Sex and the Religious-Left

[Alexis Jacobi]

What is "hyper-liberalism"?

As far as I know it is my own term. And it indicates a Liberalism — understood to be generally good — that has exceeded proper bounds; or decayed; become decadent; and also (and this is the case) become perverted.

I could mention “sexual perversion” (and I believe that is a real thing), but also point to the undermining and perverting influence of Marxism and similar ideological contaminants.

For those of us critical of the present — the outcomes of our present — and interested in what influences will •cure• us (our own selves, families, communities) we have no choice but to seek tools in concepts and value-declarations that seem grounded in value-solidities.

The term Hyper-Liberalism is a sort of added commentary on Tomislav Sunic’s assessment that Liberalism in the Occident has become •Liberal Rot•.

If something is rotten it demands action of one sort or another. Rot by definition has to be arrested. Obviously in one’s personal body (one’s self, personality, “body”) but also in the social body.

If you have •sexual ethics• — and you have just presented what yours are — then you can understand those of people whose ethics are a) more lax or non-existent and b) more strict and less tolerant.

But there has to be an underlying set of principles that determine all perspectives, whatever they may be.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Good work, Harbal!

Woo-hoo!

[Gary Childress]

What is "hyper-liberalism"?

As far as I know it is my own term. And it indicates a Liberalism — understood to be generally good — that has exceeded proper bounds; or decayed; become decadent; and also (and this is the case) become perverted.

I could mention “sexual perversion” (and I believe that is a real thing), but also point to the undermining and perverting influence of Marxism and similar ideological contaminants.

For those of us critical of the present — the outcomes of our present — and interested in what influences will •cure• us (our own selves, families, communities) we have no choice but to seek tools in concepts and value-declarations that seem grounded in value-solidities.

The term Hyper-Liberalism is a sort of added commentary on Tomislav Sunic’s assessment that Liberalism in the Occident has become •Liberal Rot•.

If something is rotten it demands action of one sort or another. Rot by definition has to be arrested. Obviously in one’s personal body (one’s self, personality, “body”) but also in the social body.

If you have •sexual ethics• — and you have just presented what yours are — then you can understand those of people whose ethics are a) more lax or non-existent and b) more strict and less tolerant.

But there has to be an underlying set of principles that determine all perspectives, whatever they may be.

Is there also "conservative rot", or "hyper conservatism" to be warry of? I mean, if you just want to counter people who are too individualistic or perhaps "libertines" or whatever, then fine. I can go off on that end at times and it's probably healthy to have someone drag me back when I do go overboard. I'm not sure if your views represent ultimate justice or "health" or whatever you want to call it, but I suppose we can find out as we explore each other's views.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The topic is present culture, cultural trends, the health of our society and of ourselves.

So the issue is defining 1) if there is a state or states of ill-health, 2) if yes what could remediation entail?

I can go off on that end at times and it's probably healthy to have someone drag me back when I do go overboard. I'm not sure if your views represent ultimate justice or "health" or whatever you want to call it, but I suppose we can find out as we explore each other's views.

In my own case — not yours evidently — I refer to established, defined authority, and that is because I •believe in• objective value and meaning. I recognize that is a terrible barrier for many.

It is likely I’d resist •exploring• (let’s say) your subjective views and values.

I could explore •value systems• though and the •principles• that have been defined and presented.

It really all depends on principles. And principles hinge into question of metaphysics.

[Gary Childress]

The topic is present culture, cultural trends, the health of our society and of ourselves.

So the issue is defining 1) if there is a state or states of ill-health, 2) if yes what could remediation entail?

I can go off on that end at times and it's probably healthy to have someone drag me back when I do go overboard. I'm not sure if your views represent ultimate justice or "health" or whatever you want to call it, but I suppose we can find out as we explore each other's views.

In my own case — not yours evidently — I refer to established, defined authority, and that is because I •believe in• objective value and meaning. I recognize that is a terrible barrier for many.

It is likely I’d resist •exploring• (let’s say) your subjective views and values.

I could explore •value systems• though and the •principles• that have been defined and presented.

It really all depends on principles. And principles hinge into question of metaphysics.

Fine, don't explore. Lock yourself up in your room of "principles" and watch and judge and criticize. Don't participate in any kind of exchange. It's your way or the highway.

[Harbal]

Good work, Harbal!

Woo-hoo!

Offer me your email course for free, and I'll stop it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Fine, don't explore. Lock yourself up in your room of "principles" and watch and judge and criticize. Don't participate in any kind of exchange. It's your way or the highway.

You can’t understand: the first order of things is in the principles one defines, or has had defined.

Watching, judging and criticizing are essential ethical and moral actions.

You fail also to understand: explore [*]your[/i] views?! On what foundation (if I may be slightly sententious) are your views based?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Good work, Harbal!

Woo-hoo!

Offer me your email course for free, and I'll stop it.

I don’t want you to stop.

[Gary Childress]

Fine, don't explore. Lock yourself up in your room of "principles" and watch and judge and criticize. Don't participate in any kind of exchange. It's your way or the highway.

You can’t understand: the first order of things is in the principles one defines, or has had defined.

