Sex and the Religious-Left

[Harbal]

It's possible that we would agree on some specifics, but you only seem to want to present your views in very general terms, so it's hard to tell.

Views, in the sense you seem to mean, are complex creatures. Our view depends on a great deal of backgrounding.

Harry Baird, who reads here, makes a similar critique. But I am not here to develop and present a Grand Plan for Societal Rehabilitation. I am working in the direction of clarifying core ideas (HB referred to First Principle) by sorting through specific questions.

Well you do keep saying that what you write here is only for your own benefit, so it probably doesn't matter to you that no one seems to quite know what your position is.

Recently sexuality, its use and abuse.

Yes, you have given us a sense of the sorts of things you disapprove of, but there hasn't been much in the way of any detailed breakdown and examination of various aspects of sexuality. This is why you give me the impression that much of what you seem to condemn is just based on your personal taste, rather than any kind of valid reasoning. But, of course, if you make the matter a moral issue, then things do become, more or less, just a matter of taste, unless we are arguing with IC, that is.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well you do keep saying that what you write here is only for your own benefit, so it probably doesn't matter to you that no one seems to quite know what your position is.

That is a skewed interpretation. Here is a truer view: those here who generally come out against any formulation of mine do so because of their fixed, determined and established views. They *hear* something that doesn't feel quite right, and come roaring in with accusations of Nazism and fascism, waffle and any number of other accusations.

In your case, the ideas I write about are so utterly foreign to you that, at first glance, you can hardly understand the principles behind them. While not *Nazi* and not *fascist* it is sinister to your ears.

In a nutshell: I explain my views in extensive detail. It is not that I do not make the effort.

And yes, I am here to write out as clearly as I can what I think, and that for my benefit. I certainly cannot declare that I do it for someone else's benefit! And in that sense I satisfy myself first.

[FlashDangerpants]

That was utterly self-serving even by your standards

[Alexis Jacobi]

Yes, you have given us a sense of the sorts of things you disapprove of, but there hasn't been much in the way of any detailed breakdown and examination of various aspects of sexuality. This is why you give me the impression that much of what you seem to condemn is just based on your personal taste, rather than any kind of valid reasoning. But, of course, if you make the matter a moral issue, then things do become, more or less, just a matter of taste, unless we are arguing with IC, that is.

There has been a substantial amount. This BS is played out on Internet forums all the time: the accusation that *My questions are left unanswered!* *You don't explain yourself enough!" "Show me the sources!"

C'mon Harbal. "Valid reasoning"?

Moral questions are not issues of taste. That Dubious, he has contaminated you!

[Alexis Jacobi]

That was utterly self-serving even by your standards

The Perv returns ...

Allen Ginsberg wrote that "no one really wants to get fucked in the ass" and, I gather, he spoke as one with some experience in these matters.

How, Flash, do you navigate these -- er hum -- territories?

Is it give'n'take for you, or just take or just give?

[promethean75]

"Monogamy is not for everybody, in fact, it is actually for very few sections of Humanity (the Aristocracy, Royalty, Nobility)"

Bro what r u talking about? It's those guys who had the most shorties on the side, not the plebs. The elites only practice monogamy for family inheritance and bloodline, but the males sure af weren't and aren't monogamous sexually. Permiscuity is like a privilege. These guys got bitches on speed dial, bruh.

[Harbal]

Well you do keep saying that what you write here is only for your own benefit, so it probably doesn't matter to you that no one seems to quite know what your position is.

That is a skewed interpretation.

Is that my fault, or yours for not explaining yourself very well?

Here is a truer view:

"Truer" in the sense that you are in control of the skewing, you mean?

those here who generally come out against any formulation of mine do so because of their fixed, determined and established views. They *hear* something that doesn't feel quite right, and come roaring in with accusations of Nazism and fascism, waffle and any number of other accusations.

So it is always everyone else in the wrong, and you are able to look inside their heads and see the reason for it?

In your case, the ideas I write about are so utterly foreign to you that, at first glance, you can hardly understand the principles behind them.

That could be due to my intellectual limitations, or it might just be that the "ideas" aren't quite as deep as you perceive them to be. I have a mental image of you holding onto a bunch of balloons, but instead of being filled with buoyant gas, you have inflated them with your metaphysics. They might look substantial, but only until someone comes along with a pin.

While not *Nazi* and not *fascist* it is sinister to your ears.

So the problem is with my ears?

Well there do seem to be disturbing implications to much of what you write, but I think the main reason you come across as a bit sinister is because you are so vague and guarded, as if you are being careful not to show too much of the big picture all at one, lest it frightens us.

