"Produce a verbatim quote from what I have posted to demonstrate I admitted that . "

Howsabout: "Noone has ever had anything forced nor imposed upon them by words alone . "

So, by your own admission, this is entirely fruitless. All you have to offer is words, so ergo, you are destined to fail. I know you like to pretend you didn't say what you've just said, you prat, but do try to keep the basic recall of a small ameoba, will you?

"An objective appraisal of the matter shows that the logic I have presented is quite cogent ."

No, your own appraisal does that. Everyone else's appraisal of you is that you seem to be moron who overlooks his own flaws under the pretense he has none.

"There are NO personal issues on parade . "

BWAHAHAHA! That statement illustrates your issue of denial and of being the poster child for the harm that shame does to someone.

You are a perambulating defense mechanism, showboating your own insecurities like a badge of honor. Sadly you are actually psychologically incapable of learning anything about your mistakes, for that would mean you were mistaken, and thus shame-able, and your search for perfection would have thus far been a failure. Your quest is only really driven by fear of shame. You have found the most self-assured boat you can, a wobbly one called the SS Absolutism, and jumped in and paddled furiously about, vainly proclaiming you cannot be further shamed, and shame upon anyone who dare to think otherwise. Its a position you intend to keep you safe from those who would call you names, only in a typically human twist of irony you don't understand how your own inherent hypocrisy of action only fuels the perception of yourself as inadequate. You can never admit anyone else's opinion of you to be well-founded, for again the same defense mechanism that drives you to flaunt your feeble understanding of absolutism as a form of self-validation and self-image reinforcement also cannot let your poorly constructed conclusions be flawed, for that would also mean the destruction of the one philosophy you are desperately clinging to to try to save your emotional self...that same emotional self you try to deny and pretend does not exist. You are psychologically backed in to a corner. You need therapy for the shaming you have received. You are an emotional cripple, which has led you to being an intellectual cripple, unable to validate himself except by attacking others, an act in direct contradiction to his own proclaimed stance of purist morality. This act itself has become transformed by your desperate emotional need to be free from shame as something acceptable, the line crossed in to evil in the name of good, except that it is only a freedom from shame that you seek. Meanwhile you commit evil under the delusion you are doing good.

Just like most people do.

Welcome to being a human.

Don't worry. I don't expect you to understand. You literally are not capable of thinking these thoughts. Your world view is too dependent on avoiding this at all costs. I fully expect you to ignore this all, partly because you lack the education to understand it, but moreso because you are not emotionally able to handle it. You will gloss over it just like you accuse others of doing. Ignore chunks of it because you need to, and latch on to only a few choice phrases where they allow you to insert more of your lame ego-salvaging worldview.

I pity you. I truly do. You are locked in to needlessly cruel behavior which prevents people from befriending you. It disallows your intellect from adding positive value to the world. Instead you perseverate and petulantly mewl about distinctions which are far more relevant to academics and not at all useful to the users of a service like tribe.net. You have a brain, and a decent one at that. However it is rendered impotent by your inability to deal with your emotional scars and the consequence is that you will never achieve your goals even marginally until you understand humanity better. To do so, you must first understand yourself better. The search will aid your cause. I suggest you waste no time.

I am done wasting mine with you.

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

"So it was NOT words alone ; it was the crowds engaging in PHYSICAL violence after they heard the words"

*chuckle*

gotcha!

Love is the law, love under will.

The cat 's out of the proverbial bag , Molly.

You've shown what you support with that dry hump business ....

MOLLY POSTED :It sounds to me like you are just hell bent on having sex.

RESPONSE: Absolutely NOT .

MOLLY POSTED :I've laid out quite a few options for you, and you've turned your nose up at them all. So you want to pass along your DNA for your ancestors and not yourself. It's still a want, no matter how noble it may be. Your want is based on sentiment, not need. Homage is sentiment, and sentiment, while nice, does not constitute necessity.

RESPONSE: Though it is not a need , but a want it is still a totally NONselfish want for it is other directed --directed to the regard of others , NOT directed to regard of myself . NON-selfish wants transcend in terms of ethical importance both personal needs and personal wants ...they are in a quite different category than either of those .

