tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post2253743698473769807..comments2024-03-18T21:06:42.546-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Psychoanalyzing the sexual revolutionaryEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger220125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7194890698699710612021-04-28T22:11:04.876-07:002021-04-28T22:11:04.876-07:00Is the point of mind to think new things or true t...Is the point of mind to think new things or true things? Torture is about access to information not just pain is it not? Cruel would seem to be the word that would fit better. If one changes oneself with full will and knowledge such that one refuses up right to the end the only food on offer. Then one will starve and experience some pain. This pain is self caused. So the charge of cruelty rests not on the being telling you what you have chosen by on you for so choosing.<br /><br /> One could make the same point with theft/shady buisness practices, dropping a strategic nuke, giving nothing to the poor or participating in a genocide/becoming a warlord. If one ceases to believe one is judged and (self intrest) fear of judgment was the only motivator. Then one could so long as the civil law allows or never catches you, do anything. If it (justice) is just made up by humans why abide by it? It would be like quoting scripture to a non believer talking about justice to one who lacks a belief in it. If it's made up it's not part of being human. <br /> One would never oppose the government if self intrest was the only consern. <br />Whether one lacked a belief in moral duty or not. So long as one lacked a belief in a part that would be damaged (soul) or thought one gets infinate tries so then just wait till next time round. If one lacks a soul only property and bodily harms would be of consern to a fully self intrested actor. One could roll big and take the silver bullet express if/when it goes pear shaped. <br /><br />There would be no bad consequences (to ones self) save a somewhat shorter life. If one is anihilated at death. Old age seems unpleasant especially if poor so if quality of life is what drives one. Then live fast enjoy ones youth and get rich or die trying what else is there!<br /><br />If we are formed by random chance how would justice be part of our nature such that we would reasonably know this to be so? If it is not part of being human then not following/obeying it is not wrong just against some persons wills. Only if they have power over one would a purely self intrested actor care. <br /><br />Would you admire someone who moves from a place that outlaws chattle slavery to a spot that does not so they can be "free." <br />To own a black person and not be punished for it? Would it be liberating to make this move? <br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30232495807201826552019-08-13T14:57:42.748-07:002019-08-13T14:57:42.748-07:00The first chapter of the letter to the Romans spea...The first chapter of the letter to the Romans speaks of sexual deviance as, in a way, a sign of the times, and this is taken by certain of today’s rigorists as supporting their views in the contemporary situation, and as supporting their take on the Sexual Revolution (according to the thesis that our times are like those times.) <br />But St. Paul was not simply expressing his disgust with sexual deviancy, and he was not saying that sexual deviancy was the root of all evil. He was rather saying that sexual deviancy (among other types of sinfulness) shows humanity’s abandonment of God’s Great Plan, shows man’s rejection of faith, of God’s speaking to man through Revelation-- and through Reason, which is as it were a facet of Revelation: God’s revelation through human reason. <br />One does not begin to grasp what St. Paul is saying without taking into account God’s Great Plan of Salvation through faith and grace. St Paul is saying that with Christ God’s Covenant had become universal in Christ. Sin against the Sixth Commandment is sin against God’s Covenant, which also expresses itself in nature and in human nature. Sin is sin against God’s grace. It is sin against a loving God. It is sin against a God that loved us first. <br />St. Paul is saying that sin such as that of homosexual acts illustrates what it is to reject God’s grace. He is defending his great thesis about grace and about faith, a thesis which is in direct contrast with a merely moralistic Christianity which, obsessing about the merely exterior dimensions of human customs and behavior (necessarily!) is laxist regarding interior things. His point is about grace, and he speaks of sexual deviancy to make his point, that nature is corrupted when humanity rejects God’s grace, and that both Jews and gentiles had rejected God’s grace.<br />A merely exterior version of Christian morality would not differ from the merely exterior morality of the Pharisees, and St. Paul, though a Pharisee, had moved on from the morality of the Pharisees and had accepted the morality of Christ.<br />You can be sure that Paul is not backsliding here into a merely exteriorist and rigorist conception of morality. Such an idea is repugnant to the striking and overarching argument that runs through the Letter to the Romans and throughout the Pauline corpus. Paul’s thesis is about God’s mercy, about His great Act of Mercy (in the Paschal Mystery) with sinners, both Jews and Gentiles.