So, basically no intellectual arguementation whatsoever. As usual. Well, you had your chance, just your standard trolling. Again, as usual. Welcome back to ignore partner. I was curious to see why you would jump out of the blue to defend gifted? Well, looks like nothing more than the spoilt antics of someone who was beaten in too many debates - nothing more. Agh, I wonder what the Bible says about holding grudges? Science? Good bye again MDF. I have no desire to again expose myself to your emotional hyperbolye, illogical rambling, and, quite frankly, abusive behavior.
Ok, but will you promise you'll give an objectively placed reasoning against? http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/255/27/ Hardly: "Fans of abstinence had better be sitting down. "Saving yourself" before the big game, the big business deal, the big hoedown or the big bakeoff may indeed confer some moral benefit. But corporeally it does absolutely zip." http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/08/cz_af_1008health.html "A flurry of small studies suggest that sex is as good for your health as vitamin D and broccoli. It not only relieves stress, improves sleep and burns calories, it can also reduce pain, ease depression, strengthen blood vessels, boost the immune system and lower the risk of prostate and breast cancer." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704569404576298953365120630.html Read more about the obvious benefits: http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2010/02/11/55-fantastic-mind-blowing-health-benefits-of-sex-nsfw/ http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/features/10-surprising-health-benefits-of-sex http://www.womenshealthmag.com/sex-and-relationships/benefits-of-sex-0#axzz1mQ0sJV78 Ok whatever -here's my position: If you want to have sex, you should be allowed to go ahead and make love for as hard and long as you please. The health benefits of sexual intercourse are readily apparent as stated above. Morally speaking, I cannot see a reason why wanting to do what you are naturally designed to pursue and psychologically desire is a bad thing when it has no victims. Having sex is fun, healthy and natural. It is IMMORAL to deny people the right to practice and exercise yourself to achieve such ends. Without any mental deficiencies or ailments, no one has the interests of themselves better understood than the individual. As such, when it comes to simple agreements whose effects pertain to no one but those involved in the free interaction, society has no place to stop them, this includes sexual intercourse. As John Stuart Mill put it: "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." This means that if someone wishes to go a more radical application of this freedom, ie be promiscuous, then they have the absolute right to do so. Even if the damage of such action was debilitating, psychologically or physically, it would not change the freedom and right of that individual to continue such action where they have fully functioning control of their mental faculties. I await Neutral's response.
I am not referring so close to home, in terms of religious authorities, I'm referring more to the social conditions and tendencies surrounding the practice. Hre's a few links about prostitution in Renaissance Italy - the religious center of Christian Europe: "Wealthy men had mistresses and concubines, but the courtesan did not come to prominence again until around 1450. During the rediscovery of the Classics, stories about the hetairai surfaced, and there was a market for courtesans once again, particularly in Italy. A courtesan of Venice, Veronica Franco, built a refuge for prostitutes in 1577. It was unique in its time, as it allowed the women to live there with their children and go outside to work at legitimate jobs.[58]" http://home.comcast.net/~mikibu/Articlefolder/prostitution.htm http://books.google.com.au/books?id...issance italy prostitution encouraged&f=false http://garnlebaron.wordpress.com/sexual_relations_in_renaissance_europe/ In all three religions it was considered sinful. It was detested by the Jewish prophets (who were revered by Jesus) and condemned by Muhammad, but this didnt stop its use, tolerance and even promotion under each religious group's authority.
I'm not quite sure where you are drawing the line in your argument. The Bible itself has not changed in its regard toward prostitution, temple or otherwise. Or course, MEN cannot always be counted on to do what is promoted in the Bible or what is considered the right thing to do in God's eyes or commands. So, i'm really not going to argue with you on this matter. Man is the problem. Not God's law.
Promiscuity is a part of the reasoning listed on this page: http://www.abortiontv.com/Avoid!/std.htm The moral issue is simply this: If you are not adhering to the commands of God, then do as you please but harm none.
I was just saying that historically it never really died. As for the moral argument, see my comment with the many links above.
Man you are one impatient angry man. I hadn't actually made my argument there. It was the following comment where I stated my contention. Whatever your loss. Everyone can see you just got schooled, again.
well why should it. It is the fallen nature of man. The sin nature. And if you don't mind i don't want to go back and try to find your comment on the moral argument. Are you arguing that it is moral or that it is not? Or that it is a moral problem for each religion?
