Hugo wrote:
By the way, I'm kind of surprised by the aggressiveness and lack of respect in many of the responses here (and in the other topics on this website), but maybe that's normal in discussions where participants stay anonymous.
That's Letsrun for you.
For some stylistic points: the cave analogy is apt for two reasons. First, you stated earlier that you work in a lab. My experience of labs is that they are generally enclosed and without much natural light (don't know what you are studying so I could be wrong. I know plenty of geologists whose lab is outside). Second, it is a direct allusion to Plato's allegory of the cave (from the Republic) where Socrates says that people living without philosophy are living in a cave and seeing only shadows. It is, I think his most well known work and most referenced work (think Matrix), though people frequently misinterpret it.
The "sounds and fury signifying nothing" is a quote from Macbeth:
"Tomorrow, tomorrow and tomorrow creeps at its petty pace from day to day. To the last syllable of recorded time to when all our yesterdays have lighted fools to a dusty death. Out, out brief candle. Life is but a walking shadow—a poor player that struts and frets his our upon the stage to be heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot full of sounds and fury signifying nothing."
Some responses:
One person questioned your ability to talk about parenting because of your age. Some data... dismissed your point as irrelevant (it is), then mapshap questioned your premises.
Telling people how to live does not require advocacy for a law. If I see somebody at a race and say "you look slow you should run 140 mpw" I am still making a judgment and telling them what to do even if I do not advocate for a law requiring 140 mile weeks.
Every statement has an implicit "I believe." In the example above I do not get to escape an accusation of me being a pretentious ass (if I told random people that I would be a pretentious ass) by saying the "I believe" was implicit. Throughout this thread your use, or lack thereof, of qualifiers for your statements has gotten you in trouble.
I know that you said you are not religious, but you first turned to religion (then specifically Christianity) for backing. It was lazy and because it was your first step you opened yourself up to accusations about being a bible thumper, even though you said you did not believe in religion later. It also does not help your argument, even though it is through no fault of your own, that adults who have been criticized for premarital sex usually hear it in very stark terms from very religious people.
Observations:
It still seems that you are thinking through this issue as you write. There is nothing wrong with that but it will be sloppy and have mistakes and contradictions in the reasoning. I am not, and have not thus far, judged your conclusions (except as unsupported) but your reasoning has shifted as you try and justify why you believe what you do. To add a more lighthearted allusion you "have values but you don't know how or why" —The Who.
Despite justifying your reliance on comparing premarital sex to psychopath stealing with big words it simply does not work. There are many more distinguishing features that separate premarital sex and theft by a psychopath than driving. Neither analogy is perfect but driving is much closer than theft by a psychopath.
Appraisal:
You are still making a moral argument, you are just framing it as a practical or impractical issue. However, it strikes me as still a moral discussion but you have framed it within the context of numbers and data, which you are much more familiar with. It is similar to Judge Learned Hand's formula of reasonable care, which changed to fit this discussion would be: practicality is defined as the benefit being greater than the potential loss times its likelihood (Benefit >Probability * Loss), if that is true then an action is justified. This is where the car analogy comes in because it questions the values you place in each category. It focuses on the left side of the equation and points out that the Probability is substantially higher and the Loss is the same. Your response relied on saying the Benefit from driving is also higher and thus justifies your appraisal—which is now where the argument is.
Arguments like this are popular right now because people in the humanities want to gain something like objectivity so they can be more like science (that is why most schools have Political Science). I tend to think that this approach is flawed (Is the benefit of premarital sex a 7 or a 10 and what is driving, 3 or 15). Instead of allowing a critique of an argument to get into the inherently complicated nature of ethical decision making it adds a veneer of measurability that does nothing more than act as a facade and obscure the actual issue.
@Candela: I guess so, still like the website though, but some posts give me a bad impression of the human race, as if some people find pleasure in humiliating others and don't even want to consider an opinion different from theirs.
candela wrote:
Alright then, give me an example then. Other than short term emotional or sexual pleasure, what is sex good for? (Having a baby? Yes, but then that's for people who are or are planning to be in a long-term relationship).
It adds greatly to the bond between the people in question, and brings them together. This is all rooted in our evolution. Our brains want us to find good partners, want us to mate and mate often. Some people require several encounters before they feel comfortable sharing that part of themselves, others may feel comfortable upon first meeting, and for others, comfort is less of an issue and they don't require the same kind of emotional bond in order to enjoy it. Again, being smart about how you do it, drastically reduces your risk of finding yourself in a spot. It's never zero, but few things are.
candela wrote:
Hmm... this is a very good point. And it actually took me a while to figure out then, why premarital (more precisely, short-term relationship) sex is impractical.
