Sex and the Religious-Left

[Alexis Jacobi]

And it is my view that this is good, necessary and correct.

Mere opinion, worth nothing.

Sure, I understand how your odd means of intellectual locomotion slimed you into that hole.

The Fact/Opinion Distinction

When debating ethics and other controversial topics, one frequently hears the claim “That’s just your opinion.” It is a pernicious claim, devoid of clear meaning, and it should be consigned to the flames – or so I shall argue here.

In calling something an opinion, one presumably wants to contrast it with something that is not an opinion, and the obvious candidate for the contrast class is “fact”. Philosophers might be tempted to draw this contrast by identifying facts as states of affairs – occurrences that are there in the world regardless of what anyone may think about them – and identifying opinions as beliefs (or some other mental state) about states of affairs. According to this approach, we can separate facts from opinions by using what Perry Weddle has called the “Whose?” test: It always makes sense to ask “Whose opinion is it?” but never “Whose fact is it?”

But this way of drawing the contrast merely pushes the problem back further. For among the beliefs that people have about the world, there are some that people tend to put in the “fact” column and some that they tend to put in the “opinion” column. That is, they contrast factual beliefs from opinions (opinion beliefs), and it is quite appropriate to ask “Whose belief?” in either case. The same goes for expressions of belief: We can talk about statements of fact vs. statements of opinion, or factual claims vs. opinion claims, and so forth, and all of these are in the mouths of subjects.

The rest here.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Gary, I think you have comprehension issues. Flash, who fixates on the derrières of rentboys self-describes as a pederast.

Must I explain everything?!?

[Harbal]

May I suggest you take a shot at the perverted attitudes of someone like that toxic little specimen, Wizzard?

What I will say is that Wizard is working with ideas, polemical ideas surely, but they are substantial ideas that have bearing on our present.

Wizard is a malicious moron, and you know it, but he suits your purpose. You are certainly no moron, and I don't see you as malicious, but I do see you as severely misguided.

[Gary Childress]

Gary, I think you have comprehension issues. Flash, who fixates on the derrières of rentboys self-describes as a pederast.

Must I explain everything?!?

I'm not a mind reader.

[Harbal]

Gary, I think you have comprehension issues. Flash, who fixates on the derrières of rentboys self-describes as a pederast.

Must I explain everything?!?

I'm not a mind reader.

And I'm sure that someone as secretive and guarded about his own personal circumstances as Alexis is very grateful for that.

[Gary Childress]

Gary, I think you have comprehension issues. Flash, who fixates on the derrières of rentboys self-describes as a pederast.

Must I explain everything?!?

I'm not a mind reader.

And I'm sure that someone as secretive and guarded about his own personal circumstances as Alexis is very grateful for that.

Well, I suppose that's true. He never did answer my question about whether he's ever masturbated or not.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Wizard is a malicious moron, and you know it, but he suits your purpose. You are certainly no moron, and I don't see you as malicious, but I do see you as severely misguided.

You have no idea what I know or don’t know.

Malice: [Middle English, from Old French, from Latin malitia, from malus, bad; see mel- in Indo-European roots.]

I appreciate that you turn to the distinction of bad and, inversely, good.

I am interested in bad ideas and bad practices that have crept in (infiltrated, infected) the body politic and our own body-mind selves.

In any case — talk about what it means to be severely misguided.

[Gary Childress]

Wizard is a malicious moron, and you know it, but he suits your purpose. You are certainly no moron, and I don't see you as malicious, but I do see you as severely misguided.

You have no idea what I know or don’t know.

Malice: [Middle English, from Old French, from Latin malitia, from malus, bad; see mel- in Indo-European roots.]

I appreciate that you turn to the distinction of bad and, inversely, good.

I am interested in bad ideas and bad practices that have crept in (infiltrated, infected) the body politic and our own body-mind selves.

In any case — talk about what it means to be severely misguided.

If you're concerned about bad practices that have "crept in the body politic" maybe concern yourself with the arms industry. They get a lot of the world's money right now. It would probably be better spent on finding ways of mitigating environmental hazards that are going on. The world ought to be focusing on our environment at this point and not saber rattling. Don't you think? Or do you disagree?

[FlashDangerpants]

And it is my view that this is good, necessary and correct.

Mere opinion, worth nothing.

Sure, I understand how your odd means of intellectual locomotion slimed you into that hole.

We already covered this when I explained with the help of colours how your own position is entirerly and definitively subjective.

What I suggest is that the individual will have to ask very basic questions about *value* and will have to interrogate himself about what he really and truly values. The question, the issue, is ultimately and also profoundly philosophical in the original and the most important sense. Do I really need to spell this out for you?

