_
Lol
Mag hasn’t figured out that she lives forever yet.
She’ll figure it out. Then suddenly she’ll realize that not planning your entire forever is a waste of life.
I’m not worried about her sociopathy …
She’ll figure it out eventually.
If you keep this up i may ban you.
I grow wild hairs sometimes.
Sometimes my wild hairs are direct. I’ll say what mag is saying without being … mmm… how should I say, as subversive as she is.
Point taken.
Context needs to be understood though.
To be honest, she’s said worse things in this board than I’ve ever said.
Mag believes that rape sexuals ((like lgbtq(r - r for rape sexuals) deserve sexual respect. I’m not even talking about mutual subtle rape - just straight up rape.
She thinks that’s cool shit.
It pissed me off.
You be the judge of who’s in the wrong here.
Woaw, Dan wielding the iron fist of the moderator.
I think this threat should get back on topic. What is edification, and what does it have to do with male/female exchanges on ILP? Does this thread really deserve that title? OR should it have been titled “Edification (whatever that means) and Biggy/Maia exchanges at ILP”? Has Biggy branched out and touched upon other male/female exchanges at ILP (I’ll confess: I haven’t read the whole thread)? These last few exchanges would be perfect for discussion… Ecmandu/MagsJ exchanges–the dynamics therein and what that implies for modern society. We even have a point of contrast in Shieldmaiden–one woman against, one woman in defense–and Ecmandu, the shining star, caught in the middle. This could go deep.
Dan,
I’ll give you a little insight into mag.
She’s stubborn to a huge fault. I’ve been there myself.
She can’t admit she’s ever made a mistake.
At this point in my life, I understand everything I did was a mistake.
That’s the difference between me and someone like mag.
Sometimes you say really nasty shit.
Of course I do. It’s a nasty fucking cosmos that I work 24/7 to try to fix while many are sleeping on the job.
Did you think you could walk through this without a simple word sword?
It doesn’t work that way man.
Be thankful for what you have. Seriously.
I’m not here to hurt people. I’m here to wake them the fuck up.
The guy has concocted all that crap in his head and then verbally attacks me for things he thinks I’ve said… I don’t argue with the clueless, and have told the person so many many times, but then crap like this happens, when I’ve built up an exchange with others.
@Gib… not gonna happen… for Shield to enable someone’s imaginary crap, shows that her intention is a malevolent one, in egging on such behaviour. I guess people with issues eventually find each other and tag team up, to troll others. [I don’t engage with Shield… hence her (unnecessary) input here, to get herself on the radar]
Shield and he can start a discussion on edification of male/female exchanges here, at ILP… I’ll remember not to read… 
Mag. You have no clue what you’re dealing with.
In the demonic realms. You’d easily be sent to hell for saying everyone should respect everyone’s sexual orientation.
I’m arguing against it by declaring you mentally retarded.
I know that’s a hard blow for you, but you don’t want to see the other side.
I’m not trying to hurt you Mag.
Your comprehension of all this is so fucking small that I had to declare you mentally retarded to help you.
And here you are, thinking I’m the enemy.
I’m not your enemy.
Your mind is so confused that you can’t actually see how reality works.
_
The woman whisperer, returns… 
Sit back and relax mag. As frustrating as our exchange about sexuality was for you and perhaps others…
You’re not mentally competent to stand trial.
You’ll be put in the protective custody of what we call the compassionate mental ward of life.
Had you said things differently… not so good.
This entire world is spirit.
And then after establishing this we can zoom in on what it means to be edified in regard to, say, feminism and abortion?
Having first established definitively what “serious philosophers” are required to grasp regarding the definition and the meaning of edification itself.
Iambiguous still has his “knight in shining armor” side.
That’s why Maia told him to back off. She’s her own woman.
From my perspective, you’re all mentally ill.
I disagree with some extremely powerful spirits that you should be condemned for projection.
But once a person reaches meta level understanding, it’s not “fair game” as they say. “Well they did this, so I can do it too”
I’ll tell you another thing about life…
We never stop learning until the day we die. And we never die. We never stop learning.
You have to take this into account not only for self, but also for others.
1] I choose abstinence because the profoundly problematic confluence of existential variables in my life – rooted in dasein – have come to predispose me “here and now” to choose it. For Maia it was the manner in which her life brought her to Paganism and the Goddess. Same with you and your choices. Same with me and mine.
Yea… my reason is, mainly because I can’t be bothered… nothing more, nothing less.
2] there is a way, scientifically, philosophically, deontologically, spiritually etc., to think it all through and arrive at the most reasonable [and then, for many, most virtuous] assessment.
There’s nothing to think about… no analysing, nothing.
Only, as with morality, Maia’s commitment to celibacy, is beyond my being able to grasp. It is somehow derived from her “intuitions” more so than nature itself. But these intuitions…how are they too not just another manifestation of dasein?
I have no idea …though aren’t intuitions, nature?
Same with what “gets your own attention” sexually. In fact, what gets the attention of others is not abstinence or celibacy but just the opposite: debauchery, swinging, homosexuality, pornography, fetishes, orgies. Like the characters in Shortbus: youtu.be/_YVml-7iAbI
I would say, that it depends on the individual… a person is either into any or all aspects of those or they aren’t. Can’t say that I’m a fan, of any of it… but I did know some that are, but not for long, as they are very unpleasant (persistent) types to be around… and I ain’t got time for dat!
