Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only".

In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Political Labels
Topic Started: May 3 2009, 03:08 PM (784 Views)
Toussaint
Member Avatar
Major
Other people think:
Political: Conservative; Republican
Ethics & Philosophy: Most people would say I'm just damn cynical. :P
Religion: Protestant. Others think I'm Catholic, strangely enough...
Sexual Orientation: Straight.
Moral: Christian moralist

What I think of myself:
Political: Far-right; Fascist
Ethics & Philosophy:
Religion: Protestant Christian. I'm very public about that.
Sexual Orientation: Straight.
Moral: My morals would conform to Christian moralism. Unfortunately, I'm not even able to conform to my own morale compass at times. :(

Other labels applied to me, true or not:
Anti-drug (Basically, but not hit-you-over-the-head-with a hammer style).
French. (I'm of French orgigins, and a HUGE Francophile).
Asshole.
Alcoholic. (Overexaggerated.)
Elitist (Certainly).
Insensitive (To a degree).
Smart (Sure).
Articulate (I'd agree).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

Tristan da Cunha
May 11 2009, 12:00 PM
Nag, what is your definition of "responsible sex"? Do you simply mean "avoiding diseases and unwanted pregnancies"? If your definition of "responsible sex" is simply to avoid diseases and unwanted pregnancies, then Western Europe has already resoundingly achieved the goal of responsible sex. Due to the multifold direct and indirect effects of 60 years of vigorous social engineering, there are now historic low rates of STDs, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and other such things in Western Europe. Since we're already in the sexual promised land, why complain?
To address, to whit:

Firstly, no I did not simply mean "avoiding diseases and unwanted pregnancies" - though there's nothing simple about this aim. My use of the word responsible was not one chosen in ignorance but in veiled subtly. I chose not to address the bulk of the points that you raised in your post - though I will address them if you ask, you'll find that I agree with most of your points and have already raised them in Sed's The Plan (and you happily agreed with me to my recollection) - but instead I will clarify what I mean by "responsible".

Let us begin this task by defining "responsible":

- Duty: the social force that binds you to the courses of action demanded by that force.
- Province: the proper sphere or extent of your activities.
- Answerable for an act performed or for its consequences; accountable; amenable, especially legally or politically.

Duty

As you have already pointed out, sex has a reproductive function. And we poor deluded fools who wish to not only perpetuate the plague of the human race but actually increase our number and maintain an unmaintainable standard of living, need to reproduce. It's our duty. As NH pointed out, and indeed TC as well in a round-about way, optimal standards of reproduction are not being met. Social dynamics perpetuate a flawed model of reproduction.

This is a failing in responsible sex.

To look to the historically more enlightened we find an address to this. In this case, I bring up the example of the Shadchan - and, indeed, the wider traditions of the Shidduch. Partners are best found through a meditative manner. Relationships based on common ground. Genetic pitfalls carefully avoided. By drawing on a network of social community, suitable mating partners are more easily found: and can be matched to social status with greater ease.

But let us consider not only quality of a match, but quantity of offspring. In by-gone days everyone was fruitful and multiplied. The children of the poor, however, died young in their droves while the richer did better. Now the richer reproduce less while the lower classes continue to swarm and increase. Responsible reproduction would see those with the means to reproduce more, reproduce more while those without the means reproduce less.

We must also consider the duty that one has to one's self to satisfy your sexual urges. While celibacy (to whatever degree) is a valid life choice for those who wish it, the unhealthy (read: unenlightened or unintended) repressing of sexual urges leads to misery and mental disorder. Young people should experiment sexually. People should indulge their libidos with willing partners. But people who have casual sex (or any form of sex) should do so responsibly. They should consider the people who might be hurt by their actions. They should consider the future of their sexual relationship (even if it is a one night encounter). They should consider their emotional state after the fact. They should consider what's going to happen to those pictures they've just taken. They should consider health risks and pregnancy.

But people don't. In past times you didn't sleep with a girl unless you planned to marry her (shotgun at your back or not). People considered the gravity of their actions because there was gravity to them. Now people act recklessly and ignore that which should be obvious.

Finally, let us consider the duty that people have to not spread plagues. Think of the diseases man has wiped out through immunization programs. On second thought, don't think of that. Asking that we wipe out STIs is too much. Think back further into darker historical times. Even in the most unenlightened times we did not actively try to spread diseases - lepers were cast out, leeches were applied to the sick, holes were drilled into skulls to let demons out. But now, even though we know STIs exist. Even though we know how to stop them. We still actively spread these diseases when it is within our power and duty to wipe them out. Yes, we do not have the same abundance of syphilis that we had five hundred years ago. So what?! We've wiped out Polio, are you telling me we should sit and suffer Hepatitis and say "oh well at least things are better than before we could trivially prevent the spread of this disease"? No sir, I agree when you say there is much more to "responsible" sex than the traditional bleeding heart definition of "safe sex", but to call the current situation the "promised land" is unacceptable. To call the current situation "acceptable" is unacceptable.

Province

I've touched on this with Duty, but I'll say it with more detail.

Sex is not the naughty thing to be done behind closed doors and alluded to with beer commercials. Sex is natural and necessary. It should be recognised as such. People should be educated as such. Responsible sex comes from responsible sexual relationships, which is very much facilitated by the community.

I'd say more, but I'd be repeating what I said in Sed's The Plan. Or new stuff that people will think I'm weird for.

Accountable

People don't do their sexual duty.

And when they don't, they don't take the blame for their actions. They blame everyone but themselves.

They blame the government for being there. The corporations for making them do it. The Devil for making it evil. God for making man imperfect.

In the past people owned their mistakes. Now we scape goat.

Of course, the government doesn't want to hear that it's part of the problem. The corporations don't care about problems their causing as long as they can turn a buck. And God and the Devil are too busy dogging to even realise there's fingers pointing at them.

Society is very good at finger pointing and terrible at fixing problems.
Edited by Nag Ehgoeg, May 12 2009, 06:47 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
I agree with many of your statements. However I don't believe there's a wide margin for sexual deviancy in an economically sustainable society at our current level of technology and available resources. Temporary and forceful interventions may increase society's sexual liberalism for periods of time but this would only inevitably backfire in foreseeable and unforeseen ways and ultimately cause the society at large to retrench to a more economically sustainable sociological configuration. This "economically sustainable configuration" I speak of may very well entail a certain level of widespread neuroses in the population as a result of the socializing of sexual repression in individuals, and I believe it does (entail). Imo that's a small price to pay to avoid the alternative, which is wanton economic destruction (as opposed to "creative destruction").

From the material and sociological standpoint I simply don't think your moral normative statement that "people should indulge their libidos" is favorable economically, and will therefore be selected against as economic history unfolds, especially in the coming years.

But that's unrelated to my moral opposition to the concept of "casual sex". Ignoring economics and sociology and whatnot, my usual advice to anyone therefore is completely against the concept of casual sex.
Edited by Tristan da Cunha, May 13 2009, 11:16 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Eleytheria-Duo
Member Avatar
Resident Bystander
I love how these whimsical debates get started, particularly between Nag and TC. If it isn't about an evil (in guise of a noble, see The Plan - Operation: Wounded Eagle) World Domination plot, its about big fat libidos. Personally I don't believe many of us concern ourselves with where people ram their cattle prods, except maybe Nag as we all know his libido is the size of Vaalbara, oh and he's a Brit, but I digress... :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
I don't believe I have yet debated the issue of The Plan. :(
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sedulius
Member Avatar
Field Marshal
Eleytheria-Duo
May 13 2009, 11:41 PM
I love how these whimsical debates get started, particularly between Nag and TC. If it isn't about an evil (in guise of a noble, see The Plan - Operation: Wounded Eagle) World Domination plot, its about big fat libidos. Personally I don't believe many of us concern ourselves with where people ram their cattle prods, except maybe Nag as we all know his libido is the size of Vaalbara, oh and he's a Brit, but I digress... :lol:
Now, now, I'm not really trying to take over the world. It just might be an after effect. :lol: I just want what's best for the people.

I've said before I'd abandon all this if I found the right woman. Then again, if it gets far enough along, it would be wrong to simply abandon those who followed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Filo
Member Avatar
General
I play this game too:

Political: Comunist - no i'm not, a social-democrat
Values: Hippy - No i'm not i'm very liberal
Religion: Catholic - again no i'm not because i don't belive the Pope and the Chruch, althought i'm still christian
Philosophical:Socratic - finally yes i'm but i beluve to prefer humanist philosophy, expacially Roger Bacon and Giordano Bruno.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Eleytheria-Duo
Member Avatar
Resident Bystander
Sedulius
May 14 2009, 12:53 PM
Now, now, I'm not really trying to take over the world. It just might be an after effect. :lol: I just want what's best for the people.

I've said before I'd abandon all this if I found the right woman. Then again, if it gets far enough along, it would be wrong to simply abandon those who followed.
:lol: That's what I am afraid of. I am vehemently against any one man having so much control over so many people.

Furthermore, while I agree I want to see what is best for the people, I am not arrogant enough to actually believe I have all the answers to their problems. No offense.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Great New France
Member Avatar
Major
Other people think:
Political: Republican (on French standards), Social-Democrat
Ethics & Philosophy: Some people see me as being cynical
Religion: Agnostic. Some people see me as a staunch Roman Catholic
Sexual Orientation: Straight
Moral: Have morals

What I think of myself:
Political: Gaullist, French Republican, Liberal on both social and economic matters
Ethics & Philosophy: I believe in helping people in need and have some degree of ethics.
Religion: Agnostic
Sexual Orientation: Straight with certain curiosities
Moral: Have morals and can distinguish what is wrong from right without having a priest tell me what it is. However, as all human beings, we can have immoral or amoral moments because we are humans.

Other labels applied to me, true or not:
Anti-drug (Yes, totally)
French. (Well I am French and very proud of it)
Asshole. (Not at all)
Alcoholic. (No but I enjoy drinking and enjoying myself)
Elitist (Depends what you mean, I went to a private school does that make me elitist?)
Insensitive (Not really although sometimes with certain people)
Smart (Absolutely right)
Articulate (You're right, baby)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sedulius
Member Avatar
Field Marshal
Eleytheria-Duo
May 14 2009, 06:10 PM
Sedulius
May 14 2009, 12:53 PM
Now, now, I'm not really trying to take over the world. It just might be an after effect. :lol: I just want what's best for the people.

I've said before I'd abandon all this if I found the right woman. Then again, if it gets far enough along, it would be wrong to simply abandon those who followed.
:lol: That's what I am afraid of. I am vehemently against any one man having so much control over so many people.

Furthermore, while I agree I want to see what is best for the people, I am not arrogant enough to actually believe I have all the answers to their problems. No offense.
No offense taken. I really don't think I have the answers to everyone's problems, nor have I stated so. I simply see the state of things and think something needs to be done. Hence I have come up with that plan to influence the government.

What that thread is about at this point is what to do once we have control. That is why I am forming an organization. Perhaps one man doesn't know the answers to everyone's problems, but perhaps an organization of people drawn from the people can attempt to figure that out.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

Tristan da Cunha
May 13 2009, 11:03 PM
From the material and sociological standpoint I simply don't think your moral normative statement that "people should indulge their libidos" is favorable economically, and will therefore be selected against as economic history unfolds, especially in the coming years.

But that's unrelated to my moral opposition to the concept of "casual sex". Ignoring economics and sociology and whatnot, my usual advice to anyone therefore is completely against the concept of casual sex.
Eh.

You're entitled to your opinion. I just don't see it.

Young people having sex won't alienate them from their family support network that you seem to think people should rely on.
Nor will it stop people forging their own social support networks. In fact a responsible approach to forging sexual relationships seems like a great way to widen the number of people willing to assist you financially.
Add to this the fact that alternative households (such as same sex, childless couples or polygamous groups) enjoy financial success based (in part) because of their lifestyle (several earners living under one roof sharing expenses).

Factor in the revenue (and, of course wages) generated by the sex industry.

Don't neglect the positive effect that having a happy workforce has on productivity.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
I don't know the statistics about casual sex and worker's productivity, but it's my impression that family men and women can also be extremely hardworking and productive since they're motivated by supporting their (traditional) families. I don't think casual sex is always necessary for an individual to work hard and be productive.

In my estimation, in a sustainable economy there would be very few formal homosexual or childless relationships. (polygamous relationships are another matter since they are capable of producing children) In a sustainable economy sexual repression and a repressive values system would be the norm. Also in a sustainable economy there would be a stigma attached to sex workers (though it would be simply impossible for the sex industry to disappear).

By "sustainable economy" I'm of course using an Esternarxian definition that precludes state-sponsored wealth redistribution schemes and other regulations.

You could say the "sustainable economy" is a fantastical thought experiment but it is in fact a very useful thought experiment because all societies in the long term converge toward equilibriums characteristic of the imaginary sustainable economy, despite violent interventions like wars and government interference. I claimed that in a "sustainable economy" there would be very few formal homosexual and/or childless relationships. Europe currently appears to be converging toward that situation, since European Muslims are vastly increasing in population and the native European countries do not appear to be able to maintain their existing sexually liberal population or maintain their current standard of living which is predicated on a certain number of working population.

This demographic situation is also true in America where the Mexican population is increasing at far faster rates than the white or black Americans.

Individual alternative households (same sex and/or childless) may enjoy financial success but if they are present in any large numbers, they would be a sign that their society is unsustainable because not enough children are being produced to perpetuate the population or living standards. Of course, government interventions can temporarily distort behavioral incentives and cause same-sex or childless relationships to spike temporarily, but the long-term effects are predictable since they cause the population sub-group in which same-sex or childless relationships are tolerated to decrease relative to another population sub-group in which same-sex or childless relationships are frowned upon. This demonstrates that the economy inevitably self-corrects and changes the broad behavioral and sociological incentives from unsustainable to sustainable.

Also I have to say something about your economic analysis of alternative households which is incorrect. Childless households are inherently at an economic disadvantage because there are no children to support the elderly; this would be known as an "entrepreneurial error" and would be selected against on a "macro-economic" scale. The evolutionary-economic mechanism is this: more childless would start having kids and as childless elderly people grow old and die off, the number of childless decreases.

Alternative households don't enjoy more financial security than traditional households as you claim. Instead, it's the exact opposite: Prosperity affords people the luxury of pursuing an alternative lifestyle. In other words, alternative households do not create exceptional prosperity. Exceptional prosperity facilitates alternative households. In my analysis of the next few decades, declining living standards and economic troubles in the developed world will put a pressure on alternative lifestyles. Of course, I'm talking statistically and sociologically- about trends, not individuals, in society. There will always be exceptions. I'm saying that the trend will be for some unlucky unemployed 30 year old guy to join some Mormon church for "spiritual" and interrelated socio-economic reasons instead of choosing to become a childless slacker. But even in the face of these larger societal trends there will always be the exception of some happily prosperous childless couple.

I have to address your statement that "Young people having sex won't alienate them from their family support network". I disagree with this statements since I suspect the "family support networks" you're thinking of aren't actual viable support networks (through no fault of their own). Instead of actual viable support networks they're more like residual "simulacrums" of an idealized traditional family, but rendered practically of little consequence, by the modern welfare state. From what I can tell from the historical record, self-sustaining and cohesive family support networks are nearly always associated with sexual repression and other repressive morals, for various reasons. Sexually liberal families do not appear to be viable, and would be selected against, outside the welfare state framework. Since my prediction is that welfare states (in both Europe and America) will be scaled back due to the current economic troubles, my deduction is that we will see a new rise of cohesive traditional family networks. We're already seeing one aspect of this in effect by the decline in the white populations and the increase in the Muslim or Mexican populations, both of which are socially more conservative.

Finally, regarding your statement "a responsible approach to forging sexual relationships seems like a great way to widen the number of people willing to assist you financially"... I think that may actually be an economically efficient social configurations in a subsistence society, but not in a more specialized society, in which sexual/moral repression and regimentation is in an efficient "synergy" with the unavoidable economic regimentation.
Edited by Tristan da Cunha, May 15 2009, 10:02 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ulgania
Member Avatar
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse
Quote:
 
I don't know the statistics about casual sex and worker's productivity, but it's my impression that family men and women can also be extremely hardworking and productive since they're motivated by supporting their (traditional) families. I don't think casual sex is always necessary for an individual to work hard and be productive.

In my estimation, in a sustainable economy there would be very few formal homosexual or childless relationships. (polygamous relationships are another matter since they are capable of producing children) In a sustainable economy sexual repression and a repressive values system would be the norm. Also in a sustainable economy there would be a stigma attached to sex workers (though it would be simply impossible for the sex industry to disappear).

If you have a way to motivate the heterosexual population to pro create in society to keep the total fertility rate and the rate of natural increase in a safely sustainable position, then a culture that embraces homosexuality is fine.

Although in the society you’re advocating I’d almost be willing to bet that there would be other social mores that would subvert prostitution anyway.

Quote:
 
Also I have to say something about your economic analysis of alternative households which is incorrect. Childless households are inherently at an economic disadvantage because there are no children to support the elderly; this would be known as an "entrepreneurial error" and would be selected against on a "macro-economic" scale. The evolutionary-economic mechanism is this: more childless would start having kids and as childless elderly people grow old and die off, the number of childless decreases.

But with the right state controls, children would have no reason to support their parents. And in a more politically equal society, there would be no reason for children to see to the health of their parents when they reach old age, as it would put the children themselves in an economic disadvantage.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
State controls are generally unsustainable. A good rule of thumb to go by is: "anything that gets subsidized will increase in quantity." The economic and sociological sequence of events that lead to this are clear.

