ONE ACT TO BREATH NEW LIFE INTO SEXUAL MORALITY

[popeye1945]

The sexual revolution and the freedom of women. "If you can not be with the one you love, then love the one you're with." The pill and freedom. It has been a whirlwind, has it not? Was the price the nuclear family or some mockup of what used to be? How many men are raising another man's children, sometimes not to find out until the children are adults, or not to find out at all? One must wonder why, understanding this chaos, why polygamy is against the law. This is an area where buyer beware is the norm, where fraud is common, and romance conquers all. Sexual selection has always been the female function, understandable with so much of the burden falling a heavy weight on the mother. She is the keeper of the gate, but it becomes troublesome when the gate is left forever open. In this age of science, it is now possible to test paternity, but it is not done unless one asks for it, making the male a villain of mistrust of the lovelest flower ever. It has been suggested that there be mandatory paternity testing in every hospital upon the arrival of every newborn, but it is not an automatic process and has been rejected as such. This deprives the man of the certainty of his paternity, but also denies the right of the children involved to know their genetic inheritance and their true father. So, what is the rationale for not making this an automatic process? Would it cost society too much to introduce such a practice? Is sexual morality too burdensome for the population to deal with? Your thoughts!

[Impenitent]

morality aside....

https://www.webmd.com/parenting/what-to ... rtificates

"If the parents of a newborn are not married, the dad's name can be completed on the birth certificate if both sign an Acknowledgement of Paternity. If you are not married to your child’s father or not tied to the biological father, paternity for the baby must be established by Acknowledgement of Paternity. This form is purely voluntary.

The establishment of paternity is the means by which you legally determine the paternity of dads of children born to unmarried parents. All children have a biological father, but if that father is not married to the children's mom, legally, they may not be recognized or accepted as the legal father. Until the father is established legally, in some states, he may have no rights or responsibilities to the child..."

if the father isn't present at the time of birth (far too frequently) the mother fills out the forms and can write in whoever she wants...

men have very few rights...

it takes far too much self control to say no to sex outside of wedlock

-Imp

[accelafine]

''men have very few rights''

Maybe start carrying a baby for 9 months, giving birth, and being the only source of life and nourishment for it afterwards then. That would be a good start for whiny, butt-hurt, woman-hating men. Perhaps try keeping your dicks in your pants or use condoms.

[popeye1945]

morality aside....

https://www.webmd.com/parenting/what-to ... rtificates

"If the parents of a newborn are not married, the dad's name can be completed on the birth certificate if both sign an Acknowledgement of Paternity. If you are not married to your child’s father or not tied to the biological father, paternity for the baby must be established by Acknowledgement of Paternity. This form is purely voluntary.

The establishment of paternity is the means by which you legally determine the paternity of dads of children born to unmarried parents. All children have a biological father, but if that father is not married to the children's mom, legally, they may not be recognized or accepted as the legal father. Until the father is established legally, in some states, he may have no rights or responsibilities to the child.
If the father isn't present at the time of birth (far too frequently) the mother fills out the forms and can write in whoever she wants...
Men have very few rights... it takes far too much self-control to say no to sex outside of wedlock.

It is chaos, but I guess it always has been. I wonder what it would look like to create order, where a child has a right to know their natural father and their genetic heritage. It seems like a very base process; some animal groups have a more wholesome process. I would imagine some women would not even know who the father is; it would be a shot in the dark. I think even with the randomness of the process, an attempt should be made to identify the real father, even if it was just for the children's sake. Perhaps we shouldn't beat ourselves up too badly over our own wretchedness in this area, as sex itself is involuntary; it is the will of the species, the most powerful of life's drives, even above that of individual survival. Perhaps It is unreasonable to think that control is possible, though humanity is often addicted to the illusion of self-aggrandizement through its belief that it controls nature. Should we not, as the most conscious of species to date, wish to control this aspect for at least the practical purpose of population control?

[Impenitent]

''men have very few rights''

Maybe start carrying a baby for 9 months, giving birth, and being the only source of life and nourishment for it afterwards then. That would be a good start for whiny, butt-hurt, woman-hating men. Perhaps try keeping your dicks in your pants or use condoms.

babies (boys or girls) do not have a right to know who their father is if the mother does not wish or is unable to tell them

-Imp

[Impenitent]

morality aside....

https://www.webmd.com/parenting/what-to ... rtificates

"If the parents of a newborn are not married, the dad's name can be completed on the birth certificate if both sign an Acknowledgement of Paternity. If you are not married to your child’s father or not tied to the biological father, paternity for the baby must be established by Acknowledgement of Paternity. This form is purely voluntary.

