Relativism

topic posted Fri, November 6, 2009 - 5:18 PM by  Hummingbird
Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement
www.google.com/search

The view that truth is relative and not absolute. Truth varies from people to people, time to time and there are no absolutes.
www.spiritrestoration.org/Theolog...sary.htm

the concept that a cultural system can be viewed only in terms of the principles, background, frame of reference, and history that characterize it.
www.china.org.cn/english/fea...gy/98851.htm
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • Relativism=sellout thinking

    Fri, November 6, 2009 - 10:28 PM
    The above is also known as ANTI-philosophy/ ANTI-intelectualism
    ...sellout thinking... and evil trash !
    • Re: Relativism=sellout thinking

      Sat, November 7, 2009 - 12:17 AM
      Why?
      • Re: Relativism=sellout thinking

        Sat, November 7, 2009 - 3:07 AM
        Relativism revels in duplicity.

        Remember consistency is the foundation of all virtue. Without the committment to total consistency...vlaues get treated like some sort of makeshift affair ---a mere parlor game ,

        Incidentally, I have not forgor the initial area of that thread where we had a back and forth dialectic about that, and I plan to get back to that soon after some dialectic with Rockstar is probed further . Hope to peruade him to embrace absolutism .
        • Re: Relativism=sellout thinking

          Sat, November 7, 2009 - 3:28 AM
          en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

          And, his recent book "Beyond the Hoax" is worth the read. You do, and you will never buy into relativist clap trap again.
          • Re: Relativism=sellout thinking

            Sat, November 7, 2009 - 7:05 AM
            pp: embrace absolutism.

            pp: his recent book "Beyond the Hoax" is worth the read.

            should be...interesting
            • Re: Relativism=sellout thinking

              Sat, November 7, 2009 - 8:54 AM
              I think the word relativism was tossed out by Jason when he was defending his absolutist opposition to sex. IMHO it is his perogative to shun sex and see it as disgusting for himself. Where he goes wrong is when he states that it is not just his opinion, but is THE opinion and that nobody should enjoy sex and that we should all feel revulsion towards physcial pleasure. He is on a doomed to fail mission to make others feel guilty about sex. Perhaps he should have used a different word because I have not seen anybody defend the general concept of relativism as much as I have seen a rejection of Jason's absurd absolutism on the topic of human sexuality.
              • Re: Relativism=sellout thinking

                Sat, November 7, 2009 - 9:41 AM
                HUMM POSTED :I think the word relativism was tossed out by Jason when he was defending his absolutist opposition to sex. IMHO it is his perogative to shun sex and see it as disgusting for himself. Where he goes wrong is when he states that it is not just his opinion, but is THE opinion .

                RESPONSE: Please get the nomenclature I use right, even if you don't agree with it .

                I did NOT call it THE opinion ; instead I call it THE Truth . (Well, after all, it is the Truth) .
                • Re: Relativism=sellout thinking

                  Sat, November 7, 2009 - 9:47 AM
                  No it is YOUR truth and you will fail to impose it on anybody other than yourself.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Relativism=sellout thinking

                    Sat, November 7, 2009 - 12:00 PM
                    There is NO "yours" nor "mine" to Truth. Truth is 100 % absolute .
                    • Re: Relativism=sellout thinking

                      Sat, November 7, 2009 - 12:06 PM
                      In your opinion truth is 100% absolute.. You are not the final arbiter of the nature of truth. You just render opinions and the rest of us are free to accept or reject them.
                      • Re: Relativism=sellout thinking

                        Sat, November 7, 2009 - 1:05 PM
                        What I have presented in the statements posted here is NOT opinion but Truth . The statement you have presented which claims that the meta-proposition (which in turn states Truth is 100 % absolute) is mere opinion , is itself an opinion ...and a false one at that .

                        The truth of the matter is that Truth is 100 % absolute and any opinions to the contrary are false opinions... is itself Truth and NO opinion .