But here is why. Because if you accidentally have a baby, you have not only affected your own life, but ALSO the baby's. The baby will, with high probability, be raised in an unstable environment that cannot provide the resources that those in a long-term, committed relationship can provide. And I CAN cite data on this if you don't believe it.
How am I going to accidentally going to have a baby? Do I have less ability to prevent a pregnancy than I do in preventing a drunk driver from running a red light? With the pregnancy, a couple can use a condom (with proper condom use, an average of two pregnancies result from every 8300 acts of sex), use oral contraceptives (99.9% effective), use a combination of the two methods, or limit sexual activity to oral and anal intercourse, any and all of which reduce the chance of pregnancy to nearly zero.
And what about gay couples? What about my friends who are in their 70s? You must agree that any reasonably educated person has much more ability to control whether or not they conceive a child through their own volition, than they do to avoid a potentially life-threatening car accident.
candela wrote:
If it is a "fling", then I would say sex cannot possibly add depth or substance to a relationship. The relationship must be developed before sex can have that kind of meaning. In fact, your statement reinforces the converse: that only those who are in it for a long-term relationship will benefit from the added depth or substance that sex brings.
But not everybody who has sex is always doing it with the person they want to partner with for life. Yes, there are risks involved, but the aforementioned precautions reduce that risk considerably.
Do you only get in a car or on a public motor way to go from your residence to work and back? Or do you risk your safety to leave your house to go running, have a meal with friends, see a film, etc.? Somehow, you decided that it was worth the risk to do those things, and in that vein, you try to avoid foolish actions that would increase the risk to your personal safety (mobile phone use while driving, not checking for traffic before crossing a road, drinking while driving, etc.). And despite all that, you could end up like that family that had a tow truck land on their car.
Similarly, people can have sex with all the precautions listed above. Most who take those precautions won't end up with an unintended pregnancy or an STD. Those that are more cavalier, like those who drink and drive, text while driving and run in the middle of the street, put themselves at greater risk.
candela wrote:
Not all married people wish to have children, but should those that do not wish children accidentally do have some, then it is MUCH more likely that they will be able to care for the baby than those who are in a short-term relationship.
How would you suppose a couple that has decided they don't want children will accidentally have some? If Carl has had a vasectomy and Carla has had a tubal ligation, how are they going to accidentally end up with children? This is what I mean by taking proper precautions.
candela wrote:
Some of your other points were very thought-provoking, but this one is not a good argument at all. We are comparing the probabilities of getting an STD by 1) having premarital sex + bizarre incident vs 2) bizarre incident alone. I'm pretty sure the risk of (1) is a zillion times higher than (2).
The point is the risk is not zero.
candela wrote:
So you are saying that practicality, like morality, is not something that is widely and almost universally agreed upon? Interesting. I suppose I had always made the assumption that most people had similar views of what constituted "practical". But I am not sure that I am in the minority about the weight and value placed upon sex. I would need to ask a lot of people to see if this is true. Personally, I think if I asked I would find that most who practice premarital sex think it impractical, yet they are going to do it anyway. So one of us is correct, but I doubt there is data at the moment indicating which.
Practicality would mean to extent to which an idea can be realized in the real world, the likelihood of that idea to succeed when implemented, and the suitability of a solution for a given situation (contrast this with your initial post on this thread, countering that adolescent sexuality is not normal, "Rationalize whatever you want, but it's still wrong.").
Given that a majority of people have sex before their first marriage, and given that a majority of people do not contract STDs or have unwanted pregnancies, it would seem that having sex (with the aforementioned precautions) is a practical solution in satisfying the urge to engage in sex with your partner (short or long term).
Jeff Wigand wrote:
*IF* a 16 year old actually commits to and maintains a lifelong marriage, then yes, I would say they are MUCH more prepared for sex that someone who is 26. If they get divorce though (and most of them do), then I don't really consider that a marriage at all -- it is isomorphic to a short-term relationship.
A 16 year old committing to a lifelong marriage is not necessarily reflective of their preparedness for anything. Can you see why most would think that the person with decades more behind them would know themselves better, have more life experience, be more mature and be better prepared for such a commitment.
Would you honestly say that a 13 year old wife (perfectly legal in the state of New Hampshire) is more likely to be prepared to handle sex and her marriage than a a 40 year old who has graduated middle school, high school, university and has spent years getting her career in order, simply by virtue of the fact that the 13 year old signed a marriage certificate and said, "I do"?