The establishment of paternity is the means by which you legally determine the paternity of dads of children born to unmarried parents. All children have a biological father, but if that father is not married to the children's mom, legally, they may not be recognized or accepted as the legal father. Until the father is established legally, in some states, he may have no rights or responsibilities to the child.
If the father isn't present at the time of birth (far too frequently) the mother fills out the forms and can write in whoever she wants...
Men have very few rights... it takes far too much self-control to say no to sex outside of wedlock.

It is chaos, but I guess it always has been. I wonder what it would look like to create order, where a child has a right to know their natural father and their genetic heritage. It seems like a very base process; some animal groups have a more wholesome process. I would imagine some women would not even know who the father is; it would be a shot in the dark. I think even with the randomness of the process, an attempt should be made to identify the real father, even if it was just for the children's sake. Perhaps we shouldn't beat ourselves up too badly over our own wretchedness in this area, as sex itself is involuntary; it is the will of the species, the most powerful of life's drives, even above that of individual survival. Perhaps It is unreasonable to think that control is possible, though humanity is often addicted to the illusion of self-aggrandizement through its belief that it controls nature. Should we not, as the most conscious of species to date, wish to control this aspect for at least the practical purpose of population control?

big brother is watching you...

-Imp

[accelafine]

''men have very few rights''

Maybe start carrying a baby for 9 months, giving birth, and being the only source of life and nourishment for it afterwards then. That would be a good start for whiny, butt-hurt, woman-hating men. Perhaps try keeping your dicks in your pants or use condoms.

babies (boys or girls) do not have a right to know who their father is if the mother does not wish or is unable to tell them

-Imp

Good. And there's a very good reason for that. What does it have to do with you? You men whine about having to pay child support. You whine about not having to pay child support. Seriously. Just go fuck yourselves instead of women then.

[Impenitent]

''men have very few rights''

Maybe start carrying a baby for 9 months, giving birth, and being the only source of life and nourishment for it afterwards then. That would be a good start for whiny, butt-hurt, woman-hating men. Perhaps try keeping your dicks in your pants or use condoms.

babies (boys or girls) do not have a right to know who their father is if the mother does not wish or is unable to tell them

-Imp

Good. And there's a very good reason for that. What does it have to do with you? You men whine about having to pay child support. You whine about not having to pay child support. Seriously. Just go fuck yourselves instead of women then.

it has nothing to do with me... but aren't you glad you know who your father is?

-Imp

[accelafine]

babies (boys or girls) do not have a right to know who their father is if the mother does not wish or is unable to tell them

-Imp

Good. And there's a very good reason for that. What does it have to do with you? You men whine about having to pay child support. You whine about not having to pay child support. Seriously. Just go fuck yourselves instead of women then.

it has nothing to do with me... but aren't you glad you know who your father is?

-Imp

What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

[Impenitent]

Good. And there's a very good reason for that. What does it have to do with you? You men whine about having to pay child support. You whine about not having to pay child support. Seriously. Just go fuck yourselves instead of women then.

it has nothing to do with me... but aren't you glad you know who your father is?

-Imp

What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

...In this age of science, it is now possible to test paternity, but it is not done unless one asks for it, making the male a villain of mistrust of the lovelest flower ever. It has been suggested that there be mandatory paternity testing in every hospital upon the arrival of every newborn, but it is not an automatic process and has been rejected as such. This deprives the man of the certainty of his paternity, but also denies the right of the children involved to know their genetic inheritance and their true father...

nothing

-Imp

[Phil8659]

The sexual revolution and the freedom of women. "If you can not be with the one you love, then love the one you're with." The pill and freedom. It has been a whirlwind, has it not? Was the price the nuclear family or some mockup of what used to be? How many men are raising another man's children, sometimes not to find out until the children are adults, or not to find out at all? One must wonder why, understanding this chaos, why polygamy is against the law. This is an area where buyer beware is the norm, where fraud is common, and romance conquers all. Sexual selection has always been the female function, understandable with so much of the burden falling a heavy weight on the mother. She is the keeper of the gate, but it becomes troublesome when the gate is left forever open. In this age of science, it is now possible to test paternity, but it is not done unless one asks for it, making the male a villain of mistrust of the lovelest flower ever. It has been suggested that there be mandatory paternity testing in every hospital upon the arrival of every newborn, but it is not an automatic process and has been rejected as such. This deprives the man of the certainty of his paternity, but also denies the right of the children involved to know their genetic inheritance and their true father. So, what is the rationale for not making this an automatic process? Would it cost society too much to introduce such a practice? Is sexual morality too burdensome for the population to deal with? Your thoughts!

