Sex and the Religious-Left

[Iwannaplato]

My view is we have to separate ideas from those who hold the ideas so that the ideas can be considered independently.

Sure. But if I am responding to someone who immediately puts me and others into groups - one idea, he knows the label for me and also my psychology and often other things + he's happy to just tell me what I am and how I think, well, the door is wide open, I think.

Also, it's not a minor issue. I brought up that issue because there's something I don't buy. I think there's a contradiction in his attitudes/ beliefs. There's a victim taking in relation to people who are supposedly weak, for example, though it's more complicated than that. And with some he runs off and tells others, you I think, about their sexual habits with children and so on.

However, and in contrast, I have myself critiqued Immanuel Can

and FDP and Harbal, certainly in ad hom ways, if not the same way you do with IC.

through accusations of personal defect, so I am not closed to a personalized analysis of people who hold the ideas. My reasoning is sound: we are •instruments• of perception and we are therefore susceptible to contamination. And we are also susceptible to purification.

I'm not sure what the later parts of that mean.

I think if we want less personality and more philosophy focus, there are better philosophy forums for that. The Philosophy Forum, for example. So, here it ends up that we encounter not just challenging positions - different ones for each of us - but also

In fact, it is fair and helpful to start from the view that we are essentially defective and require clarifying intelligence.

Sure.

[Sculptor]

Sex crimes predict HIGH for these factors on a per capita basis...

Male.
Straight
Right Wing
Religious
Religous employee
Politicians especially Republican.

https://www.whoismakingnews.com

Sex crimes predict LOW for these factors on a per capita basis...

Femala
Trans
Gay
Left Wing
Atheist
Democrats

So I am puzzled what this thread is about

[Alexis Jacobi]

Why do you see people as "defective" and in need of "clarifying intelligence"?

You have some mental or physiological reasons for your — completely self-revealed and publicly shared — defects, yet (and here I guess-speculate), you are according to a philosophical theory •completely disordered• in terms of your careless/reckless handling of your own self.

Yet, you fail in the process of self-introspection, reject authority, and seem an addict to your suffering. Therefore, if anyone is in need of •clarifying intelligence• one could refer to you.

Many many people in our corrupted cultures suffer from mental and spiritual afflictions. It is a question of degree.

Are you sick because our culture is sick? And if so is there a causal chain that can be followed back to some point where, psycho-physically, you became •disordered•?

Can you be spiritually helped? If yes, how? Through what process?

It may be unfair even to ask these questions if the ailment is genetic and thoroughly beyond melioration. Yet I do wonder about these things.

Can a culture •go off the rails• and careen into social neurosis or psychosis? Is there a path back to sane balance?

These are the questions (when thinking of the body politic).

All of this has bearing on the present topic it seems to me. All is interconnected.

[Gary Childress]

Why do you see people as "defective" and in need of "clarifying intelligence"?

You have some mental or physiological reasons for your — completely self-revealed and publicly shared — defects, yet (and here I guess-speculate), you are according to a philosophical theory •completely disordered• in terms of your careless/reckless handling of your own self.

Yet, you fail in the process of self-introspection, reject authority, and seem an addict to your suffering. Therefore, if anyone is in need of •clarifying intelligence• one could refer to you.

Many many people in our corrupted cultures suffer from mental and spiritual afflictions. It is a question of degree.

Are you sick because our culture is sick? And if so is there a causal chain that can be followed back to some point where, psycho-physically, you became •disordered•?

Can you be spiritually helped? If yes, how? Through what process?

It may be unfair even to ask these questions if the ailment is genetic and thoroughly beyond melioration. Yet I do wonder about these things.

Can a culture •go off the rails• and careen into social neurosis or psychosis? Is there a path back to sane balance?

These are the questions (when thinking of the body politic).

All of this has bearing on the present topic it seems to me. All is interconnected.

I suppose it's a fair take on things. If Jesus were to come back tomorrow and you met him and he was proclaiming the kingdom of God and criticizing the Pharisees and such, do you think you would see him as "mentally ill"?

[Alexis Jacobi]

AJ:However, and in contrast, I have myself critiqued Immanuel Can

IWP: and FDP and Harbal, certainly in ad hom ways, if not the same way you do with IC.

I think you could have differentiated the brutal inhuman attacks and their purpose and context.

Always with Harbal a critique of a social problem: men unfamiliar with intellectual traditions.

IC is in an extremely different category. He is vastly more prepared historically and intellectually but suffers in other, harder to define areas (as well as being the absolute worst apologist for Christian metaphysical philosophy).

Flash is nearly totally irrelevant. A useless contributor to useless categories. If that’s ad hominem — so be it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I suppose it's a fair take on things. If Jesus were to come back tomorrow and you met him and he was proclaiming the kingdom of God and criticizing the Pharisees and such, do you think you would see him as "mentally ill"?

A truly dumbass question. You are good at that …

[Gary Childress]

I suppose it's a fair take on things. If Jesus were to come back tomorrow and you met him and he was proclaiming the kingdom of God and criticizing the Pharisees and such, do you think you would see him as "mentally ill"?

A truly dumbass question. You are good at that …

It's a "dumbass" question because you can't provide a simple "yes" or "no" answer to it. You are vexed. It's OK to be vexed. Many are and many would be. Admit your shortcoming and frailties.

[FlashDangerpants]

Flash is nearly totally irrelevant. A useless contributor to useless categories. If that’s ad hominem — so be it.