This thread is weird. Why is a discussion about the sex lives of teenage girls more popular than any running related topic on the front page?
937; wrote:
For some stylistic points: the cave analogy is apt for two reasons. First, you stated earlier that you work in a lab. My experience of labs is that they are generally enclosed and without much natural light (don't know what you are studying so I could be wrong. I know plenty of geologists whose lab is outside). Second, it is a direct allusion to Plato's allegory of the cave (from the Republic) where Socrates says that people living without philosophy are living in a cave and seeing only shadows. It is, I think his most well known work and most referenced work (think Matrix), though people frequently misinterpret it.
Haha, you assumed way too much. I said I have a lab report. That lab is a 2 hour session once every three weeks. That's 0.39% of my life this semester. Hardly enough to influence my philosophy.
937; wrote:
The "sounds and fury signifying nothing" is a quote from Macbeth:
"Tomorrow, tomorrow and tomorrow creeps at its petty pace from day to day. To the last syllable of recorded time to when all our yesterdays have lighted fools to a dusty death. Out, out brief candle. Life is but a walking shadow—a poor player that struts and frets his our upon the stage to be heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot full of sounds and fury signifying nothing."
Yeah... cool quote? Although I'm surprised you think I am "a mentally deficient person" aka idiot.
937; wrote:
If I see somebody at a race and say "you look slow you should run 140 mpw" I am still making a judgment and telling them what to do even if I do not advocate for a law requiring 140 mile weeks.
You are giving them an opinion about their pace, and a suggestion (and not a very good one).
937; wrote:
Every statement has an implicit "I believe." In the example above I do not get to escape an accusation of me being a pretentious ass (if I told random people that I would be a pretentious ass) by saying the "I believe" was implicit. Throughout this thread your use, or lack thereof, of qualifiers for your statements has gotten you in trouble.
I know that you said you are not religious
937; wrote:
...even though it is through no fault of your own, that adults who have been criticized for premarital sex usually hear it in very stark terms from very religious people.
Yeah, those Bible-thumpers have a personality that is very similar to the atheists that who are relentless in their quest to turn everyone away from religion. Born in a different time period, the two people might instead be strongly advocating the other's position -- their personalities are such that they simply latch onto some idea and defend it without ever giving much thought to whether the idea makes sense.[/quote]
937; wrote:
It still seems that you are thinking through this issue as you write. There is nothing wrong with that but it will be sloppy and have mistakes and contradictions in the reasoning. I am not, and have not thus far, judged your conclusions (except as unsupported) but your reasoning has shifted as you try and justify why you believe what you do. To add a more lighthearted allusion you "have values but you don't know how or why" —The Who.
I would instead say that I have a consistent set of core values that I am working the best I can to explain why they are rational and make sense -- without contradictions in my writing. I find it hard to believe that anyone could do this perfectly on any issue.
937; wrote:
Despite justifying your reliance on comparing premarital sex to psychopath stealing with big words it simply does not work. There are many more distinguishing features that separate premarital sex and theft by a psychopath than driving. Neither analogy is perfect but driving is much closer than theft by a psychopath.
You all really want to go back to the moral aspect of this issue, don't you? I'll give you a long response to this one if you want it (hopefully you do not...), but you'll have to wait until tomorrow.
937; wrote:
You are still making a moral argument, you are just framing it as a practical or impractical issue. However, it strikes me as still a moral discussion but you have framed it within the context of numbers and data, which you are much more familiar with. It is similar to Judge Learned Hand's formula of reasonable care, which changed to fit this discussion would be: practicality is defined as the benefit being greater than the potential loss times its likelihood (Benefit >Probability * Loss), if that is true then an action is justified. This is where the car analogy comes in because it questions the values you place in each category. It focuses on the left side of the equation and points out that the Probability is substantially higher and the Loss is the same. Your response relied on saying the Benefit from driving is also higher and thus justifies your appraisal—which is now where the argument is.
I am not making a moral argument, at least in the conventional sense of the word. Should I eat now or in ten minutes? Is that a moral decision? Most people would say no. Is premarital sex practical or impractical? If I asked 20 people, I think 19 of them would say that is not a question of moral nature. You're going to have clarify some more.
And as for your last sentence, "It focuses on the left side of the equation and points out that the Probability is substantially higher and the Loss is the same. Your response relied on saying the Benefit from driving is also higher...", it's certainly a testable one. Suppose we gave most people a choice to determine the "value" they place on each side of the equation:
1) All forms of transportation (driving, cycling, train, walking or running significant distances) are given up for your entire life, but you can still have sex with whoever, whenever.