You are a real snake oil salesman. And what makes you, or anyone else think that they can hand out a person's rights, and use those rights to dominate someone? And how is it that you actually believe that "society" is an individual?
A mind has one and only one job to do, and one and only one method of doing that job, who is the shithead that thinks that they are implied as being able to dish out anything to anybody?

Every person is responsible for their own behavior, and has no rights over another's behavior.

Every member of a class is a member of that class according to the definition of that class, therefore, no member of a class is distinguishable, or is called contiguous, from, or with, another member. So, if you could think using definitions, you would see that you are quite insane. Claiming anyone has any rights at all, given to them by another or by a social structure, cannot spot a contradiction when it has devoured them.

[popeye1945]

The sexual revolution and the freedom of women. "If you can not be with the one you love, then love the one you're with." The pill and freedom. It has been a whirlwind, has it not? Was the price the nuclear family or some mockup of what used to be? How many men are raising another man's children, sometimes not to find out until the children are adults, or not to find out at all? One must wonder why, understanding this chaos, why polygamy is against the law. This is an area where buyer beware is the norm, where fraud is common, and romance conquers all. Sexual selection has always been the female function, understandable with so much of the burden falling a heavy weight on the mother. She is the keeper of the gate, but it becomes troublesome when the gate is left forever open. In this age of science, it is now possible to test paternity, but it is not done unless one asks for it, making the male a villain of mistrust of the lovelest flower ever. It has been suggested that there be mandatory paternity testing in every hospital upon the arrival of every newborn, but it is not an automatic process and has been rejected as such. This deprives the man of the certainty of his paternity, but also denies the right of the children involved to know their genetic inheritance and their true father. So, what is the rationale for not making this an automatic process? Would it cost society too much to introduce such a practice? Is sexual morality too burdensome for the population to deal with? Your thoughts!

You are a real snake oil salesman. And what makes you, or anyone else think that they can hand out a person's rights, and use those rights to dominate someone? And how is it that you actually believe that "society" is an individual?
A mind has one and only one job to do, and one and only one method of doing that job, who is the shithead that thinks that they are implied as being able to dish out anything to anybody? Every person is responsible for their own behavior, and has no rights over another's behavior.
Every member of a class is a member of that class according to the definition of that class, therefore, no member of a class is distinguishable, or is called contiguous, from, or with, another member. So, if you could think using definitions, you would see that you are quite insane. Claiming anyone has any rights at all, given to them by another or by a social structure, cannot spot a contradiction when it has devoured them.

Well, you have passion if nothing else. Why do you believe this particular area is off limits, and who decides what is off limits? Is accountability a crime against humanity? Society is an individual in somewhat the same way as you think of yourself as an individual, but are, in fact, an extremely complex multicellular community. Identity can be a shapeshifter. Your behaviour is only partly decided by you; you live your life in a society according to a social contract, which also involves a moral system particular to that society. So, society is somewhat like a multicellular organism functioning the same way all organisms do, with the right to protect its innate sovereignty. Yours is a very personal emotional response. What is the trigger?

[Phil8659]

The sexual revolution and the freedom of women. "If you can not be with the one you love, then love the one you're with." The pill and freedom. It has been a whirlwind, has it not? Was the price the nuclear family or some mockup of what used to be? How many men are raising another man's children, sometimes not to find out until the children are adults, or not to find out at all? One must wonder why, understanding this chaos, why polygamy is against the law. This is an area where buyer beware is the norm, where fraud is common, and romance conquers all. Sexual selection has always been the female function, understandable with so much of the burden falling a heavy weight on the mother. She is the keeper of the gate, but it becomes troublesome when the gate is left forever open. In this age of science, it is now possible to test paternity, but it is not done unless one asks for it, making the male a villain of mistrust of the lovelest flower ever. It has been suggested that there be mandatory paternity testing in every hospital upon the arrival of every newborn, but it is not an automatic process and has been rejected as such. This deprives the man of the certainty of his paternity, but also denies the right of the children involved to know their genetic inheritance and their true father. So, what is the rationale for not making this an automatic process? Would it cost society too much to introduce such a practice? Is sexual morality too burdensome for the population to deal with? Your thoughts!