                        You are obligated to agree with that. Whether you want to agree with that or not matters not a whit .
                        • Re: Relativism=sellout thinking

                          Sat, November 7, 2009 - 1:14 PM
                          I do not agree. You are wrong. Well we all consider ourselves free to disagree with you at will and with impunity. You are obligated to accept this fact.*




                          *see how stupid you sound?
                          • Re: Relativism=sellout thinking

                            Sat, November 7, 2009 - 8:43 PM
                            HUIMM POSTED : I do not agree. You are wrong. Well we all consider ourselves free to disagree with you at will and with impunity. You are obligated to accept this fact.*




                            *see how stupid you sound?

                            RESPONSE: NOPE. AND NOPE AGAIN .
                        • Re: Relativism=sellout thinking

                          Sat, November 7, 2009 - 11:40 PM
                          "obligated"

                          You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
                          • Re: Relativism=sellout thinking

                            Sun, November 8, 2009 - 5:36 PM
                            It certainly does mean what I think it means, Enrika .
                            • Re: Relativism=sellout thinking

                              Sun, November 8, 2009 - 5:57 PM
                              What do you think it means, Jason?
                              • Re: Relativism=sellout thinking

                                Sun, November 8, 2009 - 7:40 PM
                                That one has a duty , Enrika .
                                • Re: Relativism=sellout thinking

                                  Sun, November 8, 2009 - 8:05 PM
                                  "Obligation" implies a lack of choice, a force binding a person to an action. This is why people chuckle when you say, "You are obligated to agree with me." It is so very obviously untrue.

                                  I am in no way obligated to agree with anything you have to say.
                                  • Re: Relativism=sellout thinking

                                    Sun, November 8, 2009 - 8:14 PM
                                    ENRIKA POSTED :Obligation" implies a lack of choice, a force binding a person to an action. This is why people chuckle when you say, "You are obligated to agree with me." It is so very obviously untrue.

                                    RESPONSE: No it doesn't, Enrika . there is nothing about the lexical definition of the word observation that states that it is volitionally irresistable . It simply means that there is a normative duty .

                                    ENRIKA POSTED : I am in no way obligated to agree with anything you have to say .

                                    RESPONSE: Yes, you most certainly are , young lady ! And the sooner you do, the better the universe shall be .
                                    • Re: Relativism=sellout thinking

                                      Sun, November 8, 2009 - 8:24 PM
                                      *laughing*

                                      No, I'm not. :) Saying it over and over again doesn't make it so.

                                      It does, however, make you sound crazier and crazier.

                                      I expect to see you as a profiled unsub on Criminal Minds any day now.

                                      Just don't eat the eyeballs, okay? My roommate really hates that.
                                      • Re: Relativism=sellout thinking

                                        Mon, November 9, 2009 - 4:25 PM
                                        Hummingbird
                                        <<<I think the word relativism was tossed out by Jason when he was defending his absolutist opposition to sex. IMHO it is his perogative to shun sex and see it as disgusting for himself. Where he goes wrong is when he states that it is not just his opinion, but is THE opinion and that nobody should enjoy sex and that we should all feel revulsion towards physcial pleasure. He is on a doomed to fail mission to make others feel guilty about sex. Perhaps he should have used a different word because I have not seen anybody defend the general concept of relativism as much as I have seen a rejection of Jason's absurd absolutism on the topic of human sexuality.>>>

                                        Watching all of this sick-o's crap reminds me of the joke where the fly asks the elephant if he can fuck her. She said sure, go for it. So the fly goes to fucking the elephant when a tree limb fell and hit her on the head. She said "OUCH"! And the fly said yea baby that's it, tell me if it hurts.
                                        This is a parody that mimicks the antics of Jason as he really thinks he is significant when in all actuality he is just seen as a nut case.

                                        Enrika
                                        <<<Re: Relativism=sellout thinking
                                        *laughing*

                                        No, I'm not. :) Saying it over and over again doesn't make it so.

                                        It does, however, make you sound crazier and crazier.>>>

                                        Jason will continue to espouse his fundamentally flawed rhetoric because he is not intelligent enough to realize or resist his narcissistic personality disorder.Ha!Ha! He is a legend in his own mind as he is 100% correct 100% of the time and he will be the first to tell you so.Ha!Ha! It is fucking hilarious! You just almost cant resist the urge to feed the damned old troll. His proclamations of "sell out thinking" being equivilant to relativism makes him guilty of just that. He has sold out to his own flawed indoctrinated beliefs thinking he is 100% right 100% of the time.Ha!Ha! Fucking goofball.