Consider that there are (A) personal needs and (B) personal wants that are directed towards self-satisfaction AND THEN SEPARATE FROM BOTH OF THOSE
(Z) totally NONselfish wants which are other-directed in terms of their intentional object .


MOLLY POSTED :The perspective that the ending of your particular genetic makeup would be tragic is unique to you, most of the world will not be affected either way.

RESPONSE: It would be the ending of my ancestors genetic lineage . The residue of their lifeworld would lose out potentially on getting shared with others who might cherish it . If I don't have a son who , say, in many ways is like my maternal Grandfather maybe, even in the sense of shared mannerisms, good habits ect ..then many people who could talk and see that prospective son...should he be born and re-instantiate those traits would lose out on the sense of cherishing and being edified by that experience and , furthermore, my Grandfather's legacy would to some extent (though I hope to present as much as I can memoirs of him)..would potentially lose out form a son with his requiste DNA not being born ...

MOLLY POSTED :Fine, so you want to create your own offspring. That's a valid choice (emphasis on choice). You hold that it is somehow more ethical to deprive a woman of her senses,

RESPONSE: With her explicit consent *temporarily* she could mute her senses for the sake of comfort as well as edification for her when we as husband and wife have intercourse *only* for the sake of *conceiving a child* .

MOLLY POSTED :for an act you agree is distasteful at best, than to masturbate.

RESPONSE : The extent of distastefulness could be contained and held in check by her volunarily muting some sensory intake and also by the mutual agreement of both of us to maintain single-minded resolve *against* developing any penchant for lewdness..against divertissements of a carnal sort .

MOLLY POSTED :This is where your naivete regarding sex comes into play. First, Valium and herbal substances (and what herb are you referring to?)

RESPONSE: What herb ? Well I don't know offhand. I and she will have to consult the herbalists and/or their publications to find out which herbs are most effective at staving off pain and also at putting one in a tranquil NON-excited state so as to prevent the mood of affective abandon which often accompanies sexual arousal .

MOLLY POSTED :are nowhere near powerful enough to block out the physical sensations of sex, or even dull them enough to make a woman accept what is happening if she is inherently against it.

RESPONSE:

(1) Well let us review more carefully, what she is inherently against . Ostensibly, she would be inherently against the sense of increasing excitement that often accompanies intercourse , and being a woman of virtue and refinement , she would be *against* the sight of a phallus and handling it --which she would *not* be subject to, given the stipulations mentioned before .The act of coitus itself --when such other features that we've just mentioned are blocked out -- would be far less detrimental--- from an ethical and esthetic standpoint-- once those other sorts of features have been negated .

(2) . Have you done an inventory, Molly, of every tranquilizer and tranquillizing herb that has ever been amassed to know that there is no tranquiilizer pharmaceutical or herbal that could if she chose to use it cause her to become affectively detached from the act with a peaceful flattened affect ...NOT excited and not feeling any bodily discomfort .???? Are you sure ?

MOLLY POSTED :She will feel pain, if it is her first time, and she may experience pleasure. It's a physiological reaction that cannot be blocked.

RESPONSE: Are you 100 % sure about that , or could there possibly be a tranquillozer and /or herbal equivalent that might be so potent that if she chose to use it would cause her to become detached completely .

MOLLY POSTED :Sometimes rape victims have orgasms, it doesn't mean they wanted to be raped. If your wife shares your values, she will be greatly damaged by the thought of taking pleasure in a sex act.

RESPONSE: If she braces her mind with the thought that she will not become attached to the desire for more of that feeling..if she looks at as a momentary fleeting experience , not to be sought nor held onto nor wanted again (the way people in meditation view the momentary distractions in internal dialogue which momentarily distract from the object of meditation --until one returns to it again) then she could know that such an experience if NOT craved nor prized , would not be tainting from an ethical standpoint , then she could avoid a sense of defilement .

MOLLY POSTED :If your wife shares your values, she will be damaged by the experience even if you do it while she is unconscious.

