An idea about population planning

[Hugo Drax]

Tl;dr.

Also, you're kind of scary, dude

[tuttle]

Hypothetically, what if all born children were given mandatory vasectomies' or hysterectomies upon birth....

You can't really think this, even hypothetically, is a good idea.

Why are all your threads anti-human?

[Del]

Then you're obviously not referring to "natural" in a purely biological sense, because marriage is a rational, human construct, not simply the biological impetus to procreate.

Well, duh.... Human beings are rational animals. We have biological nature (eating, breathing, pooping, picking out boogers), which we share with all of the animal kingdom.

And we also have a rational nature -- the Law of Human Nature, which we share with every human in every culture in every age. The Natural Moral Law is unique to human beings. It did not "evolve" along with the lower animals. We have things not found in the animal kingdom -- notably art, music, and the ability to laugh together. Human speech -- sharing concepts -- and sharing these ideas by writing symbols. Such things are unique to human beings, the only rational animal in the whole biosphere.

Honest evolutionary scientists admit that science still has no clue how or why this rational nature appeared suddenly in material creation without evolving from something lower. All we know is that all-of-a-sudden the cave man painted art in his cave.

Biologically, humans are a wreck. Human males want to have sex with anything resembling a warm, wet hole -- merely for a momentary release of pleasure. [Exhibit A: The absurd promiscuity among male homosexuals.] And then human male animals (ruled by their biology alone) make efforts to prevent or kill or abandon any children that might result, because children might impair their ability to get more sex.

(As animals, human females are also a hot mess. But I won't pretend that I understand them.)

Fortunately, humanity's rational nature gave us the natural human institution of marriage. Marriages are necessary for human happiness, thriving and the survival of our species. In marriage, children are welcomed and loved and cared for.

And the most joyful paradox is that married couples also enjoy more sex and better sex than the bestial efforts of animal humans.

Guys who want sex and don't want marriage are just stuck in a state of permanent adolescence. They grow older and less attractive, dooming themselves to decades of loneliness and frustration.

[Del]

Why are all your threads anti-human?

Hey, Troub -- please don't answer my posts. Answer this one.

[Hugo Drax]

Hm, where do we start.

Okay, well first the problem is that you have a reductive view of sex or "getting poontang" - like it's all about the false dichotomy between the "getting" and the "not getting", instead of savoring the shared experience and the moments of bliss in which the concerns of the material world temporarily cease to matter.

You also seem to have a very solipsistic view of "rejection" and if you or anyone else is "rejected" - that it's all about you and some type of personal slight or affront to you as an individual - when in reality, you don't or barely matter at all in the minds of others to begin with, and the were neither obligated to you, or obligated to think about you at all as you narcissistically imagine.

And while logic disagrees and tells me that, in theory, it's probably more stable and viable for most people to settle for a boring "wife" - I honestly feel that hints of love are better shared with a stranger with whom one doesn't have to share tainted, humdrum memories. Most of my partners weren't people I "knew" well, and for that I'm happy that said knowledge didn't taint the otherwise transcendent experiences.

Though since your only view of the issues seems to be fixated on "getting poon" with some perceived regularity, coupled with the simple inability to relate to the idea of being able to share love with a stranger (which isn't as hard as one might think), I guess trying to discuss moments of transcendence is just casting flawless pearls knowing they'll immediately be tainted.

Shhh. Your demons are talking.

[FredS]

[in reply to Yugo] . . . coupled with the simple inability to relate to the idea of being able to share love with a stranger (which isn't as hard as one might think), I guess trying to discuss moments of transcendence is just casting flawless pearls knowing they'll immediately be tainted.

I say it totally impossible to love, or "share love" (whatever that means) with a stranger. Are you conflating orgasm with some sort of transcendent love? It's easy enough to have intercourse with an empty vessel of a stranger but how can you love someone you don't even know? You may enjoy (love is a leap) the way they talk, or walk, or look, or smell, or wiggle under you in bed, but how can you love the person of stranger?

[Hugo Drax]

I say it totally impossible to love, or "share love" (whatever that means) with a stranger.