Is that according to your *metaphysical predicates*?

[Wizard22]

Sex crimes predict LOW for these factors on a per capita basis...

Femala
Trans
Gay
Left Wing
Atheist
Democrats

So I am puzzled what this thread is about

LOL, clueless... of course Scalpy cannot see anything "wrong" with this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIR7Xk52jLY

Just like a pedo wouldn't see anything "wrong" with molesting a child as well:

[Wizard22]

My view is we have to separate ideas from those who hold the ideas so that the ideas can be considered independently.

Sure. But if I am responding to someone who immediately puts me and others into groups - one idea, he knows the label for me and also my psychology and often other things + he's happy to just tell me what I am and how I think, well, the door is wide open, I think.

Also, it's not a minor issue. I brought up that issue because there's something I don't buy. I think there's a contradiction in his attitudes/ beliefs. There's a victim taking in relation to people who are supposedly weak, for example, though it's more complicated than that. And with some he runs off and tells others, you I think, about their sexual habits with children and so on.

Philosophy, Politics, Sex, quickly become muddy and dirty issues—I apologize if you're offended, Iwan. If you're getting offended now, then I hate to presume your position when shit gets really bad. Because it will, if these trends are not stopped immediately.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ts-lN22nzIg

Are you ready to have your child taken away because you refuse to accept them as she/shim/shur/zhur/xijingpi?

[Iwannaplato]

AJ:However, and in contrast, I have myself critiqued Immanuel Can

IWP: and FDP and Harbal, certainly in ad hom ways, if not the same way you do with IC.

I think you could have differentiated the brutal inhuman attacks and their purpose and context.

Always with Harbal a critique of a social problem: men unfamiliar with intellectual traditions.

IC is in an extremely different category. He is vastly more prepared historically and intellectually but suffers in other, harder to define areas (as well as being the absolute worst apologist for Christian metaphysical philosophy).

Flash is nearly totally irrelevant. A useless contributor to useless categories. If that’s ad hominem — so be it.

I'll take this as confirmation.

[Iwannaplato]

Why do you see people as "defective" and in need of "clarifying intelligence"?

You have some mental or physiological reasons for your — completely self-revealed and publicly shared — defects, yet (and here I guess-speculate), you are according to a philosophical theory •completely disordered• in terms of your careless/reckless handling of your own self.

Yet, you fail in the process of self-introspection, reject authority, and seem an addict to your suffering. Therefore, if anyone is in need of •clarifying intelligence• one could refer to you.

Many many people in our corrupted cultures suffer from mental and spiritual afflictions. It is a question of degree.

Are you sick because our culture is sick? And if so is there a causal chain that can be followed back to some point where, psycho-physically, you became •disordered•?

Can you be spiritually helped? If yes, how? Through what process?

It may be unfair even to ask these questions if the ailment is genetic and thoroughly beyond melioration. Yet I do wonder about these things.

Can a culture •go off the rails• and careen into social neurosis or psychosis? Is there a path back to sane balance?

These are the questions (when thinking of the body politic).

All of this has bearing on the present topic it seems to me. All is interconnected.

And here's more ad hom at another person. I have no idea who started the ad homs in your interactions, but I have to say I find it hard to understand why you suggested I separate the ideas from the person, when ad hom seems to be a regular part of your posts. In the sense of to the man, not the fallacy.

[Harbal]

You respond to my posts on the basis of your interpretation of my comments, and I am merely responding to yours under the same principle. You obviously think I am reading you wrongly, but does it never occur to you that you might be doing the same with me?

Not so much reading me wrongly, but rather unfamiliar with our (Occidental) traditions and also some of the •metaphysical principles• that drive my assertions (which have the ultimate purpose of concretizing and strengthening my own resolve).

Well I certainly take you nowhere near as seriously as you take yourself, if that's what you mean.

What has happened is an issue of our cultural education. Because of a widespread and general turn against our own traditions

I suspect the traditions in my part of the world are very different from those in yours, so it is probably nonsense to speak of "our" traditions. I grew up in an environment where the working men's club was the dominant cultural institution, so you tell me how familiar you are with those.

I arouse something like contempt because of the potentially moralizing tone in my formulations. But in our present dispensation so would anyone proposing self-control, self-restraint along those lines understood to be religiously repressive.

Why can't you practice self-control and self-restraint without feeling something like contempt for those who don't want to join in with those pursuits? Why do you give a damn about how unrestrained you suppose me to be?

Referring to Platonism or Aristotelianism gives me a certain cover however, because their ideas and presentations are philosophic more than religious.

I don't know what difference that makes to anyone else, but I would no more look to Plato to inform me how I should live my life than I would look to Jesus. We obviously come from completely different worlds, yet it seems to puzzle why your traditions and values are irrelevant to me, so I would say you are the one lacking in understanding.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'll take this as confirmation.

A sound decision. And what do you think of my analysis? Fair? Unfair?

but I have to say I find it hard to understand why you suggested I separate the ideas from the person, when ad hom seems to be a regular part of your posts. In the sense of to the man, not the fallacy.

I work in a dual realm.

[Iwannaplato]

A sound decision. And what do you think of my analysis? Fair? Unfair?

I haven't followed the discussion. As far as Harbal, I think he's got a good nose. I like him.

but I have to say I find it hard to understand why you suggested I separate the ideas from the person, when ad hom seems to be a regular part of your posts. In the sense of to the man, not the fallacy.

I work in a dual realm.

I work in a treble realm.