So yeah, it's just your opinion versus those of everyone who is less prudish and saddening than you are.

The Fact/Opinion Distinction

When debating ethics and other controversial topics, one frequently hears the claim “That’s just your opinion.” It is a pernicious claim, devoid of clear meaning, and it should be consigned to the flames – or so I shall argue here.

In calling something an opinion, one presumably wants to contrast it with something that is not an opinion, and the obvious candidate for the contrast class is “fact”. Philosophers might be tempted to draw this contrast by identifying facts as states of affairs – occurrences that are there in the world regardless of what anyone may think about them – and identifying opinions as beliefs (or some other mental state) about states of affairs. According to this approach, we can separate facts from opinions by using what Perry Weddle has called the “Whose?” test: It always makes sense to ask “Whose opinion is it?” but never “Whose fact is it?”

But this way of drawing the contrast merely pushes the problem back further. For among the beliefs that people have about the world, there are some that people tend to put in the “fact” column and some that they tend to put in the “opinion” column. That is, they contrast factual beliefs from opinions (opinion beliefs), and it is quite appropriate to ask “Whose belief?” in either case. The same goes for expressions of belief: We can talk about statements of fact vs. statements of opinion, or factual claims vs. opinion claims, and so forth, and all of these are in the mouths of subjects.

The rest here.

Your position appears to be that I am factually and morally wrong. Your position does not appear to be that you just think you are slightly more persuasive than I am, perhaps sufficiently so to gain the advantage in a friendly and charming debate. You insist I am disgusting and inferior, do you not? You don't agree with this article that you have linked yourself, and therefore I have no Earthly reason to care about it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The argument, the ideology, the perceptual position, your ethics in respect to the topic being discussed, seem badly grounded. The key, for me, was in the vulgar — even criminal — phantasy that you shared.

You insist I am disgusting and inferior, do you not?

You illustrate something ugly, vulgar, vile and also socially and culturally destructive. Certainly inferior to other possibilities.

Ultimately, I am interested in how you, a distorted mind and man, appeared on the cultural horizons with a certain velocity and influence.

You, as yourself, have little relevance except as illustration.

[FlashDangerpants]

You insist I am disgusting and inferior, do you not?

You illustrate something ugly, vulgar, vile and also socially and culturally destructive. Certainly inferior to other possibilities.

My case then is proven.

[Harbal]

Wizard is a malicious moron, and you know it, but he suits your purpose.

You have no idea what I know or don’t know.

Okay, I only think I know, but if I am wrong, you have much less intelligence than I have given you credit for.

I am interested in bad ideas and bad practices that have crept in (infiltrated, infected) the body politic and our own body-mind selves.

In any case — talk about what it means to be severely misguided.

You don't like the thought of homosexuality, masturbation and transgenderism, but you must know that those things will always exist, so I assume you would at least advocate their being suppressed out of public visibility. In other words, you would be prepared to put countless people into a state of misery, merely so that you don't have to look at something you don't like; although in the case of public wanking, I find myself agreeing with you. That's all very well (even though it really isn't), but what happens when someone objects to the presence of bird watchers in the countryside? Look at that pervert spying on the blackbirds.

[Alexis Jacobi]

My case then is proven.

In some sense, yes.

[FlashDangerpants]

My case then is proven.

In some sense, yes.

I care very little for the joyless conformity of your totalitarian moralist dream society. I can happily reject your opinions on nearly all matters as there is no real grounds for any of it beyond the propagandist arguments you resort to. Now give Wizzard the reacharound he's spent the last week begging for.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You don't like the thought of homosexuality, masturbation and transgenderism, but you must know that those things will always exist, so I assume you would at least advocate their being suppressed out of public visibility.

You’ve got it only slightly right.

Masturbation, homosexuality and transgenderism represent deviancies and as such should be recognizes as such — even by those who practice these things.

There were sound reasons why masturbation, certainly when obsessive, was discouraged. Those reasons can be known and considered.

Yes, homosexuality always will exist. But (in my view) should be suppressed and restricted by the general population. I.e. as an expression of sound cultural ethics.

Now, these deviancies are too powerful.

But I have no illusions: my views — and the intellectual arguments that support them — are on the wane and discredited. By people with your views.

so I assume you would at least advocate their being suppressed out of public visibility.

That is what I have clearly stated in other places. My argument might appear “prudish” or seem Christianly inspired, but I think it can be (better) presented in philosophical terms.

And sorry: no Drag Queen Story Hour.