Quote Originally Posted by Nowake View Post
Hello people

I already remarked that you do not know the meaning of your own words, because, as I wrote before, simply aiming your arguments towards an independent third party does not equate to playing on that party’s prejudice. The dictionary definition of demagogy: the art and practice of gaining power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people. Could you point out how I have aroused the emotions, passions and prejudices of our readers?
Trying is not succeeding, personally I feel that the way you play to the crowd and the little sniping comments are are directed at me, and not my arguments.

I’d be glad to improve my grammar if you could point the flaws for me PVC, please. I am by no means claiming to be proficient, so I’d welcome your input.
I already have, once.

Now, onto sexual liberty, your assertion about which group constitutes the majority still remains to be demonstrated.
I would have thought that would be taken as a given, really, one only has to spend a few evenings in a university town to see the sort of liaisons most people engage in. Of an evening the majority of people who go out go to clubs, the largest clubs have the most people and they are invariably environments where people are intoxicated and the majority of people don't know each other.

Secondly, and this should be an inescapable truth, the only path one can rightfully take in addressing the poor understanding of sexual liberty is to work on providing the best environment for its correct development. Upon reaching that point, you have to allow humans their agency. I suppose we are reaching here a negative versus positive liberty argument, with foreseeable results sadly.
Underlying this is the assumption that "liberty" should be equated with freedom of action, and that freedom is exercised by action. Am I sexually oppressed if I choose not to have sex? I exercise my sexual freedom by not having sex and choosing to be discriminating in my associations.

I'm sorry, but I do not equate "liberty" with "action", otherwise I would conclude that we are all slaves because there are almost no instances in which our actions are not constrained.

I have to quote Isaiah Berlin though because, the fact of the matter is, sexual liberty is part of one’s fundamentally private sphere.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
Hobbes, and those who agreed with him, especially conservative or reactionary thinkers, argued that if men were to be prevented from destroying one another, and making social life a jungle or a wilderness, greater safeguards must be instituted to keep them in their places, and wished correspondingly to increase the area of centralized control, and decrease that of the individual. But both sides agreed that some portion of human existence must remain independent of the sphere of social control. To invade that preserve, however small, would be despotism.

Lets define the following as Freedom from:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
‘All the errors which a man is likely to commit against advice and warning are far outweighed by the evil of allowing others to constrain him to what they deem is good.’ To threaten a man with persecution unless he submits to a life in which he exercises no choices of his goals; to block before him every door but one, no matter how noble the prospect upon which it opens, or how benevolent the motives of those who arrange this, is to sin against the truth that he is a man, a being with a life of his own to live.

And the next as Freedom to:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
what gives such plausibility as it has to this kind of language is that we recognize that it is possible, and at times justifiable, to coerce men in the name of some goal (let us say, justice or public health) which they would, if they were more enlightened, themselves pursue, but do not, because they are blind or ignorant or corrupt. This renders it easy for me to conceive of myself as coercing others for their own sake, in their, not my, interest. I am then claiming that I know what they truly need better than they know it themselves. What, at most, this entails is that they would not resist me if they were rational, and as wise as I, and understood their interests as I do. But I may go on to claim a good deal more than this. I may declare that they are actually aiming at what in their benighted state they consciously resist, because there exists within them an occult entity – their latent rational will, or their ‘true’ purpose – and that this entity, although it is belied by all that they overtly feel and do and say, is their ‘real’ self, of which the poor empirical self in space and time may know nothing or little; and that this inner spirit is the only self that deserves to have its wishes taken into account.
Once I take this view, I am in a position to ignore the actual wishes of men or societies, to bully, oppress, torture them in the name, and on behalf, of their ‘real’ selves, in the secure knowledge that whatever is the true goal of man (happiness, fulfilment of duty, wisdom, a just society, self-fulfilment) must be identical with his freedom – the free choice of his ‘true’, albeit submerged and inarticulate, self.
I'm sorry, but who (or what) you choose to have sex with can and does have profound effects on your community and your family. It is one thing to say that what one does behind closed doors is your own private matter, and quite another to say that who you choose to bring into your bedroom is. The former is clearly the business of those two people, the latter is not.