<br />Paul does not call sexual sin the Root of all Evil, but tells us that the love of money is the root of all evil. He tells us that not as a personal whim, but because the love of money constitutes a Point Blank rejection of the economy of grace. <br />If one wants to analyze the ills of the contemporary world, one may include an analysis of the Sexual Revolution, for that is akin to what St. Paul does in Romans, but one should analyze, like St. Paul how this is an effect and symptom of the non-acceptance of the Gospel, and the rejection of the Universal Covenant realized in Christ. <br />Carl Kuss, L.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10348528727574912301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68844703121152831272019-08-11T07:59:56.670-07:002019-08-11T07:59:56.670-07:00"Uncompromising reactionary in matters of sex..."Uncompromising reactionary in matters of sex" is an ill-defined term. Feser assumes that an uncompromising reactionary is the same as a defender of traditional sexual morality. But "defender of traditional sexual morality" is in fact another ill-defined term which is illegitmately identified with the sexual morality of the Saints, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and with the morality taught by Jesus, which was not the rigorist/laxist morality taught by the Pharisees. The Rigorist is always a closet laxist. That is not an ad hominem argument but a metaphysical argument. The libertinists of the Sexual Revolution teach what is fundamentally the same doctrine as the rigorist crowd which goes on lying about what Pope Francis teaches in Amoris Laetitia, Chapter Eight. They teach, to wit, that marriage, and thus the marriage act is essentially a carnal affair, whose regulation, whether one says that one accepts such regulation or not, is imposed from outside. This in total contrast with the Thomistic understanding of the actus humanus, and of the constitutive role of conscience in the actus humanus.Carl Kuss, L.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10348528727574912301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27102085795848110002019-08-11T07:34:15.909-07:002019-08-11T07:34:15.909-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Carl Kuss, L.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10348528727574912301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16532978189557720972019-08-03T19:12:42.778-07:002019-08-03T19:12:42.778-07:00@Papalinton, you write:
No, Bill, I'm pretty ...@Papalinton, you write:<br /><br /><i>No, Bill, I'm pretty confident of the evidence that our Western society is largely setting aside Church teachings as central to the way it embraces the ethical, moral and social challenges going forward.</i><br /><br />So, now that you've been shown that your accusation that we're somehow motivated by "fear," has been essentially pulled out of your backside, you try to shift gears and tell us what we already know. Guess what? I don't have to pull out of my backside the accusation that you're a liar, because you've proven it with what you wrote. My "made it up" was in direct reference to your hoped-for accusation that we write what we do because we're motivated by fear. You pulled that out of you anus because that's what you want to believe. You'd rather engage in <i>ad hominems</i> than address Ed's argument for the obvious reason that you're incapable of rebutting his claims.<br /><br />Low-life punks like you aren't worth pissing on if you were on fire. How about the reason you write like you do is you're obsessed with justifying your twisted, perverted lifestyle? If you had a shred of decency, you would argue in good faith, but that's not your objective. The only question in this perverted puzzle is why you would type something so obviously false? If you really think that you're changing any minds here by your transparent clap-trap, your mental issues are worse than I thought.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001130202947985336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18556500525989633832019-08-03T00:04:24.141-07:002019-08-03T00:04:24.141-07:00Bill,
You say, "And you know this, how? Oh, t...Bill,<br />You say, "And you know this, how? Oh, that's right. You just made it up because I guess it makes you feel better to skewer straw men than to actually, you know, address the argument."<br /><br />No, Bill, I'm pretty confident of the evidence that our Western society is largely setting aside Church teachings as central to the way it embraces the ethical, moral and social challenges going forward. Most of the advanced world-wide community has generally concluded the jury is in on big issues like, women's sovereign right on decisions over their own reproductive and health decisions, despite the Church's stance; equally, the community has overwhelmingly voted for same sex marriage and relationships as a way of recognising its social value, its legal legitimacy under the law, and as an expression of love and commitment between couples, no different to that between heterosexual couples. The overwhelming consensus of the community is that recognition of same sex marriage is demonstrably the proper and fitting way of ensuring that justice, fairness and equity is being done but is seen to be being done, to mention just a few of the more momentous life-changing decisions over the last few decades. So good to see. <br /><br />You write: "It may come as news to you, but our churches have been expecting this for decades because we believe this is fulfilling prophecy. It doesn't fill us with fear in the slightest. We see this as another step closer to the coming of the Lord."<br /><br />Yes! Of course, fulfilling prophecy. The Parousia. The historically oft repeated Harold Camping effect. <br />From my reasoned and logical perspective, historical prophecy, as recounted in the bible, is simply prophesy historicised. <br />So long as you don't hurt anyone around you, I say, "Knock yourself out on that myth".<br /><br /> <br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18899485737423362442019-07-31T22:58:50.223-07:002019-07-31T22:58:50.223-07:00@Santi
