News Englands a third world country?

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,979
I find this a hard one, but as you'd really like me to answer it, I'll try to formulate an answer..

Thanks for your answer noblok. It's absolutely madenningly batshit crazy, but I appreciate it :)


My response to "I find this a hard one" is this: You find it a hard one because you believe in a rule-set that makes no sense.

It's a really easy one. Really really easy. But first you have to ditch the baggage of seeing the world as catholicism wants it to be, and start from seeing the world as it actually is, then go from there...



Christian dogma not only denys you solutions to moral problems before you've even considered them - it creates moral dilemmas that otherwise wouldn't exist. :(



For example: the moral question of catholicism saying people should abstain from sex because they don't want children. As nath said:

Why on earth should they try?

Why, Noblok? :)


If your reasoning is "'cause the church says so", then I'd say - if the church told you to put your face in the fire, would you?
 

Krazeh

Part of the furniture
Joined
Dec 30, 2003
Messages
950
Not everyone who feels this way has been indoctrinated to think so. At least for me this wasn't the case. I also think it's somewhat meaningless to say someone 'just has been indoctrinated to think that way'. I could say the same thing about you, but that wouldn't really help the discussion forward, would it? Fact is that people do feel this way and that's what we have to work with.

Then what was it that lead you to feel that sex is something that should only occur between in a marriage and only where there is an openness to having children? Why is it you consider that intimacy can and should only be shared with one person and that sharing with multiple persons dilutes or lessens the intimacy you can experience?
 

rynnor

Rockhound
Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
9,353
A general remark to go with all of this, though: I think it's really counterproductive of Catholics to try and enforce their morals on non-catholics. I think it's better to try and show why Catholics think something is valuable and maybe then someone else might see the same thing. I don't wish to pass judgement over you. To me it only makes sense to explain to someone how they should act according to catholic doctrine if there's a certain openness for it.

Kudos to you for arguing the other side - you come accross well as a reasonable guy.
 

noblok

Part of the furniture
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
1,371
Then what was it that lead you to feel that sex is something that should only occur between in a marriage and only where there is an openness to having children? Why is it you consider that intimacy can and should only be shared with one person and that sharing with multiple persons dilutes or lessens the intimacy you can experience?
I can't really pinpoint any single thing. It's just that over time my feelings towards sexuality have changed. As have many other feelings and opinions. This was probably influenced by some of my philosophy classes, but practically none of these classes talked about sexuality specifically. It was mostly more general about symbolism, which I then applied in my thinking about sexuality.

I suppose this could still sound like indoctrination, but it's not like this is the only point of view I've ever heard. I've not really been raised with the idea that sex outside of marriage is bad. I though the complete opposite of what I think now until I was 20 years old. The sexual education I received at home was pretty early and open and always presented without any value judgement: just the biological facts. Also during my philosophy studies I've kept talking with people and reading articles with a completely different view. It just appealed less to me.

Why, noblok? :)
I thought I had already answered this, but seeing as this question has now been asked twice. For Catholics (probably not for all of them, but at least according to the official teachings) because there is an intimate and valuable connection between sexuality and procreation. For them the aspect of procreation enrichens the sexuality. Something is lost when it is not present. This doesn't mean it becomes completely valueless (there are other values at play as well), but there is a certain risk of diluting the connection and thereby impoverishing the experience (N.B. a risk: it's not a certainty that this will happen).
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,185
I can't really pinpoint any single thing. It's just that over time my feelings towards sexuality have changed. As have many other feelings and opinions. This was probably influenced by some of my philosophy classes, but practically none of these classes talked about sexuality specifically. It was mostly more general about symbolism, which I then applied in my thinking about sexuality.

I suppose this could still sound like indoctrination, but it's not like this is the only point of view I've ever heard. I've not really been raised with the idea that sex outside of marriage is bad. I though the complete opposite of what I think now until I was 20 years old. The sexual education I received at home was pretty early and open and always presented without any value judgement: just the biological facts. Also during my philosophy studies I've kept talking with people and reading articles with a completely different view. It just appealed less to me.

Your Philosophy classes sound quite a bit different to the ones I had :/
 

noblok

Part of the furniture
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
1,371
The difference between (mostly) continental and analytical philosophy, I suppose ;).
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,979
I thought I had already answered this, but seeing as this question has now been asked twice. For Catholics (probably not for all of them, but at least according to the official teachings) because there is an intimate and valuable connection between sexuality and procreation. For them the aspect of procreation enrichens the sexuality. Something is lost when it is not present. This doesn't mean it becomes completely valueless (there are other values at play as well), but there is a certain risk of diluting the connection and thereby impoverishing the experience (N.B. a risk: it's not a certainty that this will happen).