You are a real snake oil salesman. And what makes you, or anyone else think that they can hand out a person's rights, and use those rights to dominate someone? And how is it that you actually believe that "society" is an individual?
A mind has one and only one job to do, and one and only one method of doing that job, who is the shithead that thinks that they are implied as being able to dish out anything to anybody? Every person is responsible for their own behavior, and has no rights over another's behavior.
Every member of a class is a member of that class according to the definition of that class, therefore, no member of a class is distinguishable, or is called contiguous, from, or with, another member. So, if you could think using definitions, you would see that you are quite insane. Claiming anyone has any rights at all, given to them by another or by a social structure, cannot spot a contradiction when it has devoured them.

Well, you have passion if nothing else. Why do you believe this particular area is off limits, and who decides what is off limits? Is accountability a crime against humanity? Society is an individual in somewhat the same way as you think of yourself as an individual, but are, in fact, an extremely complex multicellular community. Identity can be a shapeshifter. Your behaviour is only partly decided by you; you live your life in a society according to a social contract, which also involves a moral system particular to that society. So, society is somewhat like a multicellular organism functioning the same way all organisms do, with the right to protect its innate sovereignty. Yours is a very personal emotional response. What is the trigger?

Clearly simple and plain reasoning is over your head.
There you go with your anthropomorphism, "who decides what is off limits" i.e. who decides right and wrong, Does every other animal respect the Alpha? You are as thick as a brick.
Tell me, Who invented the art of reasoning? Who invented judgment? Or is it just a given, like space and time? Does any form of life, whatsoever, invent the relative difference, or does all life simply parse what they got? And therefore, is there not an art of Grammar, the Art of Parsing information, the Art of reasoning, independent of life as it is over all the living and the dead, all the animate and inanimate?
Might want to read the Bible, or Plato, or Confucius, or anyone else who teaches you that there are two parts of speech, and nothing in all of creation is made from one of them.

[popeye1945]

You are a real snake oil salesman. And what makes you, or anyone else think that they can hand out a person's rights, and use those rights to dominate someone? And how is it that you actually believe that "society" is an individual?
A mind has one and only one job to do, and one and only one method of doing that job, who is the shithead that thinks that they are implied as being able to dish out anything to anybody? Every person is responsible for their own behavior, and has no rights over another's behavior.
Every member of a class is a member of that class according to the definition of that class, therefore, no member of a class is distinguishable, or is called contiguous, from, or with, another member. So, if you could think using definitions, you would see that you are quite insane. Claiming anyone has any rights at all, given to them by another or by a social structure, cannot spot a contradiction when it has devoured them.

Well, you have passion if nothing else. Why do you believe this particular area is off limits, and who decides what is off limits? Is accountability a crime against humanity? Society is an individual in somewhat the same way as you think of yourself as an individual, but are, in fact, an extremely complex multicellular community. Identity can be a shapeshifter. Your behaviour is only partly decided by you; you live your life in a society according to a social contract, which also involves a moral system particular to that society. So, society is somewhat like a multicellular organism functioning the same way all organisms do, with the right to protect its innate sovereignty. Yours is a very personal emotional response. What is the trigger?

Clearly simple and plain reasoning is over your head.
There you go with your anthropomorphism, "who decides what is off limits" i.e. who decides right and wrong, Does every other animal respect the Alpha? You are as thick as a brick.
Tell me, Who invented the art of reasoning? Who invented judgment? Or is it just a given, like space and time?

Very emotional, dear!

[Phil8659]

Well, you have passion if nothing else. Why do you believe this particular area is off limits, and who decides what is off limits? Is accountability a crime against humanity? Society is an individual in somewhat the same way as you think of yourself as an individual, but are, in fact, an extremely complex multicellular community. Identity can be a shapeshifter. Your behaviour is only partly decided by you; you live your life in a society according to a social contract, which also involves a moral system particular to that society. So, society is somewhat like a multicellular organism functioning the same way all organisms do, with the right to protect its innate sovereignty. Yours is a very personal emotional response. What is the trigger?

Clearly simple and plain reasoning is over your head.
There you go with your anthropomorphism, "who decides what is off limits" i.e. who decides right and wrong, Does every other animal respect the Alpha? You are as thick as a brick.
Tell me, Who invented the art of reasoning? Who invented judgment? Or is it just a given, like space and time?

Very emotional, dear!

Not at all, it is just that you are so stupid as to not realize you are using words, as your power of an argument, but then claiming it is not reasoning but some "who." That is called schizophrenia.

Might want to listen or read Euthyphro several times.