Yes, institutional accountability is what ...@Santi<br /><br />Yes, institutional accountability is what I'm driving at.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001130202947985336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90538753349944583442019-07-31T22:57:33.145-07:002019-07-31T22:57:33.145-07:00@Papalinton
You offered no "content" wh...@Papalinton<br /><br />You offered no "content" whatsoever. And the fact that you think a baseless allegation that we're somehow motivated by fear demonstrates an elevator that can't reach the top floor.<br /><br />I couldn't care less what you "take issue with" since you don't offer any evidence to counter his argument. Typing "I disagree" isn't engaging an argument. Perhaps you need to sue your logic teachers for malpractice.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001130202947985336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31963638342515990482019-07-31T22:54:27.039-07:002019-07-31T22:54:27.039-07:00@Papalinton writes:
It's the fear of all that...@Papalinton writes:<br /><br /><i>It's the fear of all that you believe is 'right' being apparently subverted by a society that largely no longer subscribes to Church teachings as central to defining societal norms as it once enjoyed.</i><br /><br />And you know this, how? Oh, that's right. You just made it up because I guess it makes you feel better to skewer straw men than to actually, you know, address the argument.<br /><br />It may come as news to you, but our churches have been expecting this for decades because we believe this is fulfilling prophecy. It doesn't fill us with fear in the slightest. We see this as another step closer to the coming of the Lord.<br /><br />If motive mongering helps you sleep, please continue doing so. You'll be ignored from now on until you figure out that rational arguments carry the day, not baseless claims.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001130202947985336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75452138334385300592019-07-31T16:48:56.568-07:002019-07-31T16:48:56.568-07:00"The bottom line is that free will is incoher..."The bottom line is that free will is incoherent."<br /><br />I guess you had no choice but to write what you did.<br /><br />But I will grant you this much: those who never exercise their will against fleeting natural preferences certainly have less freedom of will and power than those who do so; using "freedom of the will" here in this rather mundane sense. <br /><br />If however one were to mean by a "free will", the freedom to exist over and above and outside of one's self and to from that vantage point freely will what you the subject shall have the possibility of psychologically intending (in the phenomenological sense) then, that notion of "free will" being employed as it is as a standard to criticize quotidian "free will", is itself certainly incoherent.<br /><br />So it seems to me that what you really mean more or less, is just that you [speaking of "you" as a representative generality] are a guiltless victim of your sloth and unregulated appetites, and that while these have demonstrably bad consequences in terms of lifespan and moral satisfactions, you do not feel responsible for creating yourself in the first place; nor for regulating and rationally directing whatever impulses it is that do rise up to seek expression in you, since "you" are not really even a self in any morally important sense. Though you do seem to like to complain about what happens to other pseudo-selves, just as if they did have real minds and significance of their own and in themselves. But that taste for expressing resentment is no doubt something else over which you have no control or choice; and, which has no more ultimate meaning than does that of a rock rolling down to the bottom of a ditch.<br /><br />I sometimes wonder if persons who talk like you do, have ever participated in any competitive athletics, or used barbells, or spent time in serious hunting ... all instances of activities which force one to choose between alternatives such as laying in bed versus rising early for a better chance; or scratching one's nose versus not spooking the surroundings; or learning to absorb the rifle's recoil without flinching versus missing the target because of a weak willpower: and thus through those minor exercises, to gradually build up the moral power and physical power to more freely will and choose between options.<br /><br />But then, maybe what you mean is only the grandly impossible and inchoate mystery kind of free will, when you refer to "free will" and then say that 'free will' does not exist.