2) You can have transportation, but you have to commit to a monogamous, long-term relationship.
You honestly think most people would choose 1? I find that *really* hard to believe. If that's so, then I'm just so genetically different than everyone else that we probably shouldn't even be debating the point, because all of my arguments rest on the assumption that I think at least somewhat similarly to most people.
937; wrote:
Arguments like this are popular right now because people in the humanities want to gain something like objectivity so they can be more like science (that is why most schools have Political Science). I tend to think that this approach is flawed (Is the benefit of premarital sex a 7 or a 10 and what is driving, 3 or 15). Instead of allowing a critique of an argument to get into the inherently complicated nature of ethical decision making it adds a veneer of measurability that does nothing more than act as a facade and obscure the actual issue.
So, instead of quantifying and clarifying vague statements, you think we should argue on the basis of some fuzzy semantics? Not sure I agree with that one...
*My last post missed something. I never said I was not religious either. You assumed that. In fact, we don't really know what my religion or lack of it is, do we? One can guess, but it doesn't affect any of my arguments.
I shall continue tomorrow (if for some reason this thread is still here), but I'm going to sleep now ;)
Thanks to those who have encouraged thought-provoking discussion.
Anti-thanks to those that simply call names and throw around insults.
The literal reference to your lab did not imply it influenced you decision.
I was leaving out the more insulting part of the Macbeth quote on purpose, any insult is inferred by you and not intended.
When one speaks of absolute morality they are making a judgment on how people live their lives. Putting "I believe" implicitly in the sentence does not change that. "Genocide is absolutely and universally wrong" and "I believe Genocide is absolutely and universally wrong" are essentially the same statement and have the implicit accusation that anyone who commits genocide (Hutus in Rwanda, Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, Serbs in Yugoslavia, etc) are immoral (they are). You were speaking in absolutes and cannot hide behind a defense of saying that you were not passing judgment on others.
I do not think you are giving atheists or bible thumpers enough credit. Some are mindless and don't think other are very intelligent. Zeal is not indicia of intelligence or lack thereof.
You are attempting to articulate values (conclusions) and explain why they are rational (reasons). Your reasons have been all over the place because you have not critically examined them. Hence, my assumption that this is your first attempt at ethical analysis. Pick up any book on ethics ("Because its Wrong" is a simple book with a boring argument but a quick read all the same) and you will see people who have thought about issues making consistent and coherent arguments. You are simply making it up as you go.
When you make a decision abstract it becomes more moral. The question of "should I eat in 10 minutes" is very specific, like wise the question of "should I have sex with this person" is not on its face a moral question but contains moral considerations (is the person married or not). The question of premarital sex or not is abstract enough that it is inherently moral. Ask around but I would be surprised if many people say it is a question of practicality rather than morality. Not to mention that your approach is a moral analysis—albeit one I personally have substantial problems with.
I am not sure what you are trying to prove with your false choice (a logical fallacy) but it has no bearing on the comparison between premarital sex and driving or psychopaths stealing. If you need me to explain the formula with more detail let me know.
My argument against the quantifying approach is that it attempts to quantify things that are inherently unquantifiable (fuzzy numbers). If one seriously engages in ethical analysis it does not depend on fuzzy semantics. Letsrun is hardly the place for it and you were not up to the job at the beginning of this thread. Instead, you fell back on moral relativism being too difficult to reject and tried to ground the argument in value judgments veiled in "practicality."
A skeletal outline of a moral argument would be: Data (nuclear weapons exists and cause widespread destruction that does not discriminate between civilian and military targets),
which is applied to a warrant (Weapons that cause widespread destruction which does not discriminate between civilian and military targets are immoral),
supported by backing (the taking of innocent life is immoral, civilians are innocent).
The data plus the warrant creates a syllogism that logically must lead to the conclusion that nuclear weapons are immoral.
There is often a qualifier before the conclusion (except in cases of a supreme emergency).
You can critique that argument's data (when a nuclear weapon is used in the desert or on the ocean against an enemy target the question of distinction is irrelevant and the weapon only becomes indiscriminate if, like all other weapons, it is used poorly.
The warrant (As Cicero said, "In war the laws are silent" nuclear weapons are used during wars when the concern is not for innocent civilians but victory at any costs),
the backing The tacking of innocent life is not immoral but a tragic consequence of war),
The conclusion and qualifier should then be open to critique because they do not necessarily follow any more because the premises have been called into question. The argument on this thread has been "Premarital sex is absolutely and universally wrong" — "No, it isn't" — "Yes it is." That is not an argument and very dull. When you switched to the practical element it became a moral argument with the equation (B>PL) as the warrant. What you replace the numbers with is the data. However, what you have not supplied and I am criticizing is the backing for the warrant.