You are wrapping yourself in words mister. And you are not doing a very good job at it. First of all, I did not describe a purely cognitive intellectual process and I clearly mentioned we are referring to one’s emotional intelligence. The best moral outcome, the best empathic outcome, does not equate to the most benefit, so any hint of utilitarianism is out of the picture. The moral outcome is always empathy conditioned and it can very well contradict the overall benefit. Also, to quote Paul Zak: “We’re social creatures, so we share the emotions of others. So if I do something that hurts you, I feel that pain, so I tend to avoid that. If I do something that makes you happy, I get to share your joy, so I tend to do that thing.”, referring to the common emotional development of people. And please provide some sort of sources on that New Atheist rhetoric that so agrees with you.
"Benefit" does not have to be purely practical, in this case "benefit" might be the decision that sits well with the greatest number of people, given that we are all what you call "empathetic". You've actually proved this by quoting Paul Zak, according to him he does things that make him feel better, i.e. for his own benefit.

In any case, how is "emotional intelligence" not a cognitive process? It's just something your brain does, right?

Please provide evidence for the implicit allegation that bullers would also cause murders during their private parties should their numbers reach a critical mass.
What sort of evidence would you like? It's obvious that the more men who have in a riot the more likely the violence will escalate, and the more people in a protest the more likely it will become a riot. I'm not making an implicit allegation about the Bullers, because 1000 Bullers are somewhat impractical, but one only has to look at previous student riots to see that rioters are more violent the more of them there are. The point is not that the Bullers might cause a riot, but that the sort of person who enjoys being a Buller might enjoy rioting.

You're trying to create a straw man, you want me to claim the upper class is murderous and that's why the lower class is murderous. Sorry, I'm not pushing the point that far. For one thing, the Upper Class today are clever enough to know what fingerprints and CCTV is, well with a few notable exceptions this Summer.

And before we engage in another pointless side-debate, how does your last paragraph prove the way in which the rate of abortions rose amongst the lower class due to the moral degeneracy of the social elite?
I don't believe I said that. In fact I'm sure I didn't, I pointed to sexual immorality, but in this country abortion is, and has historically been, quite middle class. This is particularly true today, were it not we would not have anywhere near as many poor single teenage mothers, would we?

You are side-stepping the issue.
You are constantly moving the issue.

And I pose it to you now because I am tired of waiting for a cogent argument, that it would be a lot more logical, considering the history of the movement, to observe how in the past the widespread use of abortion amongst a lower class desperate to avoid poverty, morally desensitised by war and urban uprooting and ignorant of the plethora and efficiency of contraceptive methods (as many were in the ‘50s to ‘90s) actually influenced the young social elite into accepting abortion as norm even though they had the means to secure the upbringing of their children.
As I said, I don't see it as a lower class phenomenon and I don't recognise "morally desensitised by war and urban uprooting" as a particularly lower class penomenon either, at least in the UK.

Personally, that you are a textbook case of a person who was not yet seriously confronted by reality. This, of course, I presume and my opinion is subjective. I believe your frame of reference was established with your first post. No one denies that your argument needs to be dismissed only on factual grounds, but you should not be that worried the readers do not understand your Judeo-Christian cultural baggage
Just because I am a Christian does not mean I have "Judeo-Christian" baggage", whatever that means anyway; it's not like I have Augustinian sexual hangups or worry about my foreskin. I wasn't exactly raised Christian, after all.

As far as, "not yet seriously confronted by reality" that's rich coming from someone who is claims to be young and well educated from a foundation level, and probably had wealthy parents given that he was taught rhetoric in school.

I'm fed up now, so I'm going to go away and pray for forgiveness.