<br /><br />And if so, who could disagree?DNWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55240519453835469772019-07-31T16:05:48.039-07:002019-07-31T16:05:48.039-07:00"My argument is the original position put for..."My argument is the original position put forward by John Rawls. And demanding that I compose my own original argument on-the-fly is unreasonable (and might constitute trolling)."<br /><br />Weeks late to this discussion, which I think went off the rails as soon as it began; but, it's difficult for me to believe that anyone still takes Rawl's Episcopalian distributivist faux "liberalism" seriously nowadays.<br /><br />The "veil of ignorance", the "original position", the reprehensible "commitment to a shared fate", are all obvious, jury rigged, and critically untenable fictions specifically constructed in order to enable certain "inferences" to be drawn, and to make the so-called argument look less ridiculously circular.<br /><br />The commenter himself enthusiastically and explicitly embraces the preposterous assumption, or hidden picture, underlying Rawl's program: that of preexisting souls or identities descending like heavenly mannequins into randomly issued bodies: passed out like suits of clothes by negligent counter clerks, and which they are then forced to wear be they shabby and ill fitting or august and splendid.<br /><br />But, there is not even a Christian justification for this ridiculous premise, much less a philosophical or scientific one.<br /><br />It is not by some happenstance that you find yourself "in" you. There is no luck of the draw to it; you are it. That is one area in which Ryle did some good work in "clearing the brush"<br /><br />Rawls comically writes, but in a line that has been taken up by many others such as the Parecon boys, that:<br /><br />"Perhaps some will think that the person with greater natural endowments deserves those assets and the superior character that made their endowment possible.<br /><br />... This view is surely incorrect. It seems to be one of the fixed points of our considered judgments that no one deserves his place in the distribution of native endowments ..."<br /><br />The "distribution of native endowments". You are your endowments, potential and realized. They were not distributed to you from some common stock; but, are expressions of your form and substance, and the question or matter of desert, never enters into it.DNWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22601650912042092722019-07-31T14:30:20.122-07:002019-07-31T14:30:20.122-07:00Catholics like Feser get gratification from thinki...Catholics like Feser get gratification from thinking they're smarter or more well behaved than everyone else. "I'm obeying God! Those people are evil for enjoying themselves! I'm not a bigot because the church backs up my beliefs!" The bottom line is that free will is incoherent. If the same mental evaluation can give rise to 2 different intentional states, then the agent's evaluation (his control) only has partial control over the outcome, especially given his blindness to the final outcome, at which the contrast one is cut off. The agent is acting randomly with respect to their desires, not having decided to have a torn nature in the first place.<br /><br />And Edward Feser is wrong about traditional sexual morality. Atheism is true, given the argument from evil. Good beings don't sustain the rape of a child, which Feser's god does.A Counter Rebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08504216290980600901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-52844205414279113562019-07-28T18:11:01.153-07:002019-07-28T18:11:01.153-07:00Bill
"[Santi] - And so who can dispute that P...Bill<br />"[Santi] - And so who can dispute that Papalinton is correct about the fear driving conservative reaction?<br /><br />[Bill] - Well, for one, I can. There's not an ounce of fear in me when I react to bad arguments. And unless one has proof that Ed or anybody else who is a conservative is driven by fear, it's an empty claim."<br /><br />Clever or deflective, I can't tell. It is not fear of a 'bad' argument that I speak about. It's the fear of all that you believe is 'right' being apparently subverted by a society that largely no longer subscribes to Church teachings as central to defining societal norms as it once enjoyed. Social change can appear very threatening. But believe me I feel significantly more comfortable and secure with the lessening of religious power over the community. And it is about the exercise of power. <br /><br />Whether you and Ed dispute or not dispute the tragedy of clerical child abuse is beside the point. Now that is a red herring. <br />That it happened, and what is criminally, ethically and morally damnable, the Church systematically and systemically covered it up. Is it any wonder society largely no longer takes or accepts the Church's position at face value. That is a good thing and we are the better for it. <br /><br />Santi notes: "God and family will love you so long as you are bound to the group--but if you ever leave the religion, you'll be shunned by family and sent to hell by God to be tortured forever. ..."<br /><br />I would suggest that fear is a driver on a number of levels.<br /><br /><br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51964927160042610852019-07-28T17:24:24.680-07:002019-07-28T17:24:24.680-07:00Sorry, Bill. I am precisely engaging Dr Feser'...Sorry, Bill. I am precisely engaging Dr Feser's argument. And as I outline in my argument, I take issue with his premise that "(t)he sexual revolution is the cause of millions of children being left fatherless, with the intergenerational poverty and social disorder that that entails."