If you can make a moral argument to support your position I would be interested to see but you can keep making the argument you are and acknowledge that it is still a moral argument. It doesn't really matter to me.
You are right that I did attach religious views to you that you have not claimed. You did say that no religious texts that you know of (Bible and Greek Mythology) prohibits it.
Ultimately, your argument here has been sloppy with careless use of language and very insubstantial arguments as you try and work through what you think and still make it sound reasonable. Perhaps it was your foolish comment about Liberia earlier or the time of the year but I decided to call you out on it.
Face it: the rest of the western world is laughing at you Americans. All tenagers have sex - everywhere. That you make a fuss of it just shows what a bunch of hypocrites you are. I work as a gynecologist and I have yet not found a 20 year old girl who is a virgin.
"No it's not. Rationalize whatever you want, but it's still wrong."
"In Liberia, murder and rape are normal too."
"Why don't you get a clue instead of rationalizing something that is inherently wrong."
"But I have a very hard time believing you wouldn't feel guilty deep inside."
"You wouldn't feel bad after premarital sex? Not at all? Then I guess I having nothing to argue against you with."
"But it won't change by belief that it is universally immoral"
When you use terms like universally immoral and deep inside everyone should feel guilt, your position IS based on morality.
candela wrote:
Unless they've lied to me, then yes, I can make those claims. I speak with my family a lot. And so far, I have no reason to doubt they've been dishonest, as they have never done anything that would lead me to that conclusion.
Well then your statement is pointless because you admit the possibility that they lied to you. That was my point. You can't know what is inside someone else's heart or mind. Decent, good people can make mistakes, and they probably want to keep those mistakes to themselves. You think your mom is going to tell you about the time she was 20 years old, tripping on LSD, loving hippie life, and got a bout of chlamydia from a casual tryst at Woodstock? But oh that couldn't be your mom. Well here's a clue - people who get STD's can go on to have careers, families, and be wonderful people. You think they share all their sexual escapades with their kids? How naive are you?
My point all along was that you tried to take the moral high ground when claiming your family never had any of the assorted list of moral failings. Eh...I wouldn't be so sure about that, you never know.
I've had premarital sex, I enjoyed it and neither a pregnancy or STD has resulted from it. I find it was quite practical.
I don't think it is out of the ordinary for parents to get depressed as their kids move on from phase to phase of their lives...even if it is a so called "normal" part of growing up. My wife cried and cried when she sent the kids off on the school bus for the first time.
The idea of safe moderation is a concept completely lost on this generation. There's a definite dumbing down of America that, in my opinion, has led many to use religion, political affiliation, "my daddy said so", etc as a crutch and an excuse for not having to think.
To summarize
-People can have premarital sex without being "bad people", at high risk of STDs, at high risk of pregnancy, etc.
-People can also imbibe in recreational drugs or alcohol in moderation with no acute or long term ill effects.
-People can eat junk food, drink soda, watch television, etc without being morbidly obese before 25.
Moderation, responsibility, and good ole common sense. Try it, ya just might like it .
My buddy at work just found out his 16yo daughter has been having sex with her boyfriend and I swear he has been in a depressed funk ever since. I don't have kids nearly that old and I don't know what to say to cheer him up. He's just so pissed about it. I don't think he likes the boyfriend that much.
Anyway, she seems like a pretty good kid. Her grades are good and I think she's not doing drugs or anything.
It must just be hard to take though because it was just 4 years ago that she was basically a little kid.
How about your little girl meets a boy her freshman year, thay hang out all thru high school and after they both turn 18 during their senior year, they have sex, she gets pregnat they get married. Would you be less devastated?
KingAdRock wrote: Moderation, responsibility, and good ole common sense. Try it, ya just might like it .
Well said. I agree. Even, moderation, responsibility and common sense in your dominant sexual relationships with teen girls.
Ask your buddy at work this-
When did he first have sex?
I'm always amazed how parent who probably had sex at 15 can act like world is gonna end if their kid has sex at the same time.
My mother just said- don't be stupid; use protection- and if you make a mistake, you will literally be 'living with it.'
Tell your buddy 75%++ of HS kids are having sex and to just make sure she uses protection.
Look this candela guy obviously has some emotional problems don't feed the troll. Look at his posts that go on and on and on, about a total Non-issue. Just, don't provoke people with mental health problems, agree with them and move on.