Noblok, I can see you're trying to answer, but you're missing my point :)


I'm not asking you to quote from scripture. I know what the catholic teachings are regarding sex. Which is why the question was phrased with:

If your reasoning is "'cause the church says so", then I'd say - if the church told you to put your face in the fire, would you?

Your answer IS "'cause the church says so" :(

Can you tell my why casual sex is bad? Without resorting to what you've learned from the catholic church or using reasoning that is based on that teaching?

:)
 

nath

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
8,009
I thought I had already answered this, but seeing as this question has now been asked twice. For Catholics (probably not for all of them, but at least according to the official teachings) because there is an intimate and valuable connection between sexuality and procreation. For them the aspect of procreation enrichens the sexuality. Something is lost when it is not present. This doesn't mean it becomes completely valueless (there are other values at play as well), but there is a certain risk of diluting the connection and thereby impoverishing the experience (N.B. a risk: it's not a certainty that this will happen).

The point got a bit muddled because you're replying to Scouse who was replying to me who was replying to you. The original question was:

Some people may find it too hard to abstain from sex even though they don't want children.

So if someone never wants children, according to you they're diluting something which they would never have in its full concentrated form. The question then was, why would they try to abstain from sex then? I'm not really seeing an answer to that in the quote above.
 

noblok

Part of the furniture
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
1,371
Can you tell my why casual sex is bad? Without resorting to what you've learned from the catholic church or using reasoning that is based on that teaching?
But I agree with the teaching of the church in this case. Not 'because the church says so', but because I genuinely think they've got a point in this case. I realise that my argument (mostly) runs parallel with the teachings of the church, but it's not merely 'because the church says so', it's because I think the same thing. I developed these thoughts before I turned to Catholicism.


So if someone never wants children, according to you they're diluting something which they would never have in its full concentrated form.
Yes. Or rather: they're running the risk of diluting something which they would never have in its full concentrated form. What I assume is that Catholics can still see how and why this connection is valuable, even though they don't want children themselves. This means that I think it is possible for them to abstain from sex because they think the 'full concentrated form' is valuable enough, even though they'll never experience it themselves, due to not wanting children. The fact that they can't experience it themselves doesn't mean it's impossible for them to understand the appeal of the ideal.
 

nath

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
8,009
Yes. Or rather: they're running the risk of diluting something which they would never have in its full concentrated form. What I assume is that Catholics can still see how and why this connection is valuable, even though they don't want children themselves. This means that I think it is possible for them to abstain from sex because they think the 'full concentrated form' is valuable enough, even though they'll never experience it themselves, due to not wanting children. The fact that they can't experience it themselves doesn't mean it's impossible for them to understand the appeal of the ideal.

Are you saying it dilutes it for others who do stick to the ideal or it just *would* dilute it for themselves?

If the former - how so? If the latter, if it's the choice of a diluted form of intimacy or none at all - where's the value in taking none at all? Why is an absence of intimacy better than a certain amount of intimacy, or even the risk of not getting the 'whole package' for want of a better term.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,979
But I agree with the teaching of the church in this case. Not 'because the church says so', but because I genuinely think they've got a point in this case. I realise that my argument (mostly) runs parallel with the teachings of the church, but it's not merely 'because the church says so', it's because I think the same thing. I developed these thoughts before I turned to Catholicism.

Without trying to be antagonistic, noblok: your answer is "No. I can't tell you why sex is bad".

It doesn't matter that you "agree with the teaching of the church" on this matter. The church doesn't tell you why casual sex is bad - it just says "because it is".

I've asked you to tell me why sex is bad - and you've said "because I agree with the church".

Therefore, your answer is "no, I can't tell you".



Here's a hint on why the question is so tricky: It's because it isn't :)
 

noblok

Part of the furniture
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
1,371
Are you saying it dilutes it for others who do stick to the ideal or it just *would* dilute it for themselves?

If the former - how so? If the latter, if it's the choice of a diluted form of intimacy or none at all - where's the value in taking none at all? Why is an absence of intimacy better than a certain amount of intimacy, or even the risk of not getting the 'whole package' for want of a better term.
It's the latter. The value is in keeping the idea undiluted (or better: in not running the risk of diluting it). There is a certain risk of the diluted form 'contaminating' the ideal of the concentrated form. One could choose not to engage in the diluted form in order to keep the concentrated form 'pure'.

As I said, though: this isn't as easy for everyone, but to me it makes sense for some people to abstain for exactly these reasons.