In a nutshell: I explain my views in extensive detail. It is not that I do not make the effort.

Yes, you certainly make the effort, but you hardly explain anything at all. What you produce is all style, but hardly any content.

And yes, I am here to write out as clearly as I can what I think, and that for my benefit. I certainly cannot declare that I do it for someone else's benefit! And in that sense I satisfy myself first.

I suppose you could avoid criticism and misinterpretation by not posting what you write. After all, you are only doing it for yourself.

[promethean75]

For bonus points, complete the following apropos movie line:

I bet you're the kind of guy who would ____ _ ______ __ ___ ___ and not have the goddamn common courtesy to ____ ___ _ ___________.

[Harbal]

Yes, you have given us a sense of the sorts of things you disapprove of, but there hasn't been much in the way of any detailed breakdown and examination of various aspects of sexuality. This is why you give me the impression that much of what you seem to condemn is just based on your personal taste, rather than any kind of valid reasoning. But, of course, if you make the matter a moral issue, then things do become, more or less, just a matter of taste, unless we are arguing with IC, that is.

There has been a substantial amount. This BS is played out on Internet forums all the time: the accusation that *My questions are left unanswered!* *You don't explain yourself enough!" "Show me the sources!"

C'mon Harbal. "Valid reasoning"?

You protest, but offer no justification for it.

[promethean75]

"Is it give'n'take for you, or just take or just give?"

The point is that it duddint matter. Some of the greatest giants of philosophy liked putting from the rough. Turing and Wittgenstein were two such persons.

Here's how i see it: it is possible for me to be simultaneously repulsed by the idea of homosexual sex and fascinated by the ideas of a gay philosopher. Like when what you're saying or doing in your field is so badass the stigma of homosexuality doesn't stick or even matter

On the other hand, if you're rather untalented and ordinary or even a bit obnoxious, the fact that u are gay becomes worse. Or it starts to become the only signficant thing about u so it stands out more, rather. It's your master-status class. U are 'that gay guy', not a computer scientist or logician who happens to be gay.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Director Stanley Kubrick had nothing but praise for R. Lee Ermey's skills as a performer. Kubrick originally was going to write dialogue for Ermey's character himself, but he became so impressed with what Ermey improvised, he decided it was not necessary. He simply let him ad-lib, an act practically unheard of for a Stanley Kubrick film. Ermey's performances were so faultless that Kubrick only needed two to three takes to get his scenes filmed, which was also extremely rare for a Kubrick film. The only instance Ermey had to film more than two to three takes was in the "Jelly Doughnut Scene," which he claimed was filmed in 37 takes, to the point his voice kept disappearing from time to time.

[Dubious]

Yes, you have given us a sense of the sorts of things you disapprove of, but there hasn't been much in the way of any detailed breakdown and examination of various aspects of sexuality. This is why you give me the impression that much of what you seem to condemn is just based on your personal taste, rather than any kind of valid reasoning. But, of course, if you make the matter a moral issue, then things do become, more or less, just a matter of taste, unless we are arguing with IC, that is.

There has been a substantial amount. This BS is played out on Internet forums all the time: the accusation that *My questions are left unanswered!* *You don't explain yourself enough!" "Show me the sources!"

C'mon Harbal. "Valid reasoning"?

Moral questions are not issues of taste. That Dubious, he has contaminated you!

I'd be fooling myself rather badly to believe I had that kind of influence over anybody!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Yes, you certainly make the effort, but you hardly explain anything at all. What you produce is all style, but hardly any content.

Unfair. Really. I explain a lot.

all style, but hardly any content

Wow. That hurt. I’m going into the bathroom to cry.

Show me a paragraph from any serious post that you believe best illustrated the ::: wounded voice ::: stylistic you refer to.

I’d like to see what you come up with.

[Harbal]

Yes, you certainly make the effort, but you hardly explain anything at all. What you produce is all style, but hardly any content.

Unfair. Really. I explain a lot.

You must be right about me, then; I just don't get it.

all style, but hardly any content

Wow. That hurt. I’m going into the bathroom to cry.

Why the bathroom?

You don't have to answer that; it's none of my business.

Show me a paragraph from any serious post that you believe best illustrated the ::: wounded voice ::: stylistic you refer to.

I’d like to see what you come up with.

I'm not going to argue about it. I'm just giving you feedback; consider or reject it as you please.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Why the bathroom?

You can turn on the faucets to muffle your sobs?