          • Re: Relativism=sellout thinking

            Sat, November 7, 2009 - 9:28 AM
            Thank you ,Erik , for presnted that excellent hyperlink !

            Yes, relativism/postmodernism is indeed trash and claptrap .

            One caveat though is that I wouldn't throw out the work Rupert Sheldrake with the postmodernist bathwater. Though New Agers and perhaps some postmodernists have unfortunately tried to coopt the work of Shedlrake --the work of Sheldrake is not intrisincally New Age nor postmodern ...and it presents an interesting proposal which parallels the concept of entlechty in Aristotle .

            Another caveat is that, though there is mention of the left wing leanings of the publication Social Text (which was exposed to be a laughable publication) , left wing thinking in itself is not the problem , instead the postmodernist mutation of left wing thinking ---the ambivalent/ambiguous form of NEO-leftism which is the problem

            Ending racism , sexism ect ..are good societal causes . It is the weird ambiguous baggage that the postmodernist version of NEO-leftists tack onto such an ideological scene (weird ambiguious/ ambivalent sellout thinking that ironically undermines those very societal causes by the weird tendency to treat them as mere opinion) which is the problem .
  • Re: Relativism

    Sat, November 7, 2009 - 9:01 AM
    I too take issue with relativism, though from a different direction than Jason.

    We seem to think somehow that that the belief that truth varies from people to people, that there are no solid and absolute truths, is necessary to have a society that tolerates diversity of opinions and beliefs.

    But really, we don't need to be relativists to be tolerant, or even respectful.

    For instance, I believe Christianity is full of shit. I don't believe it. Period. Down to my core I think it is a set of lies. I think a lot of things that new-agers believe is false. I believe that people who obsess on consumerism and individualism are wrong and make themselves great pawns to roll over to a right wing agenda. I believe the right wingers in their obsession for power spin a lot of lies and also make themselves believe in a lot of the lies they tell.

    If I were a relativist I'd have to revise the above statement as follows.

    I believe I've constructed a reality around myself where Christianity is not true, but regularly encounter Christians for whom belief in Jesus causes him and his power to be real in their "reality microclimate". I also encounter new agers who are in a reality separate from mine where positive affirmations causes changes to their universe, but since I don't believe in it it doesn't work in my universe. People who obsess on consumerism are doing what is right for them and the planet I inhabit may be harmed and their being enslaved to credit card debt for what appears to be their irresponsibility... making my observation correct... but in their universe the planet can bear the consumerism and the debt and as long as they believe it will all work out okay then it will. In fact, it is probably important that I encourage them to continue believing as they do, rather than challenge them with my perceptions on the matter (just as right as theirs) because if I cause them to doubt in their reality their reality may collapse catastrophically around them and it will be all my fault. Individualists seem selfish and socially irresponsible to me that they reject any social and collective responsibility for one another's welfare and I'm right about that.... but they are right too in that it's dignified to die protecting a farm one is too old to work or care for with a shotgun, live on cans of veinna sausages, and drive off the people wanting to take away the farm and caving in single wide you live in for taxes you can no longer afford with a shotgun because you wouldn't ask for help or take a handout and hated everyone else that did because they were forced to pay for it. Oh they are wise just as I am wise, and that's a good outcome for them. Right wing neocon types are evil in my universe, but then again I am evil in their universe and we are both right, I should not object to the idea of rich people getting extremely rich working together in concert to make the base of labor international and more able to compete and underbid one another. I mean, it's only wrong to me because I'm on the side they'd like to see reduced to neo-peasantry, but if I were on their side of the coin I'd be able to see how grand a plan it all is and what increased power would do for the grandeur of somebody like myself if I were in their social class. Obviously from where they sit it is the greatest good, we are both right.

    And because everyone is right, everyone should just tolerate each other.

    bullshit.

    I think I could explain the damage relativism has done in Marxist terms best.

