinsically immoral, that depends on how strong A's case is. If there are good reasons to think A is right, then the state should support A. In other cases it depends on how important B is. Is it important enough to outweigh A? <br />Those decisions are not easy, of course, but i think with a minimum of good will on both sides, lots can be accomplished. <br />Walter Van den Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16101735542155226072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4828617246506438072018-12-30T22:49:24.606-08:002018-12-30T22:49:24.606-08:00And a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you, a...And a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you, also!<br /><br />I suppose "Merry Christmas" is "belated" if one is only counting <i>Christmas Day</i>. But I'm going to take your greeting as referencing <i>Christmastide</i> (a.k.a. "the twelve days of Christmas). Which makes it perfectly timely!R.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03679435933685771007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-39147405581460666882018-12-30T19:29:30.799-08:002018-12-30T19:29:30.799-08:00The community has and should have more responsibil...<i>The community has and should have more responsibily than providing only limited positive liberties. It should provide all liberties with two restrictions. It must be practically possible and it shouldn't be at the expense of other people's liberties.</i> <br /><br />In reality, those two restrictions are ENORMOUS, and properly laid out would generally end up restricting most possible state intervention. Subsidiarity is a positive human good, and it implies and requires state non-intervention in most things. And further, if one tries to work out a <i>stable, long-term</i> picture of what is "possible" given human nature, human foibles, human weakness, etc, subsidiarity and the community providing for non-intervention in most things IS what is most possible. But recognizing this requires recognizing that human nature requires a degree of self-governance, which implies a degree of ability to try choosing things <i>and fail</i>, to one's temporal detriment - without the state thoroughly insulating you from the consequences of that failure. <br /><br /><i>It's not about giving support to one view over the others, it's abvout giving (positive) support to every view unless there are very good reasons not to support it.</i> <br /><br />What about giving support to A's view that <i>giving support to B's view is <b>intrinsically immoral</b></i>? When A pays for the state to support B, A is in violation of his conscience. Does that support A? Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65594074379359425312018-12-30T17:01:31.437-08:002018-12-30T17:01:31.437-08:00In so many ways black people are actually the wors...In so many ways black people are actually the worst victims of all of this.Timocrateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09193160283946135425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79557387562895673702018-12-30T17:00:20.133-08:002018-12-30T17:00:20.133-08:00the "esoteric teleology of the anus." (a...<i> the "esoteric teleology of the anus." (actual combox quote from here.)</i><br /><br />Holy crap really? Oh I'm laughing!Timocrateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09193160283946135425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-9295830587403152372018-12-30T15:51:46.792-08:002018-12-30T15:51:46.792-08:00That's my view, Timocrates. I'm interested...<i>That's my view, Timocrates. I'm interested to hear what you think of it.</i><br /><br />And thank you for your interest. My thinking of what you said was best said, I believe, by an Apostle and prophet of God:<br /><i>Philippians 2:2 2then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit <b>and of one mind.</b></i><br />A belated Merry Christmas and a happy new year to you, sir.Timocrateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09193160283946135425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15779008905568492502018-12-30T14:51:27.406-08:002018-12-30T14:51:27.406-08:00We are rational animals. It's actually quite b...We are rational animals. It's actually quite befitting to find something uniquely attractive (and beautiful) about a well-dressed woman. Similarly to appreciating a well-dressed man, qua well-dressed. An actually weird fetish would be to be aroused by strictly animal mating or "nudity" (which is virtually bestiality, of course). Nature adorned with a rational expression - not just clothing to stay warm, but as a compliment to a woman's natural beauty - is, I think, eminently human.Timocratesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2970034556822837282018-12-30T13:57:08.169-08:002018-12-30T13:57:08.169-08:00Ah. Clothing fetish. I've heard of you people....Ah. Clothing fetish. I've heard of you people.Craig Paynenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71900681021345901732018-12-30T13:11:55.320-08:002018-12-30T13:11:55.320-08:00I should add that our considerations thus far can ...I should add that our considerations thus far can also be extended to the practice of divorce and remarriage. If divorce and remarriage becomes to chronic a practice, you increase the danger or chance that some such unions may not even end up generating children, which is probably fine if the pair is quite elderly and the children are all moved out; but you will have the problem of children and relatives who are legally in-laws being socially forbidden for marriage even if only just the chance remains that their parents might have a child together, which would at least be embarassing for all those involved. It could also create tension in cases where children are unlikely, because a potential match (even a homosexual one now with gay marriage) is still socially and possibly even legally forbidden.<br /><br />Again, all such problems create the very thing marriage is primarily meant, socially at least, to prevent and even turn around; namely, division and disunity in society and between peoples and families. Exactly so, if such issues proliferate, we can anticipate pressure to basically make marriage all but meaningless, with the consequence that the establishment of kinship be radically limited by marriage and even the danger of a large increase in traditionally incestuous unions, which would also generate health concerns on top of it all.Timocrateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09193160283946135425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-46580778340755478252018-12-30T13:00:29.881-08:002018-12-30T13:00:29.881-08:002/2