RESPONSE: NOT when one considers that a good portion of the detriment from an ethical standpoint invovled with the act of sex comes from the feeling of mounting excitement / the mood of abandon . The other factors of detriment would be with couples who do it with the lights on , and see something as unattractive and vulgar looking as the phallus , the noises of caterwauling that couples sometimes do ect...which won't be a factor with my wife to be and I , in the first place because we will be prudes .
Now that is a caveat made about just standard missionary position intercourse . Anything *other* than that, is *out of the question* , in the first place .


MOLLY POSTED :The knowledge of the act will be enough. How is it more ethical to put her through this than masturbating once into a cup? If she feels as strongly about sex as you do, whether she gives consent or not, what she will feel will be tantamount to rape.

RESPONSE: NOT given those extra stipulations mentioned above . Again , it is the excitement factor that is most of the detriment from a moral standpoint . When that is held in check , muted, and/ or braced against by single-minded ideological resolve (and the other factors like the exposure of the phallus is negated) then the act itself becomes virtually neutral, in terms of detriment ..


MOLLY POSTED :Then, there is your part. In order to maintain an erection and achieve ejaculation, you must be physically aroused. If your mind is not in the game, this will be incredibly difficult. But, lets say you manage it whilst despising it. You will experience physical pleasure that cannot be properly described, it is so overwhelming and profound. You will enjoy the sex whether you want to or not, men can't help it. Most people look at it as a blessing, but you've made it clear that you do not. There is no separating in into an onerous task that must be done for the sake of procreation, it simply isn't possible. If you have sex you will experience physical pleasure beyond anything you have ever dreamed possible. Perhaps you know this, and this is why you are so determined to do so.

RESPONSE: I assure you, Molly, that is *not* why . With single minded ideology , it is indeed possible to still designate the physical pleasure gained by such an action to be something put into a 'Do NOT cherish' and 'do NOT cultivate' .

Ideology can make a person quite inflexible in regard to final personality orientation , even in the face of such hormonal wiles . It is enough that a person be resolute ...so fanatically single-minded in ideation (which as you probably know I regard as a good trait) as to designate something as bad and seek *not* to cultivate it once the incidental encounter of it , which is merely ancillary to a greater task, has been shown to be no longer along the path of the more important task ---or to make the phrasing more plain ...once a couple has its kids then a guy-- if he puts his mind to self-discpline/ single-mindedness ---can refuse to let any flexibility creep into his mind ..refuse any flexibility that would incline him to want to have sex beyond the time that the certain desired amount of children have been conceived , out of that misguided desire for that physical pleasure .

That sort of single-minded counter-instinctive , counter-what-feels-natural, resolve may seem very strange and artificial to you and a lot of other people in the present era, so much so that they may want to quip something in a sarcastic vein like , "Sure, right...wait till he gets some of that bedroom time " yada , yada . Yet , however , artifical it is , it certainly is volitionally possible for someone to adhere to that single minded resolve .

Yours truly (and I state the following not as a boast for I'm mad at myself I did *not* always maintain such resolve in younger years) , has , during a number of the 40 years (and two months) he has been alive , done a number of strange and artificial activities and done so readily and willingly ...and I hope that none of the participants here in the message board equivocate that into some tawdry witticism of some projected scenario which wasn't what I meant at all . Though in many sitcoms , contemporary movies it is a popular motif for people to sally forth with some sort of resolution or resolve about something --such as celibacy--or you- name- it , only to become later in anticlimatic humor a shoe- in for the very activity that they swore they'd never get involved in ...it is indeed possible for someone to be just so earnestly committed to precious ..quaint , so-called "crackpot" ideals as to *not* do that at all .

And when people indeed do *not* do what the sitcom people do ..when people do not lose resolve ..when they *refuse* to go the so-called "human" ..earthy way of all flesh (in regards the way they live) do you think it makes the news headlines ? No, no more likely to make headlines than a lone boy scout somehwere who still was quaint enough to literally help an old lady across a street ...