<br /><br />And I reject your assertion of 'ad hominem' and 'red herrings'. It is such an intellectually lazy way to dismiss the content of an argument. Even the fight for justice, equity and fairness can look like an attack on those institutional conventions so firmly held by the Church when viewed from the position of privilege. The Church's misplaced perspectives on sexuality, of women rightfully holding sovereignty over their own reproductive and health decisions, the underlying nature of equity and justice in the practice and celebration of same sex marriage to mention just a few of the issues that society has largely gone on to embrace despite the Church's stance. Society now no longer credulously acquiesces to the authority of the Church; and that too must be chagrin to an institution that seems largely to have missed the boat going forward. Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-12336582689909401432019-07-28T16:29:20.895-07:002019-07-28T16:29:20.895-07:00As the Catechism says, "Self mastery is a lon...As the Catechism says, "Self mastery is a long and exacting work."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-70428236922384758082019-07-28T05:47:35.455-07:002019-07-28T05:47:35.455-07:00This was said on your blog:
Nor is there any grea...This was said on your blog:<br /><br />Nor is there any greater manifestation of the deep selfishness that makes social justice impossible than the callous willingness of millions to murder their own children in the womb<br /><br />It is better to let the mother die in a fatal pregnancy than it is to abort the baby. Dying during childbirth is extremely meritorious (Spartans treated women who died in childbirth as equals to men who sacrificed themselves in combat) and it both provides the opportunity to administer the last rights to the mother (ensuring her salvation) and baptize the baby (ensuring its salvation).Hunthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07365630053508923680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2275643007995188342019-07-26T17:15:01.569-07:002019-07-26T17:15:01.569-07:00Red, I accept your observation on balance. Apollo ...Red, I accept your observation on balance. Apollo and Dionysus. Santi Tafarellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16762380188083321201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42671842066273921112019-07-26T17:10:26.163-07:002019-07-26T17:10:26.163-07:00Agreed, Bill. I like your emphasis on checks and b...Agreed, Bill. I like your emphasis on checks and balances.Santi Tafarellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16762380188083321201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62323616744229220032019-07-26T15:08:14.557-07:002019-07-26T15:08:14.557-07:00Well I don't buy that you can't have what ...Well I don't buy that you can't have what is actually good here without all that immorality.<br /><br />Secondly, fear and shame of ones own evil doing is good. Without them there is no morality, So I don't consider much of liberation talk here to be directed towards the right side.Redhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05569340378356607760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84686835936434895972019-07-26T12:18:57.834-07:002019-07-26T12:18:57.834-07:00Bill,
So if I'm hearing you correctly the chi...Bill,<br /><br />So if I'm hearing you correctly the chief source of abuse of children is in lack of institutional accountability. This appears wherever there is a lack of checks and balances on power. If so, then we are agreed. : )Santi Tafarellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16762380188083321201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60243528003414610962019-07-26T12:07:27.604-07:002019-07-26T12:07:27.604-07:00Free mind, free body. To care about one is to care...Free mind, free body. To care about one is to care about the other. <br /><br />So since this is a post about the psychology of the sexual revolutionary, one should note a key motive in intellectual sexual revolutionaries coming from square homes. <br /><br />It is characteristic of young intellectuals raised in religious homes to discover that the freeing of the mind from home/church mental prohibitions--experimenting with dangerous ideas--is often accompanied by the freeing of the body from shame and prohibition (via dance, risque dress, music, sex). <br /><br />And since, at home/church, mental thoughts and bodily deeds are under religious prohibition--threats of torture in hell--the liberating of oneself from fear of hell means, in college, liberating mind and body. <br /><br />To echo Sinatra in another context: "You can't have one without the other." Santi Tafarellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16762380188083321201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40836857115789379982019-07-26T12:07:02.883-07:002019-07-26T12:07:02.883-07:00@Santi