Now it is not hard to see why a people might b...2/2<br />Now it is not hard to see why a people might become concerned about whole segments of a country's population becoming increasingly estranged from one another: the loss of social or national identity might threaten to split a country or cause civil wars, beyond the problem of dynastic feuds over the throne/crown. Republican societies can of course augment that part; but not loss of a sense of kinship among a people, which is why republics like the Romans maintained all the usual marital laws and customs that they shared as common practices with different government forms and types.<br /><br />Now a problem for gay marriages that we can anticipate is at least twofold: one is the problem of realizing any such union in blood, which would require for some dangerously playing God with science but also the fact that no offspring may be forthcoming, meaning unlike traditional marriages (for the most and greater part) the union does not generate a connection that augments one's blood relatives, which is of course the primary concern in reference to things like incest. Notwithstanding, you would still be connected to others at least by law, meaning some persons would still be socially forbidden from marrying or making doing so possibly awkward and embarrassing. So gay marriage immediately generates two potential sources of social problems; whereas, traditionally, the whole idea of marriage was to effect the exact opposite: that is, to unite a society and not divide it. As time goes on no doubt these issues will start to become more problematic.<br /><br />Finally, because of the controversy over gay marriage morally in regards to homosexuality but also the above mentioned ethical debate about generating actual blood offspring (which then means some heterosexual potential matches would be made forbidden, which might generate problems or tensions) we can anticipate pressure even to get government out of the business of marriage, which means many of the legal benefits associated with marriage would collapse and lead increasingly to a kind of marriage anarchy, which would threaten the recognition of marriage more generally (possibly affecting things like insurance, wills and inheritances). Our shortsightedness here may lead to even more serious divisions and conflicts in society in the days and generations to come.Timocrateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09193160283946135425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2191036136091283192018-12-30T13:00:20.119-08:002018-12-30T13:00:20.119-08:001/2
I think the sexual liberation movement can be ...1/2<br />I think the sexual liberation movement can be argued to have been not only one of the worst things to happen to Western civ and culture in the 20th century but to be radically irresponsible.<br /><br />The ancient pagan civilizations all had a common belief that procreating was at least a political and social obligation, even regardless of class, with possibly only slaves being excepted. The Christian civilizations would even add a religious obligation to this (by reference to the blessing in Gen 1); and it was not only enough to procreate, the obligation required procreation in marriage, and there is damn good reason for this.<br /><br />Now we know that the very ancient world (e.g. before the Greek Dark Ages/Trojan War) that people were a prized commodity, especially for developing civilizations: it was common to raid neighboring cities and ever whole nations to literally loot people in order to put them to work farming and building up cities. So having children and lots of them was perceived as being good for the country and by Roman times it was still considered a kind of patriotic duty, especially for citizens. <br /><br />But why was it important that the obligation be fulfilled in wedlock? The reason for this is more subtle but also more profound: marriage maximizes one's relatives. It allows children to not only known their fathers, but of course the whole paternal side of their family. Indeed, marriage does even more than this benefit for primarily just the children: it maximizes the number of interrelations by blood and law, which is why forbidden marriages by incest tended to expand and still does, because this way families are more broadly united or reunited, both in law and (when children arrive) literally by a blood connection. This has huge social implications because an enormous number of people can be affected by a marriage and the connection that is generated also even in blood by offspring connects to who ought not marry as a consequence (in order to again to maximize connections between families via a marriage). Hence marriage is a deeply profound act that has enormous social implications and the reason why the state has always taken interest in it and, indeed, the earliest kingships seem to have justified themselves partly in reference just to defending, promoting and maintaining these practices as families of course increased in size and number, their connection becoming looser and thus endangering the feeling of kinship.Timocrateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09193160283946135425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67179082576528961372018-12-30T12:42:41.886-08:002018-12-30T12:42:41.886-08:00P.S.: At the risk of giving TMI, I’m more likely t...P.S.: At the risk of giving TMI, I’m more likely to be aroused by pictures of women that are completely clothed. But maybe I’m just weird.Matjaž Horvathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01299644309277886201noreply@blogger.com