What is immoral about casual and friendly sex between adults?

[thomas t]

Fact implies fact.

no, correlation does not imply causation.
Look, the abortion rate of blacks is more than 4 times as high in the United States (2008). If you say fact implies fact, there too, then skin colour makes abortions.
I personally blame poverty. I might be wrong though.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then you would advice her (??? You didn't deny it) to have casual sex with a stranger who doesn't care about her, who — despite the anti HIV medicine she takes every day — still has 1% chance of giving her HIV and a baby and approximately 15% chance of her having a good time because while men like sex with strangers, for women it isn't as well.

Aside that if you intend to raise a child who isn't emotionally numbed and who hasn't gotten use to abusive relationships, why would she like to be sexually used and discarded like a prostitute?

They are no longer just accepting boyfriends and girlfriends, they are advising their daughters to become whores worth 0 anything. At least the USA can cut the funding from schools again. Girls only need to go to school until they develop those adult body proportions that strange men like — for free.

Chlamydia is not much worse than a flu — they say — but what will she do without the pleasure of pleasing a strange man — I think suicide rates are going to rise among females aged 15-30.

Do you have any idea how terribly offensive and insulting you are being here, with your extremely closed minded and juvenile take on things?

 

[thomas t]

Then your beef is with abortions, and casual sex is irrelevant to the matter.

no, since casual sex leading to abortion ...

[...] is not as trivially obvious as 'grass is green' but it certainly isn't far off

as you say. Ok.
If you can't prevent casual sex from leading to more abortions then leave it.
No additional abortions.

LOL. Of course it did. How do you think that my mother's pregnancies were terminated? Pixies?

oh, did I understand it wrong here? If you're right and there's intentional abortion then the whole thing is wrong, too of course. It's like the casual sex in the OP then. No special pleading.

Yes. Special pleading is when one asserts a principle, such as, any decision which can potentially lead to a human death is immoral, then refuses to apply it to all decisions that can potentially lead to a human death. Your refusal to do so is the special pleading. It is a double standard and I reject it on that basis.

ah no.
There is no special pleading here. Just rejecting the idea that I have to think 1000 cases through, all of them different in nature, before I say abortion is wrong.
No double standard here.

Again, you have a double standard. You are not applying your standard for avoiding sex equally to women who are in a committed relationship, even though those women contribute equally to your problem.

no, there is no double standard. I just didn't talk about sex in a relationship yet. Apart from hypothesizing that an unwanted pregnancy without a partner is more likely to end up in an abortion than an unwanted pregnancy within a couple.
But this thread is about casual sex, as you noted.
You're reproaching me of double standards too often here, I think. You can't back your assertion up by a quote here.
I don't want to buried under a storm of made up claims in future, please.

You cannot consent after the fact. Consent is necessarily prior.

then take another word for consent here. "Agree" after the fact, for instance. You can agree after the fact can't you?

So my opinion still stands. Abortion means intentional killing and anything potentially leading to higher abortion rates should be avoided at all cost almost (I'm still pro-choice here).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your claim of "non-application" cannot be proven until you'll dead. It is a fraud on your part to pretend that it can. (It's not a matter of threats but of logic.)

The exact same can be said about you and every other religion that isn't christianity.
But I bet the threat of not being able to go to Whalhalla for example, doesn't leave much of an impression on you either, nore do you lose any sleep over it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

T
Not too long ago, a few decades back, sex was held a lot more sacred

I'm guessing you weren't there at woodstock '69.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I never have verified why atheists keep accusing us of "threatening" them when we're simply telling them about our religion. My best guess is they're afraid they're wrong.

I call that wishfull thinking.

You might think and actually believe that all you are doing is "telling us about your religion".
In reality, from the other side of the table, you are instead being extremely offensive and judgemental.

From our side of the table, it just looks as if you use your quran to hide behind and as an excuse to spewing your hate.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, he’s 35 and she’s 16, so there’s that.

The thread title states they are both adults.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Or another baby without a proper family.

Funny how this occurs more frequently in a country that has much higher rates of religion then in similar countries with much lower levels of religion.

It's almost as if the mix of mere "religious commandment" without reasoned argumentation and a lack of proper sex education as a direct result of that, is responsible for this. Almost.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Maybe for you since you insist on that women should be treated like property — public property.

And "you people" (I get to use such words to if you can...) treat women as your private property. That doesn't sound much better.

Over here in the secular humanistic world though, where emancipation is a thing, women aren't to be treated as property, full stop.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

God gave us the understanding of what is right and what is wrong. I don't need to look at what Islam says of each separate little issue to know whether they're wrong or not.

Then I guess you are able to explain what the moral issue is with casual sex between single consenting adults, without invoking your religious rules, and thus base it solely on a real-world secular reasoned argument?

God is the most just.

If the law says you can harm someone to help yourself and you have the need, that is moral to you.

I don't get your point.