I agree with much of what you say, althoug...@Santi<br /><br />I agree with much of what you say, although I think it is most inappropriate to single out Catholics (and I am not Catholic). Institutions of all stripes were abusive (because governments tended to be authoritarian). Even today, you find just as much if not more abuse of children in the public school system as you would in the Catholic church---and that's with all the liberties the "revolution" has produced.<br /><br />Other than that, I most certainly agree with Madison that since men are not angels, they need checks and balances.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001130202947985336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-45467284920532816612019-07-26T11:24:12.700-07:002019-07-26T11:24:12.700-07:00Hi Bill,
I agree with you that such arguments are...Hi Bill,<br /><br />I agree with you that such arguments are fallacious, but I'm just noting the obvious: when evaluating the sexual revolution, there are two sides to the "damage to children" bookkeeping ledger. <br /><br />In other words, the sexual revolution cannot be untangled from Anglo-French Enlightenment freedoms--freedom of the press, freedom to marry and divorce, the right to own one's body and property, freedom of science and capitalism (to technically discover, then market contraceptives, etc.)--and if Feser's argument is that all of this ultimately damages large numbers of children in the resultant feminist and sexual revolutions, then it can be pointed out that untold numbers of women and children are also empowered by these very freedoms insofar as they keep institutions accountable.<br /><br />The reason, for example, that the Catholic Church is acting on the child abuse issue now--as opposed to a thousand years ago--has to do with various terms set in place by the Anglo-French, feminist, and sexual revolutions: people are now allowed to question authority and reject body shaming; they have a right to seek remedies in secular courts; they have the right to leave the religion of their birth because there is no monopoly religion recognized by the state; they have a right to consent to sex--and say no to sex; they have a right to set up an adversarial press, thereby holding institutions accountable, and so on. <br /><br />These revolutions represent a power shift. The power shift keeps institutions on their toes--and thus is in the process of saving untold numbers of children as we speak. Imagine the million or more--millions?--of children harmed by sexual abuse over the past millennium within one religion alone--the Catholic Church--because such rights were not yet secured.<br /><br />Imagine how much psychological harm over millennia has been done to children because they were raised by parents and institutions focused on sexual shaming and Stockholm-like Syndrome techniques of control (getting love and threat from the same source): God and family will love you so long as you are bound to the group--but if you ever leave the religion, you'll be shunned by family and sent to hell by God to be tortured forever. Is psychological abuse, abuse?<br /><br />Santi Tafarellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16762380188083321201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55007110761235682942019-07-26T10:01:56.209-07:002019-07-26T10:01:56.209-07:00@Santi
Hi, Santi. You write:
And so who can disp...@Santi<br /><br />Hi, Santi. You write:<br /><br /><i>And so who can dispute that Papalinton is correct about the fear driving conservative reaction?</i><br /><br />Well, for one, I can. There's not an ounce of fear in me when I react to bad arguments. And unless one has proof that Ed or anybody else who is a conservative is driven by fear, it's an empty claim.<br /><br />And the fact that many children have been abused by many within the Catholic Church is a red herring. First, I don't dispute that, and I believe that Ed doesn't dispute it either. Second, Ed has presented an argument relating to ideas about sex and objective morality. Saying "you too" or "look how bad you are" is fallacious, and that's the point of my comment to Papalinton. Fallacious arguments are non-starters.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001130202947985336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74319794566015683222019-07-26T09:34:53.937-07:002019-07-26T09:34:53.937-07:00Because the brain is modular, Bill, a short senten...Because the brain is modular, Bill, a short sentence like "What a load of bunkum" can trigger the attentional part of the brain, the skeptical part, etc., priming it to notice other aspects surrounding the issues at hand. So, yes, rhetorical moves--however dubious on closer inspection--can have the effect of changing the mind (or at least the brain), and prime it toward fresh noticing. Logical positivism in the 1930s, for example, may have had flaws on a closer inspection--such as those Quine and Popper pointed out--but its impatience with abstract, metaphysical, imprecise usages of language shifted the terms of debate on issues that clearly deserved attention at the time.<br /><br />And so who can dispute that Papalinton is correct about the fear driving conservative reaction? And who can dispute that literally a million or more children over the past two millennia have surely been abused by priests, not because of the sexual revolution, but because of unaccountable, secretive structures with access to vulnerable populations? It is a free press that made possible contemporary exposure of sexual abuse--but such abuse goes back millennia.Santi Tafarellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16762380188083321201noreply@blogger.com