Again, though, what is far more interesting to me is not what you and I and Maia do or do not do sexually, but how what any of us do is deeply intertwined existentially in the manner in which our actual lived lives, taking us in very different directions, predisposed you and I and Maia to go here and not there.
Circumstance? …of many factors. I barely ‘go there’ so this is of no importance to me… never felt like I was missing out.
[i]][b]And that is important because once we grasp how our own choices were shaped and molded by our very different experiences, relationships and access to information, we can come into places like this and communicate those differences in order to [possibly] come up with [for philosophers] the most deontologically sound obligations that rationally men and women can embrace.
Or, as those like Satyr do, root philosophy itself in nature. But only his own assessment of nature of course.[/b][/i]
I see… what type of rational deontological obligations are we talking about here, exactly? lol
Some are led by their crotch or feelings, some are not… we are all wired differently, and that wiring is played out in our dasein.
All manner of tripe, in all its various forms… not just the sexual.
One doesn’t have to be a feminist to ‘just don’t “get” it’, in regard to stalking and especially non-consensual sex…
Abstinence/celibacy is not uncommon nor unheard of… why the surprise over it?
It seems that you are…
Mag,
One piece of the puzzle that you are sorely missing is that rape is retroactive.
In 30 years time, you’ll look back and say to yourself, “I wish that hadn’t happened”
That’s all you need to define rape.
Ain’t that the truth. I’m inclined to say there is no such thing as sanity. There is only insanity (bad) and my form of insanity (good).
Yes, but that you can’t be bothered is no less rooted existentially in dasein. It seems that you are basically agreeing with me regarding the profoundly problematic – subjective, existential – nature of our individual sexual preferences. Yes or no? And, if yes, are you as well “fractured and fragmented” in regard to your own sense of identity in the is/ought world?
So, this brings you, what, in closer to Maia here? There are just things you know about yourself sexually? Intuitively? Viscerally? And as long as you do “just know” them, nothing else need matter? if so, as I noted to Maia, you can’t beat that for a moral philosophy.
Thus…
Okay, but, if I understand her correctly, Maia’s sexuality is not really linked to nature. Is yours? And how would your own understanding of nature here not be profoundly embedded in dasein. In fact, as I noted to Maia, for everyone who falls back on intuition to rationalize celibacy, there are just as many [if not a lot more] who fall back on intuition to rationalize the Shortbus route:
Yes! Exactly! The individual! And how does the individual come to the conclusions they do in a way that is more reasonable than the manner in which I speculate about it in my signature threads. And those that are inclined would advise you to make time. Think of all that sexual pleasure you are missing, they would point out.
You keep noting things like this, but, in my view, fail to recognize how these attitudes themselves are embedded in dasein. Your own personal experiences brought you to this. New personal experiences down the road may take you to a completely different set of sexual behaviors. My point then being that, using the tools of philosophy, there does not appear to be a way to determine the optimal or most rational set of behaviors.
I’m not talking about any? Are you? Are those like Urwrong and Ichthus77 and their ilk?
[/quote]
Exactly. That complex and at times deeply enigmatic line between nature and nurture, genes and memes. And those among us who insist that they know precisely where to draw it. Simple. Just think like they do about sex.
Ah, back again to you just knowing “in your head” what either is or is not tripe. Sexual or otherwise. And back to me suggesting that what you think you know here is derived largely from the manner in which, subjectively, existentially, I construe the meaning of dasein.
Okay, but what does that have to do with my point above. For me, it’s not that someone chooses celibacy but why they came to that decision given the trajectory of the life they lived/live. Their own sexual behaviors in the past resulting in consequences that predispose them to change their behaviors. And then new experiences that predispose them, once again, to go in an entirely different direction.
Too bad he’s not around to react to my own reaction here. Still, if there is anyone here who might be willing to imagine his reaction, please, by all means, let’s explore it. Given actual “situations” we are all likely to be familiar with.
That’s one way to look at it that won’t get you into trouble.
You have to understand that existence itself is evil.
I mean, we murder innocent bacteria every moment with hydrochloric acid.
This world is a shit show.
If you ape the shitshow; you’ll be evil.
If you give existence the middle finger and try to be the best person you can… you have the luxury of not regretting some of your memories.
That’s the best we can do right now… not regretting some of your memories.
Every line, is a point in time…
According to virtue ethics… [i]practical wisdom (phronesis) has been proposed as a link between virtues and the consequences of every human activity.[/i]
According to principlism… [i]based on four ethical principles: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice, as a framework for the ethical analysis of complex situations.[/i]
I’d say that those two ethical theories, should stand-stead in reply to your query…though deontological/Kantian ethics, operates from a place of respect of autonomy and sacredness of every human being, which seems very Buddhist in its analogy… and once we agree on an ethical rule, it should be applied regardless of the consequences. and to argue that consequences, specific circumstances, or personal relations are irrelevant for a physician’s decision, is difficult.
Are you an advocate for serial-monogamy, as should people be constantly seeking their next relationship… without reprieve, for the sake of not changing their behaviours of having to always be with someone?
Should all feel like you do, in any situation… or so it seems you think, to me, that that’s what you are leaning towards, in missing Jungs’ point.