Watching, judging and criticizing are essential ethical and moral actions.

You fail also to understand: explore [*]your[/i] views?! On what foundation (if I may be slightly sententious) are your views based?

Why do you think you need a "foundation"? Foundations are for houses and buildings. Moralizing is done in an economy of differences and give and take.

[Harbal]

Good work, Harbal!

Woo-hoo!

Offer me your email course for free, and I'll stop it.

I don’t want you to stop.

Actually, that works for me, because I didn't really want your email course.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Moralizing is done in an economy of differences and give and take.

In order for that exchange, interchange or negotiation to occur, each party inevitably is working from a foundation in values. If asked to explain why a value is valuable and should be respected or heeded, that person will have to defend the foundational principle.

If you say “My value system allows and encourages me to seduce and have sex with minor children”, you will necessarily have to fill me in on your reasoning. I.e. defend the principle involved.

But if I reply “I reject your value-system at its foundational level. The arguments you might put forth are a priori invalid”, I am supposing that we observers will understand the undeniable validity of my retort and rejection of your “argument”.

So, there are some issues where the “moral give and take” is invalidated at the level of principle and no negotiation will take place.

And there are certainly foundations that are elaborated on the base of defined principles.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Offer me your email course for free, and I'll stop it.

I don’t want you to stop.

Actually, that works for me, because I didn't really want your email course.

And I still hope that one day you might emerge from a child’s intellectual cocoon so that it is possible to have meaningful dialogue with you.

[Gary Childress]

Moralizing is done in an economy of differences and give and take.

In order for that exchange, interchange or negotiation to occur, each party inevitably is working from a foundation in values. If asked to explain why a value is valuable and should be respected or heeded, that person will have to defend the foundational principle.

If you say “My value system allows and encourages me to seduce and have sex with minor children”, you will necessarily have to fill me in on your reasoning. I.e. defend the principle involved.

But if I reply “I reject your value-system at its foundational level. The arguments you might put forth are a priori invalid”, I am supposing that we observers will understand the undeniable validity of my retort and rejection of your “argument”.

So, there are some issues where the “moral give and take” is invalidated at the level of principle and no negotiation will take place.

And there are certainly foundations that are elaborated on the base of defined principles.

I agree. I would never call my sex drive a giver of value. Like most desires, it's counter productive to the common welfare of all. Drives and urges need to be managed in appropriate ways. It's the same way with a desire to murder or a desire to discriminate against someone because they are gay or mentally ill and pose no substantial moral problem. That's why I wonder what your "principles" are. Do you think everyone ought to be cookie cutter homogenous? Note, that doesn't mean anything and everything goes, but you seem to have problems with some things that really aren't moral problems as far as I'm aware.

I don't go for sex with minor children, BTW. Do you? I ask because you often accuse others of "projecting." So apparently it's something you are familiar with in some way shape or form.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I agree. I would never call my sex drive a giver of value. Like most desires, it's counter productive to the common welfare of all.

You mean perverted desire or desire channeled improperly. And yes •sex desire• cannot be a value in any higher sense. It is a function.

Drives and urges need to be managed in appropriate ways. It's the same way with a desire to murder or a desire to discriminate against someone because they are gay or mentally ill and pose no substantial moral problem.

The first statement seems sound.

But the desire to murder is in a different category than •inappropriate or destructive use of sexuality•.

To discriminate about untoward sexual expressions is entirely ethical — but it does depend on one’s principles (and their foundation).

Mental illness is not a moral issue. But it is a moral issue how it and they are treated. But a larger issue is “Why is there so much mental illness?”

I definitely have sympathies for one •born gay•. That is why I say they must be tolerated.

But they must not be allowed to suggest or insist that their proclivity, their life-style, and their unions, are equal to and on the same plane as heterosexual unions (that produce families).

It is a moral problem when use of sexuality is separated from the heterosexual couple in a productive union.

However, I am operating from a defined ethical foundation.

I say this for reasons of principle.

I don't go for sex with minor children, BTW. Do you? I ask because you often accuse others of "projecting." So apparently it's something you are familiar with in some way shape or form.

Much recent, modern advertising uses (typically) models who look like adolescent girls. The sexualization of the child — especially the young girl — is an outcome of relaxation of •proper moral limits• most often for business purposes.

The use such images exploits a natural prurient desire if I am to be frank. So we (men) must be aware of desire programmed physiologically but we have to remember that it is our own daughters we are sexualizing.

Pedophilia is, of course, a whole other category.

My point is that once sexual expression is •liberated• from moral snd ethically determined bounds, it always continues to advance toward even more forbidden territories.

Anyone can be seduced by perversions. And that is the entire point: to establish limits.

[Dubious]

I don’t want you to stop.

Actually, that works for me, because I didn't really want your email course.

And I still hope that one day you might emerge from a child’s intellectual cocoon so that it is possible to have meaningful dialogue with you.

A child's intellectual cocoon is normal compared to its grown-up version in which you have, after much effort, become the poster boy on the site though well camouflaged by a warped and uberspitzende intellectualismus.**

**over-the -top intellectualization. It's a term Goebbels used in the book-burning festivities, though himself not being immune to such intellectualization.