Scouse said:
Without trying to be antagonistic, noblok: your answer is "No. I can't tell you why sex is bad".
I can understand if you don't agree with the reasons presented, but I think it's somewhat unfair to reduce my argument "No, I can't tell you." I have answered the question why one would want to abstain from sex if they don't want children (also see my reply to nath above). You don't have to agree with it, but I hope you can at least acknowledge there is a certain reasoning behind it (even if you think the reasoning is 'absolutely madenningly batshit crazy').

edit: I didn't simply say 'because I agree with the church'. I said why I wouldn't do it, which happens to be similar to the reasons the church says.
 

nath

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
8,009
It's the latter. The value is in keeping the idea undiluted (or better: in not running the risk of diluting it). There is a certain risk of the diluted form 'contaminating' the ideal of the concentrated form. One could choose not to engage in the diluted form in order to keep the concentrated form 'pure'.

As I said, though: this isn't as easy for everyone, but to me it makes sense for some people to abstain for exactly these reasons.

I'm not sure I follow. You say it's about not diluting an idea but I asked if you're concerned about it diluting for others and you said no. Well, you said it was the latter, implying it wasn't the former.

How does an *idea* get diluted, and doesn't the act of not having children and thus abstaining from sex (and relationships?) dilute that idea anyway? Without wanting to be as antagonistic as Scouse (the massive wanker :D) I think you're being very vague here. I really can't see how a couple who don't want children deciding to abstain from sex makes any difference to another couples ideal of sex being predominantly for procreation. Short of perhaps, that other couple having a healthy relationship and thus showing people that there's really nothing to be afraid of. If that were the case, then the idea is simply there to maintain itself as an idea and offers no bonus to humanity in any other way.

So basically what I'm asking is - can you be more specific than you're currently being? How does it negatively affect others/or themselves any more than a sexless relationship/sexless life would?
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,979
edit: I didn't simply say 'because I agree with the church'. I said why I wouldn't do it, which happens to be similar to the reasons the church says.

I have to say that, unfortunately predictably, you're missing the point noblok.

I don't care why you wouldn't do it. I want to know why sex is bad. <this bit is the bit I want answering! :)


You've mentioned your views on it, which happen to be the catholic's views on it. The only other thing you've mentioned a very personal view based on the perceived dilution of specialness (again, very catholic) which says nothing for why sex is bad, just why you prefer not to indulge.

However, we're debating something in the wider arena - the catholic church is responsible for huge amounts of guilt and sexual repression - even masturbation is a sin so you're not even free to have sex with your hand. What I'm asking for is an answer to why the act itself is bad.

And not just bad, bad enough in the eyes of the church to justify a campaign of misinformation that's resulting in the deaths of africans. To justify the sexual repression of women down the ages. To justify the pressures put on priests to be celibate, which turns them into paedophiles.

I mean. Catholicism outlaws wanking. Why??????????

Ah:
Scouse (the massive wanker :D)

Well, I would be, but the vicar I saw this weekend said I'd go to hell unless I let him do it for me...
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,185
The difference between (mostly) continental and analytical philosophy, I suppose ;).

Continental Philosophy = Poetry without meter and/or post-structuralist pretension. Not worth the name tbh :)
 

Ch3tan

I aer teh win!!
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,318
I was actually thinking the exact same thing Scouse, in what way is it healthy as an adult to have no sexual outlet at all? You are trying to force a change on basic human nature and that never has good consequences.
 

nath

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
8,009
To justify the pressures put on priests to be celibate, which turns them into paedophiles.

Woah woah woah captain assumption. That's a pretty big leap there and I think it's fair to say that there's probably a bit more to it than that.

I think Ch3t covered this. Wasted sperm = less juicy kiddies to fiddle :)

But come on, you've got to wank a HELL of a lot to run out of spunk.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,979
I think Ch3t covered this. Wasted sperm = less juicy kiddies to fiddle :)

But it doesn't make sense! :)

It's not as if having a hand shandy stops you wanting to empty your sacks into a wizards sleeve is it? It's supposed to help with the quality, apparently, so healthy kids galore!

And if the pope really is the voice of god he'll know that a quick five-knuckler's got knock on health effects, or does god want his loyal devotees dying of prostate cancer later on, as well as bumming children?
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,979
Woah woah woah captain assumption. That's a pretty big leap there and I think it's fair to say that there's probably a bit more to it than that

Actually nath, I doubt it. It's not as if the CofE has been covering up a worldwide kiddie-fiddling ring and protecting its practitioners from the law.

Could be because protestant vicars are free to turn their wife's faces into plasterers radios to their hearts content eh?
 

nath

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
8,009
Actually nath, I doubt it. It's not as if the CofE has been covering up a worldwide kiddie-fiddling ring and protecting its practitioners from the law.