This is why I always have to remind atheists about what a thesis statement is. No one is saying that sex is bad kiddo. What we are saying is that promiscuous sex is bad - and have provided science to back that up. You have provided mens magazines, which advocate promiscuity, and offer emotional support - but nothing scientific, which is the standard that you demanded. Nor indeed, do you address or rebut any of the issues that were presented about the downside of promiscuity - not a single one, while mischaracterizing, emotionally - as usual, a desire to avoid promiscuity with a desire to avoid sex entirely? Even as we state that monogamous sex inside of marriage is the ideal - but no sense addressing our thesis with a rebuttal. By all means, try making an actual rebuttal to the evidence that, ike gifted, you clearly did not read. http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/255/27/ While you are at it, how about this: http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/469/2/ 26 reason NOT to cohabitate. And that is JUST one source. There are thousands that document the downsides, suicides, etc. that flow from having empty sexual relationships - but heh, Maxim says its all good with no downside - so it must be right! Curiously enough, Islam - which you defend - agrees with Christianity about sex. Somehow, Muslims have it right but Christians have it wrong? Though we say the same thing. Interesting. Wonder what Maxim has to say about that?
At least he accepts it when he gets schooled. I school you, and you pretend you know more. You know nothing. You are a young, ignorant fool. You've been nowhere, you've done nothing, and you know nothing. You're political forum's biggest airhead JOKE. And I just got 2 reputation confirmations of that. And NO, I won't tell you who they are. (you ought to know, they are everyone in this forum - LOL)
You don't have to go far. It's comment 127 on page 13 ie just turn back one page and you'll see it. It's the one with five links to medical data. I am arguing that it is neither - it is merely a desire that some peole pursue and should be allowed to pursue. I do not believe it is a moral problem, but as a historical ractice, shows religion dies not seriously curb our impulses.
No, he doesnt. He then proceeds to execute a plethora of arguments that are totally irrelevant, instead they are non sequiturs and ad hominem. In fact its excepted. Not as bad as you though. See what I mean. Full of hot air, not much else. Funny but dismally pathetic to say the least. LOL! Ok, good for you. If that makes you feel happy, I couldnt be better. LOL I can geuss. Yes, 2 reputation points is 'everyone in this forum'. haha good luck to ya mate - you need it.
I see. Could you define promiscuity please. LOL! If the Wall Street Journal is a 'mens magazine' then I dont see what the problem is. Yes I did address them - each one of these negative affects means nothing if the individual is choosing to act that way of their own free will with no harm to others. Clearly to them, they feel the negatives do not outweigh the positives, else they would stop. aha, so you beleive that sex inside of marriage is the best, which inevitably leads to you having to address my point about sex OUTSIDE of marriage, let alone promiscuity. You have yet to actually say why they are morally wrong. For the sake of argument, I would rather just accept sex outside of marriage is worse, plus promiscuity, than sex within marriage, because even if this were true it would neither show why marriage is MORAL or how my position is IMMORAL. All it would show is that marriage is better, not moral. Unless you think 'better = moral', but you would have to make that point. What do I have to refute? As I said, even if this is true (which it isnt as my links, which are all credible, show) it would not make sex in marriage moral and sex outside/promiscuity immoral. I'm not going to play this little denial game you so enjoy. I'd prefer to strike at the flawed premise you have begun on - if sex in marriage is better than sex outside, how does this leave the former 'moral' and the latter 'amoral'? My point here is that you have not justified the morality of either action. I drink, for example, which is particularly dangerous for me because I am a diabetic (type 1). Now I realize down the track it might complicate my health, but I feel the enjoyment of drinking outweighs this. Is drinking itself moral or immoral if I abstain from it or not? No, I can see any reason to say either. In my opinion the only form of 'morality' that should concern us is the choice. In this sense, forcing people not to be promiscuous or to not drink because you feel, (and maybe you are right but it doesnt actually matter) that it is bad even though they choose, knowingly and willingly to do so IS immoral. Of course. I'd argue its a little more strict in some ways, but anyway. LOL! No, both have it wrong my friend. ...?...
Yep, and that is the arguement that has 'everyone' beat. His thesis? That promiscuity is a good thing. His 'science' to back it up? No where (a few articles about it, no science or data), the deliberate avoidance of countering evidence and arguementation (and the dismissal of rebuttals on a debate forum as somehow faulty???? ), and teh all too often drift in to emotional antics. Any consideration of the various religious positions or how they are arrived at? Nonexistant. Debate? Arguementation? Facts? Not for the athtarded. And, once again, does anyone else notice the silence of atheists when one of their own starts acting like this? Or will an atheist step up and actually make a debate about why promiscuity is such a good thing? And that about sums it up: Apparently the concept of actually reading the evidence of someone else and offering a rebuttal on a debate forum is superfluous? Inconssistant with the forum? But remember folks, he's a victim of other people's fixation with HIM. Do we understand why so many theologians consider atheism to be self worship?
Could you define promiscuity please. I think you missed the debate topic - we are discussing the actual moral integrity of the Abrahamic tradition's claim that marriage is best and promiscuity and sex outside marriage is bad.