    The proletariat of uneducated people works too hard, too many long hours, and has education too poor to even get the chance to think about activism in the larger society. But they can be moved by intelligentsia who are sometimes thrust into their ranks of working class people... the educated poor... who organized trade unions, strikes, even revolutions where governments wouldn't bend and thus had to break. The intelligentsia didn't just take on their political ideas as a fashion, or as a philosophical plaything to banter about in coffee houses and pubs, they took a FIRM stand. They took enough of a stand to get themselves arrested, beaten, watched, blacklisted, even executed in some western countries (consider what happened to them when the Nazis took over). They were moved by a sense of right and wrong, like it's wrong for a person to generate huge amounts of wealth for others and live in total poverty, with no safety nets, disposable, and in conditions which will destroy their health and shorten their life... where when their health fails they face deeper poverty and homelessness which may kill them faster than whatever it was they breathed in their lungs might kill them. They saw it as injustice that as people suffered like that in mills and workshops, sometimes being beaten by foremen like slaves, the owners of these plants built literal castles overlooking the Hudson river valley and along the gold coast of northern Long Island and on the Connecticut side of the sound. They built marble sculpted wedding cake luxury buildings for themselves on park row, while people who worked for them lived in barracks at best and shanties at worst.

    Relativism de-conditioned our intelligentsia from any sense of outrage. Even when educated poor, with working class colleagues who aren't educated, they don't feel outrage at their own poverty or at the poverty of those they work with. If they are left, they are leftist lite, with no strong conviction behind it... it comes off as whining and snarky sarcasm... neither wins working class followers who they'd rather belittle and insult for not having the same education to be able to see what they can see. They go home, watch the daily show and the Simpsons and get to feel smug and mildly victimized rather than outraged, not giving themselves the right to take a real stand on anything and ready to tear down any peer of theirs who is quaint enough to take a firm stand on anything.

    Relativism has numbed our intelligentsia to sleep, ineffectual, castrated, happy to do feel good things at burning-man, out to see cool music with other people who put the tragic in being tragically hip. Nope, they are asleep, and without them waking up the working class has no leaders and they are fucked. I'd go as far to say that relativism has been the best tool the right wing has ever had to use against the left and against intellectuals who have swallowed it the way roaches dine on the "food" found in the D-con roach motel. It sounds very left, it sounds very liberal, but a left incapable of outrage or taking a firm stand on anything though tolerant of other beliefs as such. While the right wing became more galvanized, it's base more shrill and more committed to moving things to the furthest right possible where now moderately right wing corporate friendly is now cast as "too liberal" or "socialistic" as the democrats are... the real left is just sitting back and calling people stupid for not following them and seeing what they see, and taking comedic pot shots at everyone and even each other but devoid of any real conviction. They are neither effectual nor "dangerous" enough to even be "watched" or blacklisted or anything, for when it comes to crunch time none of them will make waves.
    • Re: Relativism

      Sat, November 7, 2009 - 9:38 AM
      BRUECKE POSTED :Relativism has numbed our intelligentsia to sleep, ineffectual, castrated, happy to do feel good things at burning-man, out to see cool music with other people who put the tragic in being tragically hip. Nope, they are asleep, and without them waking up the working class has no leaders and they are fucked. I'd go as far to say that relativism has been the best tool the right wing has ever had to use against the left and against intellectuals who have swallowed it the way roaches dine on the "food" found in the D-con roach motel.

      RESPONSE: Amen brother . Let us not forget the opiate of the masses and, yes, I know I'm always harping about : liberated sex---the opiate of the masses ...which carries in its wake a million or more cheap giggles , which the postmodern, bourgeous NEO-left has mystified to be supposedly some sort of groundbreaking societally liberating affair (what farce)...that remains when you demystify it: merely screwing ,
      • Re: Relativism

        Sat, November 7, 2009 - 12:37 PM
        Well shit Jason, if you agree with Bruecke about his definition of relativism, why are you still calling me one?

        I don't think you're right, I just think you have the right to be wrong.