Could be because protestant vicars are free to turn their wife's faces into plasterers radios to their hearts content eh?
You honestly think that celibacy *alone* in males increases the chances of them turning to sexual abuse of children? If so, that's a pretty fucking damning indictment of male sexuality.
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,397
Woah woah woah captain assumption. That's a pretty big leap there and I think it's fair to say that there's probably a bit more to it than that.

As I said in an earlier post, priestly celibacy was a practical solution to the problem of priests giving away wealth the church regarded as its own. Priests were allowed to marry until well into the 11th century in a lot of catholic countires, long after the establishment of the catholic church. (Which isn't to say it was approved of; they had this weird idea of continence where you could be married but still not have sex,even with the missus). Celibacy wasn't a particularly catholic idea; earlier religions had similar ideas, and for similar reasons; to protect the racket. (Its like food prohibitions; nothing to do with God, just practical solutions to stop the population poisoning themselves by telling them "God says pack it in with oysters, idiots".)

But come on, you've got to wank a HELL of a lot to run out of spunk.

Wanking actually increases sperm production. Use it or lose it.
 

nath

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
8,009
As I said in an earlier post, priestly celibacy was a practical solution to the problem of priests giving away wealth the church regarded as its own. Priests were allowed to marry until well into the 11th century in a lot of catholic countires, long after the establishment of the catholic church. (Which isn't to say it was approved of; they had this weird idea of continence where you could be married but still not have sex,even with the missus). Celibacy wasn't a particularly catholic idea; earlier religions had similar ideas, and for similar reasons; to protect the racket. (Its like food prohibitions; nothing to do with God, just practical solutions to stop the population poisoning themselves by telling them "God says pack it in with oysters, idiots".)

My point was that I very much doubt celibacy alone is to cause for all the child abuse. Unless you're saying the child abuse by priests goes as far back as when they weren't celibate and as such are backing up my point. In which case, swell!
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,979
You honestly think that celibacy *alone* in males increases the chances of them turning to sexual abuse of children? If so, that's a pretty fucking damning indictment of male sexuality.

Not really.

I think that the conditions that catholic priests find themselves in make it much more likely, when coupled with celibacy, to turn them to sexual abuse. The fact that children become the subject is, I think, probably because they make the easiest targets. - You've got to be in a position of trust in the first place to be able to abuse it. (And you don't get that many teachers done of sexual abuse - except in schools run by christian brothers and the like (I went to one)).

If they could shoot their nuts over the exposed bits of a good lady every now and again I'm pretty sure they'd rarely seek other, unhealthy, outlets.

At least, I think they'd not do it more than the percentage who do in our society in general.


Do you think that celibacy is nothing to do with it? It's a system that's about as "against nature" as I can imagine :(
 

nath

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
8,009
Do you think that celibacy is nothing to do with it? It's a system that's about as "against nature" as I can imagine :(

To be honest, I've no idea either way but the point I took issue with was that make a man be celibate, no masturbation either, and it increases the chance of child abuse. What that'd say about men's sexuality is pretty devastating, that so many of us are potential child abusers and it's simply that we get a release every now and then prevents us.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,979
To be honest, I've no idea either way but the point I took issue with was that make a man be celibate, no masturbation either, and it increases the chance of child abuse. What that'd say about men's sexuality is pretty devastating, that so many of us are potential child abusers and it's simply that we get a release every now and then prevents us.

Well, I'm glad I clarified the point then :)
 

nath

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
8,009
Indeed, but what does that say? The catholic church should allow priests to, at the very least, log on to xtube every now and then to make sure they don't roger the alterboy? I'm not sure I like that logic :).
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,397
To be honest, I've no idea either way but the point I took issue with was that make a man be celibate, no masturbation either, and it increases the chance of child abuse. What that'd say about men's sexuality is pretty devastating, that so many of us are potential child abusers and it's simply that we get a release every now and then prevents us.

There are going to be PhD theses on this for decades to come. As Scouse said earlier, the control group are proddy vicars who are allowed to marry and have a normal sex life, and the fact that abuse isn't as obviously rife with that group. However, I don't think its just celibacy; I think its also about power and trust. In Ireland, catholic priests were bulletproof and probably abused kids not just because of their celibacy, but simply because they could. Rare was the Irishman or woman who stood up against the local priest. Also, unlike in protestant countries, priests simply had far more access to kids, and without any alternate channels for the kids to escape/complain to. Priests and nuns ran (still run) the majority of schools here, unlike in the UK where you'd only come in contact with your vicar outside Sunday service if you were involved in extra-curricular activity like choirs or youth clubs. I barely know any Irish person who doesn't have a horror story about priests or nuns. It sounds like even the ones who didn't slip you one up the gary were a bunch of nasty bastards.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom