An internet oasis of open discussion without personal attacks
Scott wrote:Political Power – Throughout most of human civilization, small groups of men have an obvious economic incentive to dominate other people. Simply put, exploitation is profitable. The political establishment in most societies may have found it difficult to dominate free-spirited people who joyfully engage in natural, powerful pleasures such as sex and playfulness. In a manner of speaking, the powerfulness of sex competed with the power of those who wished to control society. That also may explain why so many religious organizations originally incorporated erotophobia into their dogma.
That's how I would look at this problem lately. What do you think? At which point do you think we should be able to intervene into the lives of others? Is it fair? Is there such a thing as absolute wisdom, or can we only hope to acheive personal wisdom, for our own, very unique, personal existances?
morning_glow wrote:Scott:That's how I would look at this problem lately. What do you think? At which point do you think we should be able to intervene into the lives of others? Is it fair? Is there such a thing as absolute wisdom, or can we only hope to acheive personal wisdom, for our own, very unique, personal existances?
Scott wrote:I would almost never support forcefully intervening even if we believe the person is being immoderate and causing harm to themselves. For the most part, I would support intervening only to stop a person from hurting other people against those other people's will. When in doubt, I suggest not intervening, mainly for the reason you seem to be implying which is that our values are not necessarily any more correct than another person's values and beliefs so let's let each person act according to their own values and beliefs (as long as they do not hurt anyone else).
Even socially, as a rule of thumb, I would encourage tolerance to other people's choices even when they differ from our own values. By that, I mean to suggest that we reduce how much we get mad at or look down upon those who make choices which we see as immoderate or self-hurtful.
How do we have a predisposition, or are you saying that it's innate, this need we have to intervene into other peoples lives? Is it something we will always have to repress, if our predisposition changes, or over the course of our lives we are socialized to tone that need down?
So then, we tacitly consent to other people intervening in our lives the second we desire to reach out to another human being. This is like saying, you should not bother reaching out to another person unless you are prepared to willingly consent to their having a stake in your being. Don't you think that what constitute 'you' is too sacred, that your dreams, your identity, your destiny, or your potential for finding meaning in your life is too much at risk when it now becomes expected of you, and your responsibiltiy even to derail the course your life is taking to satissfy a contract?
If concurrence on a larger scale is not always possible because of the size of society, then on a more manageble scale, a two people relationship for instance, you are saying that concurrence is necessary? This limits people to accept the intervention of others if they are to even venture into the civilized world to make contact!
Scott wrote:Whatever the reason, our society fears and hates sexuality. Ironically, erotophobia probably exacerbates any perceived problem with sexuality.
Even with so much erotophobia, sex still happens and is very likable, but we can only imagine how much more sex could offer in a world that didn't treat it like such a horrible evil.
What do you think? Why do you think sexuality has become such a taboo? Why do you think some people get so worked up about the sexual habits of consenting adults?
Keith Russell wrote:My question, with regards to political/sexual "scandals" is always, "Why is this any of the public's business?"
Perhaps this man is not very good at marriage (though that's between him and his wife, and I know a few women who would prefer their husbands dally with professionals, rather than risk losing their marriages due to extra-marital emotional attachments...) but how does being a bad husband translate (apparently automatically) to being a poor politician?
Yes, he (probably--I know a some couples who didn't promise sexual fidelity to their spouses, and have been happily married for a few decades) broke a promise he made to his wife during their marriage ceremony, but he's a politician. Anyone who really expects such folks to keep their promises, probably isn't old enough to vote, anyway...
Dewey wrote:What do you think?
Users browsing this forum: Ormond and 2 guests