        According to Bruecke's definition, I'd only be a relativist if I thought you were right along with everybody else.
        • Re: Relativism

          Sat, November 7, 2009 - 1:14 PM
          PINKY POSTED :Well shit Jason, if you agree with Bruecke about his definition of relativism, why are you still calling me one?

          I don't think you're right, I just think you have the right to be wrong.

          According to Bruecke's definition, I'd only be a relativist if I thought you were right along with everybody else.

          RESPONSE: Yet you are still a relativist, Pinky, regarding other matters . You are against a one-sided , us versus them approach . You support respecting beliefs, even those you do not agree with and concurrently, on the isue of slavery you *objected* to the denouncing of pro-slavery opinions as being totally wrong opinions---NOT merely "wrong from a perspective" or any of that similar MTV Generation sellout talk ---but wrong period . <--You are against denouncing opinions as totally wrong---like so many of your contemporaries influenced by the opinion-respecting relativism so popular in this present weird era .
          • Re: Relativism

            Sat, November 7, 2009 - 8:02 PM
            Jason: "Yet you are still a relativist, Pinky, regarding other matters . ..."

            Opinions cannot be wrong - actions can.

            People are capable of freethought and rightly should be, nothing about that is wrong, and no results of which can be wrong. However ACTING on said opinions, thoughts, beliefs, feelings, whatever can be wrong by violating others' free rights. People who think other people should be slaves are not wrong for thinking that - they are completely within their rights and natural ability to think and believe that - but if they were to act on those and attempt to enslave other people, THAT would be wrong. That you think you are a pillar of Truth and appoint yourself to a position of announcing that to whoever will listen is not wrong - you are completely within your rights and natural ability to think and believe that - but that you are actually actively preaching to others what they should and should not do, think, believe, support, denounce, feel guilty for, etc. IS wrong (because, as they are naturally and rightfully able to think, believe, feel guilty for things, etc. for themselves by themselves, you are attempting to override and/or impose upon that).
            • Jason: "Yet you are still a relativist, Pinky, regarding other matters . ..."

              PINKY POSTED :Opinions cannot be wrong - actions can.

              RESPONSDE :BULL. Ethics is an affair of thought just as well as action. Rightness is an affair of the mind as well as the actions .

              PINKY POSTED :People are capable of freethought and rightly should be, nothing about that is wrong, and no results of which can be wrong. However ACTING on said opinions, thoughts, beliefs, feelings, whatever can be wrong by violating others' free rights. People who think other people should be slaves are not wrong for thinking that - they are completely within their rights and natural ability to think and believe that - but if they were to act on those and attempt to enslave other people, THAT would be wrong.

              RESPONSE: Talk about goofy equivocation ---you are equivocating between the (A) the use of the word 'right'
              as in being accurate /truthful and *the separate context* of (C) the word 'right' as in having a perogative to do or think something without being suppreseed by physical violence .

              What of the problems with the English language is that the same word is often given to two or more meaning contexts which gives lateral thinkers the pretext to mix up those separate meanings (to equivocate) .

              A person has the perogative to be wrong to advance wrong opinions ...but all that means and nothing more is that they should NOT subjected to physical violence to the person or their associates or property/ physical confinement / or physical arrest . The key word there is 'physical' ---that's all it means .

              Having a perogative (often called 'having a right') certainly does NOT mean a person having the opinions they support respected...given some ad hoc respect. Having a perogative to express an opinion does NOT mean that a person has the opinions they support protected from vehement verbal criticism . The perogative of someone to support an opinion (even a worthless wrong opinion) is NOT violated by someone else telling them that the opinion they support is totally wrong.

              No one has ever had the right of free expression violated by words alone, however vehement the words were. Noone has ever had the right of free expression violated by being told that the opinion they support is totally wrong .

              To violate the right (as in perogative) of someone to free expression requires *physical* force being directed towards that person or their property (or the threat of physical force)...Noone has ever had any notion fored nor imposed on them by words alone . Vehement verbal persuasion-- even verbally badgering someone--telling them the opinions they support are totally wrong , worthless and so on does not coerce, nor force not impose any beliefs on anyone .

              To call the verbal act of someone telling someone that the beliefs they support are totally wrong "forcing one's beleifs on somebody" , "imposing beleifs on them" ect is a MISNOMER !