So the bottom line is : that I won't start to want that feeling of physical pleasure for its own sake . Even if I don't strain with each fibre of my nerves, while in the midst of intercourse with my wife, to resist that feeling of pleasure ..the goal of said intercourse, which is only to conceive children , that does NOT mean that I will develop a flexibility that leads me to want that feeling of visceral sex pleasure for its own sake , once the attempts at having children are done .

MOLLY POSTED :It should be added that you will need to have sex multiple times, perhaps for months or years, before you impregnate her. Getting pregnant your first time seems to be reserved for teenagers in the back seat of a car. How many times will you make her suffer through that? Make no mistake, she will suffer.

RESPONSE: The sessions could be staggerred out; they would *not* have to be consecutive ...There are pregnacy tests that could be helpful as aids to know when to stop sessions . Furthermore, you seem rather pessimistic about the prospect of strong herbs and/or tranquillizers at staving off the prospect of pain for her during intercourse . Could such downrating of the effectiveness of such substances at staving off pain , be overblown pessimism ???

"Such activity is NOWHERE near the depravity of abominations such as fellatio and other kinks ---which we woulds avoid more than the bubonic plague ."

MOLLY POSTED :This statement is pure rationalization. "Y" is not as bad as "x", therefore "y" is permissible. This is why I say you have relativist tendencies.

RESPONSE : Saying that there are degrees of badness, or (to describe the matter more precisely), degrees of potential detriment to a given activity , is NOT relativism . That sort of "you-do-it-too" switcharoo I've noticed tends to be a pattern of misconception with relativists .

Relativism is , instead , when someone claims the same activity, or way of thinking, can be somehow both good and bad at the same time (which is a ridiculous claim) or claims that whether it is good or bad is all somehow a matter of so-called "perspective" / perception or opinion . That is often what is meant by that claptrap about so-called "shades of grey" <---Those are the claims I have infinite hatred for .

However, claiming that some activities have worse potentials for degrees of badness than others is NOT relativism

To affirm that, say, torture is a worse misdeed than , say, shoplifting , and that shoplifting (NOT when the starving man who steals to feed and stay alive , but shoplifting out of avarice) is worse than merely being too slothful to finally get out of bed and pick up one's neighbor's paper one afternoon while they were on vacation like one said one would ect . , is NOT relativism . Degrees of badness are roughly quantifiable in principle .

That having been said , barring the special circumstances involving courses of actions that are beset what is currently often called by that misnomer of a phrase "necessary evils" or "lesser of two evils" (..the latter which is a little less misconstructed a phrase) , one should strive always for the most optimal good ..and barring those badly stacked decks of circumstance , one should strive to avoid all badness even the lesser degree variety . Please parse what I am affirming here carefully so you don't lose the subtle distinctions here ...

Furthermore, in ethics when contemplating what are wrongly called ("necessary evils" ...yours truly does not like that term holds it to be a misnomer) there is also what is called the loss versus benefit analysis --where the 'benefit' is guaged in terms potential , prospective benefit to others , *not* to self , where one measures the level of detriment with some course of action which is the apparently only course of action , given the vicissitudes of a particular state of affairs, in which to achieve some goal (whose upshot will reflect some goodness, or opportunity for goodness) with the level of goodness, which will be made manifest as a result of undergoing that course of action . If the level of manifested goodness (or opportunity thereof) for pursuing that goal is *less than* the loss of goodness wrought by the dynamics of that course of action, then the course of action flunks the test of a loss benefit analysis . However, if it exceeds it , and exceeds it by *more* than merely some small fraction , then it is ethically permissable .

MOLLY POSTED :Your description of the conditions in which you would inflict yourself on your wife suggest that you are either a complete sexist, horrendously ignorant of the realities of sex, or both

RESPONSE: Well, definitely NOT sexist . I certainly support the full equality of man and woman /husband and wife. I don't want my wife to obey me . (I will however seek a woman who has the same outlook and ideology that I do for a wife) .Furthermore, I cringe at the horny types of men who treat women as pieces of meat for sex .

You might have some plausibility in that I might be *somewhat* not so well- versed in some of the mechanics of sex, however, It is highly doubtful that the problems in implementing those tenative solutions are as intractible as you maintain .