All the science that you continue to avoid. Is it possible to be this obtuse outside of atheism? http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/255/27/ I guess lowered self esteem, greater rates of depression and suicide are meaningless to atheists? No need to rebut any of that though. No need to explain why debaseing someone as nothing more than a slot for penis, the very embodiment of respect for humanity, should be considered unsavory. The deliberately obtuse have spoken .... and trust me, nothing else will be heard by them.
I'm not avoiding it. Do you think sex outside of marriage is bad because it harmful? Do you thus believe anything that is harmful is bad? You are attacking a strawman. Stay focused mate. Why do I need to rebut that? If you have sex outside of marriage and act promiscuity you make a choice. No one is stopping you. Stopping someone from acting in such a way that has no victim is immoral. Wow, is that how you look at those people? Ok, but what if they have a different view? What if they think they are just making the most of life? In both cases neither you or that person concerned is right or wrong since both perceptions are entirely that - perceptions. They only real, that is objective description that can be applied is that they are having sex. You have yet to define promiscuity. Is it really? So you think forcing people to act how you choose shows more "respect for humanity" than letting people decide for themselves? Could you expand on that lack of logic? Consider it what you will, it should not stop it and your consideration is but one of many - each of equal, that is - no superiority, in value to any other. What else do you want me to hear? You should my reply to you instead of to others so I dont have to repeat myself. also take the time to read all I have written before attacking strawmen and running over ground I have already covered. It would save us both times. I do not care for the way people damage or abuse their bodies as they freely choose, and you must give me a reason as to why I should care before I can declare said action immoral.
Would my defining the term 'promiscuity' make things easier for you to understand? Now, do you want my definition or do you want a definition from a dictionary. Just want to make sure we are on the same page before a game scenario is put into effect. Where is the term 'promiscuity' used in the Bible? It is not used in the Bible? Well how about the 'moral integrity'... was that used in the Bible? Hmmm... That is not used either. Are you sure you are on the right thread. Neither of those things are mentioned in the Bible. Are you sure that you were discussing things relative to Abrahams tradition, or are you discussing things relative to MegadethFans tradition?
Whichever definition, just so I know what you are referring to as being 'immoral' specifically. I thought you had read Neutral's posts. That was the context of my comment. As for my comment, are you saying the Bible argues sex outside of marriage is ok and the attributed to the more rigorous fulfillment of that action described as promiscuity/licentiousness, is alright? Because as far as I am aware the overwhelming majority of Christian Biblical interpretation says it is "immoral".
You asked for the definition of promiscuity, not 'immoral', therefore, the definition for 'promiscuity' is: "prom·is·cu·i·ty (prm-sky-t, prm-) n. pl. prom·is·cu·i·ties 1. The state or character of being promiscuous. 2. Promiscuous sexual relations. 3. A mixture of diverse or unrelated parts or individuals; a hodgepodge." Ask and you have received. No! But you have obviously received that perception from something said by someone. The Bible does not 'argue', the Bible establishes a moral code and requires the adherents of the Bible to abide by that established moral code. That moral code, obviously would not be applicable to those others that are not adherents of the Bible and its subsequent code. Remember free-will. You choose what you want to follow. What difference should it make to someone who is not an adherent of the Bible and its subsequent moral code? Why should you or any other non-adherent of the Bible be concerned about what restrictions are placed on those that chose to be adherents of the Bible?
So you do not believe being promiscuous is immoral? Yes but my question is why should one follow the code of the Bible - ie what makes the Bible right and everyone else wrong? Because Christians argue that their moral code incorrect. I ask why. They must provide an answer to justify it to themselves to begin with as well. Belief does not make something right or wrong. Whether God is real or not wont change the objective reality of the Bible being moral or not. Well one, because I want to know why people believe that - ie I am asking and challenging their view point because, two, most of the people use violence to force others to think what they think (and by violence I mean the force of the state). Thus they need to justify themselves. If you dont want to justify yourself, that's fine, but it implies you cannot justify Biblical law even if you wanted to.
I missed this comment so I'll reply to it now: Is it? Wow, that's weird since it wasnt even an argument! wow, this is too easy! Where did I say it was a good thing? I simply said it was not bad. Why do I need science? I have gone through this. Why do I need to refuet your science? How do they challenge anything I have said. IF BEING PROMISCUOUS IS DANGEROUS TO ONES HEALTH IT DOES NOT CHALLENGE MY ETHICAL POSITION - IT IS A NON-ARGUMENT. Well I did ask you but all you have done is attack through an argument that does nothing to show how I am wrong or you are right. And that about sums it up: Wow you are childish. Maybe senility finally grabbed you for good. WHY DO I NEED TO REBUT YOUR SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ABOUT SEX OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE WHEN ITS ACCURACY DOES NOT CHALLENGE MY ETHICAL POSITION?!? Because they are idiots.