              Thus, having the perogative to express a belief (having the right to express a belief) does not mean that such a belief is right in the sense of being true or justified ---NOT even in the fake sense of when one appends the phrase "to them" to the word right .

              A person has the perogative (what is often signified by the phrase 'has the right') to express a belief but that does not mean that makes the belief right nor "right to them" ---ALL THAT MEANS is they should be able to express that worthless belief without being physically attacted or physically arrested or having their property physically damaged or taken for them doing so . That's all the perogative entails. Such a perogative does not entail that people respect that belief . It does *not* mean that people avoid verbally belittling and denigrating that belief as totally wrong. Someone verbally denigrating and belittling the belief of someone else as totally wrong does NOT in any way violate the
              right of that someone rise to express that belief that is called totally wrong !

              PINKY POSTED :That you think you are a pillar of Truth and appoint yourself to a position of announcing that to whoever will listen is not wrong - you are completely within your rights and natural ability to think and believe that - but that you are actually actively preaching to others what they should and should not do, think, believe, support, denounce, feel guilty for, etc. IS wrong (because, as they are naturally and rightfully able to think, believe, feel guilty for things, etc. for themselves by themselves, you are attempting to override and/or impose upon that).

              RESPONSE: Again noone has ever had anything imposed on them by mere words alone no matter how vehemen t nor had their free will violated by mere words alone. When are you lateral thinking MTV Generation postmodernist types going to acknowledge that distinction that you all keep glossing over time and time again .

              There is a distinction between (A) having the right to express a belief (however crass and wrongheaded ) and (C) being free from vehement verbal criticism of being told that belief is wrong .

              Again , all that having the right to express a belief involves is being free from threats of *physical* violence or *physical* impingement on themselves ! That's all .

              It does *not* mean having grounds to demand that people only make namby-pamby relativist sorts of criticism, like when people make mousy statements to other people (like, say, for example a person who supports an evil activity like slavery) "I respect your point of view, but I disagree " Statements like that, by the way, which make one a duplicious traitor, who betrays *in thought* the ANTI-slavery stance .

              Free thought is not violated by someone being merely told that the opinions they hold are wrong by another person. A person after being verbally told the opinions they hold are wrong still has the volitional power to go on expressing the cockamamey totally worthless and crass opinion if they should decide to...vehement words no matter how vehement and haow successful and causing some opinion to "lose face" metaphorically speaking .....do not have a Svengali like force over people's motor functions .

              If someone points a gun to some person 's head and tells them if that other person , say, expresses pro-slavery beliefs then they'll be shot---now *that would* be a case of imposing a belief on someone , violating the right of that person to free expression .

              In contrast , if someone else verbally tells them that the opinion they just expressed is totally wrong, superfical, racist murky trash ---but does nothing to physically threaten them then that is NOT overriding the free will of the person , *not* imposing anything on them...is NOT in any way violating the right of that person to free expression !!!!!
      • Re: Relativism

        Sun, November 8, 2009 - 12:12 AM
        The mistake being made here is a simple one:

        release your attachments to false dichotomies and the notion of an "either / or" type of crutch for philo will vanish dutifully.

        "Relativism" and "Absolutism" are the same bugaboo. As with theism versus atheism, the typical argument is about the quirky nature of language - has nothing at all to do with "truth" per se.

        It's hilarious when pretend-absolutists argue against relativist logic: "it's wrong, because there *are* absolute truths".

        snort!
        Dumbasses. Relativists, the lot of you.
        • LOKI POSTED :The mistake being made here is a simple one:

          release your attachments to false dichotomies and the notion of an "either / or" type of crutch for philo will vanish dutifully.

          RESPONSE: Dichotomies separating mutually exclusive notions which make opposite predications are NOT false. The Either /or is a certain foundation of deductive logic . To claim there is a both/and of two inherently opposite predications no matter how dressed up in fancy misnomers like so-called "paradox" is always wrong. One cannnot have a both and with such matters : it is either one/or the other or neither but it cannot be both at the same time .