I think you're right in some ways. I'm aware that there are different types of love - "Eros, Agape", and all that, and not all necessarily created equal.

Though didn't Jesus and his disciples have a love for all of humanity? Sure, you can say that since Jesus was "God", he "knew" all of humanity, though his disciples would have had to cultivate a love for humanity which went beyond the confines of simple "familial love", right?

Are you conflating orgasm with some sort of transcendent love? It's easy enough to have intercourse with an empty vessel of a stranger but how can you love someone you don't even know? You may enjoy (love is a leap) the way they talk, or walk, or look, or smell, or wiggle under you in bed, but how can you love the person of stranger?

Nothing I'm saying is totally set in stone - but I'm postulating that it's not actually solely about "orgasm". If the focus solely about orgasm, or lacking in mutuality, it would be ugly, crude and a source of angst.

Your uncle was right about you, Screwtape. You're going about this all wrong.

[Del]

Hm, where do we start.

Okay, well first the problem is that you have a reductive view of sex or "getting poontang" - like it's all about the false dichotomy between the "getting" and the "not getting", instead of savoring the shared experience and the moments of bliss in which the concerns of the material world temporarily cease to matter.

You also seem to have a very solipsistic view of "rejection" and if you or anyone else is "rejected" - that it's all about you and some type of personal slight or affront to you as an individual - when in reality, you don't or barely matter at all in the minds of others to begin with, and the were neither obligated to you, or obligated to think about you at all as you narcissistically imagine.

And while logic disagrees and tells me that, in theory, it's probably more stable and viable for most people to settle for a boring "wife" - I honestly feel that hints of love are better shared with a stranger with whom one doesn't have to share tainted, humdrum memories. Most of my partners weren't people I "knew" well, and for that I'm happy that said knowledge didn't taint the otherwise transcendent experiences.

Though since your only view of the issues seems to be fixated on "getting poon" with some perceived regularity, coupled with the simple inability to relate to the idea of being able to share love with a stranger (which isn't as hard as one might think), I guess trying to discuss moments of transcendence is just casting flawless pearls knowing they'll immediately be tainted.

You appear to have a very reductive view of marriage. "tainted, humdrum memories"?

Let me explain in terms you mightunderstand: Marriage is about leaving adolescence behind, and growing into a new and much larger adult world together. Children are the biggest part of this world. And grandchildren.

Chasing sexual experiences without commitment or being open to new life is a doom of perpetual adolescence. An empty and featureless future, and not much for memories either.

[Del]

Tl;dr.

Also, you're kind of scary, dude

Honestly, I sometimes long for the days when people had the sustained attention to read something longer than a Twitter post...

...and the days when "Freddy Kruger" films stopped being scary after one turned 14.

Take it from me (as I am a great expert): Long posts don't mean that you have a valid point.

You think that casual sex is good and children are bad -- and you have a point, if your point is that old adolescents make bad parents.

The solution is not to sterilize young people until they prove that they are more than mere libertines. The solution is to help and encourage young people to grow up.

The greatest happiness is found in the fullness of adulthood. The ancient Latin word for manliness is "virtue."

[Del]

You appear to have a very reductive view of marriage. "tainted, humdrum memories"?

Let me explain in terms you mightunderstand: Marriage is about leaving adolescence behind, and growing into a new and much larger adult world together. Children are the biggest part of this world. And grandchildren.

Chasing sexual experiences without commitment or being open to new life is a doom of perpetual adolescence. An empty and featureless future, and not much for memories either.

You're talking about good ideals which are, in practice - lost on many of the masses. Since none of those things are required to meet what ever bare-bones legal requirements society might offer for marriage - just as with whatever bare-minimum legal-definition of "adulthood" his put out there - which more or less amounts to barely one step above "law of the jungle" and is often devoid of any of the higher ideals which you're talking about.

I don't care how the government defines "marriage" or "adulthood." I care about YOU. I want YOU to be happy.

A life of drugs and casual sex triggers all the pleasure centers in the brain jelly, but that's not happiness -- not even joy.

Ask Hunter Biden.