His point is that your view or morality is morally bankrupt, as you just proved once again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Are you suggesting there is no Atheist worldview?

I'm not suggesting it. I'm downright saying it.

There is no such thing as "the atheist worldview".
There are worldviews that are atheistic, sure, but only in the sense that they don't include any gods.

There is no single "atheist worldview" that all atheists abide by.
There is no atheist doctrine, moral framework or anything of the sort.

Atheism is single position on a single issue.

Right out the gates, if a person says he is atheist, then the only thing you really know about the dude, is that he does not believe in any gods. It tells you about what that person does NOT believe.

It doesn't tell you anything about what that person DOES believe. To know what that person DOES believe, you're going to have to ask him.

But at the same time, you suggest "promises" are worthy of respect?

Which has nothing to do with my atheism and everything with my views on social contracts and social behaviour.

 

[Cooky]

I'm not suggesting it. I'm downright saying it.

There is no such thing as "the atheist worldview".
There are worldviews that are atheistic, sure, but only in the sense that they don't include any gods.

There is no single "atheist worldview" that all atheists abide by.
There is no atheist doctrine, moral framework or anything of the sort.

Atheism is single position on a single issue.

Right out the gates, if a person says he is atheist, then the only thing you really know about the dude, is that he does not believe in any gods. It tells you about what that person does NOT believe.

It doesn't tell you anything about what that person DOES believe. To know what that person DOES believe, you're going to have to ask him.



Which has nothing to do with my atheism and everything with my views on social contracts and social behaviour.

Interesting. Thanks.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

How is safe sex between two adults wrong only in and of itself, without one needing religious morals in order to derive the conclusion of why it is wrong?

 

[ChristineM]

no, correlation does not imply causation.
Look, the abortion rate of blacks is more than 4 times as high in the United States (2008). If you say fact implies fact, there too, then skin colour makes abortions.
I personally blame poverty. I might be wrong though.

All good Christian?

 

[ppp]

This is rambling again. I have read back thru this thread, and you have yet to demonstrate that 'one elective abortion is necessarily immoral.' You have asserted it and you have assumed it to be the case, but you have yet to demonstrate that it is true. The closest that you have come is to say:

I say abortion kills. And noone can rule out that it's humans that get killed. That's why it is immoral

Which is not a reason. It is simply a restatement Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. The termination of a pregnancy prior to viability kills the embryo or fetus. Abortion, in that circumstance, kills. This is just definition of what is. Not a justification for what you say ought to be.

You have not justified your claim taking an action that leads to the death of another is necessarily immoral. And you have acknowledged the fact that a person is not morally obligated to sustain the life of another against their will.

You cannot consent after the fact. Consent is necessarily prior. One cannot have sex with with one's minor kid (who is necessarily incapable of providing consent) and then gain consent later when they are an adult. The most one can get later is forgiveness, but the immorality of act is irrevocable.

then take another word for consent here. "Agree" after the fact, for instance. You can agree after the fact can't you?

WT ever-loving F?!?! Can the 5 year old a parent raped "agree" to the rape when they are 20? Hell, no.
What do you think morality is? No seriously.

 

[Watchmen]

I get it from your posts in which you have (at least twice) made derogatory comments about something you obviously have no knowledge of. Whether in false mockery or bigotry i don't know. And yes was paying attention otherwise i would not have commented. Do you want me to quote your posts just in case you have had a lapse of memory?

So a cougar woman having sex with a boy with Down syndrome is not immoral? That’s really where you’re coming from?

 

[Watchmen]

The thread title states they are both adults.

You’re late to the game. I already responded further.

 

[ppp]

So a cougar woman having sex with a boy with Down syndrome is not immoral? That’s really where you’re coming from?

Your calling women courgars is immoral.

If you mean 'boy' in the literal sense, it is immoral because he cannot consent, and the down syndrome is irrelevant. If he is an adult, and you mean 'boy' in the figurative sense, then you have not provided enough information to determine whether or not he can consent. Down syndrome is not a stereotype with a single presentation for your amusement.

 

[Watchmen]

Your calling women courgars is immoral.

If you mean 'boy' in the literal sense, it is immoral because he cannot consent, and the down syndrome is irrelevant. If he is an adult, and you mean 'boy' in the figurative sense, then you have not provided enough information to determine whether or not he can consent. Down syndrome is not a stereotype with a single presentation for your amusement.

Im not calling all women cougars. I’m referring to an older woman who targets a younger man or boy. I have choice words for older men who target girls. It’s not about gender. So sensitive. I see your in France. Perhaps English is your second language.

 

[ppp]

Im not calling all women cougars. I’m referring to an older woman who targets a younger man or boy. I have choice words for older men who target girls. It’s not about gender. So sensitive. I see your in France. Perhaps English is your second language.

I see that you avoided the substance of the topic, concentrating on an extraneous line; defending your tender bits. So sensitive. And work on those geography skills.