          LOKI POSTED :"Relativism" and "Absolutism" are the same bugaboo. As with theism versus atheism, the typical argument is about the quirky nature of language - has nothing at all to do with "truth" per se.

          RESPONSE: Please elaborate .

          LOKI POSTED : It's hilarious when pretend-absolutists argue against relativist logic: "it's wrong, because there *are* absolute truths".

          RESPONSE: The term "relativist logic" is a misnomer . It is a contradiction in terms . Using the term realtivist logic makes about as much sense as using the term "wet dryness" or "opaque trasnparency" .
    • Re: Relativism

      Sun, November 8, 2009 - 7:40 AM
      I am for liberated sex actually

      But what is presented as sexual in our society is far from liberated

      We don't have liberated sex

      We have mass packaged commercialized and cheapened sex

      Sex has been turned and used as a way of generating insecurity and apathy, which keeps the oppression machine nicely lubricated

      Sex would be very different for most people and how it would be expressed, and I think it would be better for most people and they'd feel happier and more intimate if their education for sex was not handled by mass media driven by consumerism.

      Now I'm not saying that sex cannot be a distraction, or an addiction.

      Some people are alcoholics, but you don't take everyone else's wine away just because there is a percentage who may become alcoholic.
      • Re: Relativism

        Sun, November 8, 2009 - 8:05 AM
        Bruecke, I agree that in this society even something a beautiful and simple as sex can become commodified. Add to that the objectivication and sexism (and homophobia) and you get commercialized and cheapened sex.

        Another part of the problem is that some people have a negative body image do to being presented with arbitrary models of beauty. Some people actually end up hating their own bodies.

        Part of what we need is more sex education at an earlier age so people get factual information about their own bodies. Once presented with objective information more sex positive attitudes will develop and people will get a message different than what they hear from the pulpit.
        • Re: Relativism

          Sun, November 8, 2009 - 2:54 PM
          Personally, I feel human sexuality will settle itself out when consumerism is finished destroying itself.

          Which it is in the active process of doing in our current global financial crisis,

          A crisis our leaders will put their hands to their face in shock and say they didn't see it coming and feign shock again and again as the middle class life disappears and their halfhearted attempts to stop the process do not work (as they expected when they implemented the measures)... because it is not sustainable ecologically or economically and creates a vast cultural wasteland.

          Capitalism is being allowed to implode. Nobody in power or with lots of money will mind really as long as they remain super rich, powerful, and in luxury... for truly the top 1% may have more than us, but that isn't really much of an ecological dent even if they want to panel their mansions in mahogany.

          For the rest of us we may be allowed to wallow in victorian style working poverty for a while, until we embrace a new order that is a bit more socialistic, but that won't happen until the American dream is dead, and that something more socialistic seems to everyone to be an improvement over the status quo. It has to get very bad, and it will, and our leaders have probably figured out that if they don't do this the planet will not be able to sustain anyone for long anyway.... but if they actually made the changes in a way to take responsibility for them the middle class would have their heads. So they make it look like a big accident of a broken system that needs an overhaul, being stalled by idelogues in each party. It's no accident.

          But human sexuality will change in this context, sex will not be attached to materialism as much, unless someone displays financial stability rather than flash, which will be the best most people will be able to hope for. The Ward Cleaver type of guy will seem like the better catch than the go-getting venture capitalist type. Bullshit will walk.
      • Re: Relativism

        Sun, November 8, 2009 - 5:40 PM
        BRUECKE POSTED :I am for liberated sex actually

        RESPONSE: Consider , Bruecke, that liberated sex--- even *without* the uses of it in the commercial advertising ventures, has much the same banal, mundane, superfical tenor as the monentary greed conspicuous consumption that you righly denounce and decry .

        There is a theme of ANTI-contemplative earthiness to both phenomenon .

Recent topics in "Heated Debate"

Topic Author Replies Last Post
Another Debunking of 9/11 Conspiracies Hummingbird 1 Today, 10:59 AM
Alts? Hummingbird 4 Today, 10:49 AM
WTC7 Au Go Go 8 Today, 10:47 AM
Quote Hummingbird 17 Today, 9:48 AM