Therfore, the more subsidies are given to old people in the form of programs like Social Security, the more old people there will be, and the less young people there will be, relatively. In other words, the demographic profile will be skewed so that not enough people of working age exist to support the upkeep of the elderly and infirm who are unable to do work. This is already seen in Japan, many European countries, and increasingly in the US where Social Security and Medicare are scheduled for bankruptcy soon. Such a society cannot survive in its current form for very long and must inevitably retrench to a sustainable and efficient societal configuration.

Also, in a politically free society, there wouldn't be a comparative economic disadvantage to children who support their elderly, because the vast majority of people would be doing the same thing. It would also be an economic advantage to adult children to care for their elderly relatives and preserve traditional "familial piety" moral rules by setting an example for their children, so that when the adults of working age grow old, they can rely on their children to support them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
flumes
Member Avatar
CLEVELAND ROCKS!
Political: Libertarian
Ethical: "Get Money"
Religious: Agnostic (This is a shaky one... Not so much of a impossible to prove/disprove, more that it hasn't been proved/disproved yet)
Philosophical: I got a D- in Philosophy 101
Sexual: Straight
Moral: Yes, although college and alcohol has made me question that I have any.

What others apply to me:
Conservative (In theory no in practice yes)
Lazy (At times)
Hard-working (At times)
The kid who replaces the word idiot with Commie, Communist, or Damn Commie Bastards (Yep)
Atheist (Probably? That's why I've settled for now at least on the agnostic terming of myself... I just don't know. Although I lean to this side.)
Fascist (It's better then being a commie.. ;) )
Lucky (As lucky as a kid with a brain tumor can be :lol: )
Rich (Nope, fortunate yes)
Nice (Yea)
Athletic (Eh, 'fast' is the better term)
Arrogant (Yep, except that I'm always right. :lol: )
Many more...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pascoag
2nd Lieutenant
 *  *  *  *  *
Other people think:
Political: Republican
Ethics: Has none
Philosophy: None
Religion: Agnostic
Sexual Orientation: Straight
Moral: Has few morals

What I think of myself:
Political: Fascist Libertarian
Ethics: The ends justify the means
Philosophy: Machiavellian
Religion: Atheist
Sexual Orientation: Asexual
Moral: Same as Ethics

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Draxis
Member Avatar
Captain
I'll just say Anarcho-Scoialist and see where you guys take it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Filo
Member Avatar
General
I don't like anarchism but rspect some theories create in 1930s.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
East Anarx
Member Avatar
Anarchitect

My turn!

People who don't know me think:
Political: Bomb-throwing, dope-smoking, hippie anarchist
Ethical: Clearly can't have any good ones, being a damn dirty anarchist
Religious: Probably a dirty heathen
Philosophical: Impractical idealist
Sexual: Confused
Moral: Well, he hasn't robbed me or shanked me yet, so maybe he's alright after all...

What I think of myself:
Political: Fuck politics! I'm an Agorist.
Ethical: Self-ownership, the non-aggression principle, consistency between means and ends
Religious: Discordian
Philosophical: Imminently practical idealist
Sexual: Horny, kinky, but mostly straight
Moral: Well, I haven't robbed or shanked anyone yet, so maybe I'm alright after all...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ulgania
Member Avatar
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse
Oh what the hell E... Vermont is your new home.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
Esternarx
Jun 21 2009, 01:44 PM
My turn!

People who don't know me think:
Political: Bomb-throwing, dope-smoking, hippie anarchist
Ethical: Clearly can't have any good ones, being a damn dirty anarchist
Religious: Probably a dirty heathen
Philosophical: Impractical idealist
Sexual: Confused
Moral: Well, he hasn't robbed me or shanked me yet, so maybe he's alright after all...

What I think of myself:
Political: Fuck politics! I'm an Agorist.
Ethical: Self-ownership, the non-aggression principle, consistency between means and ends
Religious: Discordian
Philosophical: Imminently practical idealist
Sexual: Horny, kinky, but mostly straight
Moral: Well, I haven't robbed or shanked anyone yet, so maybe I'm alright after all...
"Mostly straight"??

OK, what does THAT mean?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
East Anarx
Member Avatar
Anarchitect

It means I know for certain that I am sexually attracted to human females, but I refuse to place pre-determined limits on my own sexual urges.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · Off-Topic · Next Topic »
Add Reply