Philosophical Vegan Forum

RedAppleGP wrote:

ThatNerdyScienceGirl wrote:Don't get a girlfriend just so your parents won't see you as gay, that's selfish to the girl, and it's just lying. If you don't want a girlfriend, don't get one.

well maybe a, what's the word, staged girl friend, so to speak.

Yes, that could be very practical. If you could find a girl who wants guys to stop hitting on her and her friends to stop bothering her, and you get the benefit too, and you both just fake it. When you're on dates, you just ignore each other and play games/watch movies on your individual phones.

brimstoneSalad wrote:When you're on dates, you just ignore each other and play games/watch movies on your individual phones.

Ok she plays candy crush and I take pictures of a certain part of her body, and she's none the wiser.
Seriously it sounds like a bulletproof plan.

RedAppleGP wrote:

brimstoneSalad wrote:When you're on dates, you just ignore each other and play games/watch movies on your individual phones.

Ok she plays candy crush and I take pictures of a certain part of her body, and she's none the wiser.
Seriously it sounds like a bulletproof plan.

Pfft XD Woah there nelly

ThatNerdyScienceGirl wrote:

RedAppleGP wrote:

brimstoneSalad wrote:When you're on dates, you just ignore each other and play games/watch movies on your individual phones.

Ok she plays candy crush and I take pictures of a certain part of her body, and she's none the wiser.
Seriously it sounds like a bulletproof plan.

Pfft XD Woah there nelly

Yeah... that would be wrong. And illegal. Maybe don't do that, Red.

brimstoneSalad wrote: Yeah... that would be wrong. And illegal. Maybe don't do that, Red.

Ugh, fine Dad.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_styles

brimstoneSalad wrote:Think: rational. Not all goals are legitimately pragmatic.

They can be rational if they create well-being. I get the feeling that you're always so damn logical that you assume that other people are too (or you wish it), and therefore you leave out an entire dimension of the value of well-being. They should do what increases overall benefits. What makes people happy is at times irrational and based on subjective perception.
Small doses of Mania can be gratifying if the feeling is returned.
Ludus can create connection and fun and attraction.
Agape also comes in different doses, no one said you focus it all on one person. It’s normal to have a stronger empathetic connection with the person you’re most intimate with.
No, none of these serve a very rational purpose (maybe an evolutionary one…), they simply feel good and therefore increase happiness. You could argue something similar for friendships. But since it’s rational to want to increase overall well-being, all this becomes less useless in my eyes.

Wanting a certain type of love (Disney stuff) at any cost is both irrational and generally harmful, since it can conflict with other sources of well-being. That I have a problem with too.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Number one source of murders, for one.

Well, I can't really argue against that....

brimstoneSalad wrote:High schoolers are not considered to be, since they're under 18 (until the end of high school).

I thought it was 16 in most states? Here it's 14.

brimstoneSalad wrote:How do you overcome Dunning-Kruger?

You don’t, but that only becomes a concern if you have to educate yourself on an issue and don’t have any external assessment. That’s what good sexual education is for, to make sure early on that you’re getting the information and understand it.

brimstoneSalad wrote:That's silly, and like saying people should believe what makes them feel good, or eat instinctively.
Let's talk about objective metrics.

Nope, it means people should do what makes them feel good. Only if that doesn’t lead to a negative balance in overall well-being, through interaction effects. But in this particular case I meant the reverse: Even if they're legal and informed about the cost, they still shouldn’t do it if they don’t appreciate the benefit (‘feel good’) yet. Hey, it’s rare, but it happens….I.e. don't force an asexual to have sex, even if he's objectively 'ready'.

brimstoneSalad wrote:So, are you saying people should only have sex one time in their lives, to minimize risk? (I doubt it)
Otherwise, what's a 1% chance several hundred times over?
Risk compounds.
Being clean is not just personally smart, it's an ethical obligation to others you may infect.

brimstoneSalad wrote:I understand that, but we're talking about what we should do. We should certainly have good sex education for when people don't do what they should.

I’m saying that if you add protection into that calculation, the risk becomes tiny. Anyway, you’re making a good case for the ‘risk’ side of things, I won’t deny it. I still feel like it’s a bit paranoid, but only assuming that someone uses protection correctly and gets tested regularly.
I'm pretty sure all that data on risk didn't control for using protection, that would be too difficult - which would exaggerate the risk.

brimstoneSalad wrote:And did you miss my point that it costs $2 a pop? I'm talking condoms here.
Some people don't use them simply because they're too expensive.

I didn’t miss it, using condoms is the absolute condition. I said that if you can and want to spend all that money on sex, go for it. Otherwise just go to the nearest clinic and fill your pockets with the free ones… But seriously, why are condoms so expensive there?

Sure, then you can argue about effective altruism and how you should have spent those 2$ on charity and that time on helping the homeless, or actually the children in the desert because they’re worse off, and what are you doing sitting there right now when there are all those kittens stuck in trees? (It’s actually a valid argument, but right now we’re talking about reducing harm).

brimstoneSalad wrote:And don't get me started on vegan condoms (most condoms are made from milk -- is it right to accept animal suffering so you can have a little sexual pleasure, when your hand was a perfectly safe and cruelty free alternative?).

There are vegan condoms…. is there an issue I’m unaware of? Unless you’re saying that we should promote abstinence because otherwise people will use condoms that are not vegan.

brimstoneSalad wrote:You may make arguments about informed consent to be infected by a disease --
Have you heard about bug chasers?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugchasing

I've made similar arguments to the one I would make here against alcohol as a social institution (even if you use it properly, it encourages misuse from others -- many of which can not use it properly -- when we drink socially).

I hadn’t heard of that. I’m generally not opposed to people doing whatever the hell they want and putting themselves at any personal risk, as long as it doesn’t significantly affect others. It might even be a moral obligation to help them achieve it (I’m thinking assisted euthanasia). The only room for discussion here is on the possibility that you could indirectly affect others. It may not be moral to infect someone, even if they want it, because you can’t control the possibility that they might infect someone else later on.
Interesting thought on the alcohol thing, that should be discussed somewhere if it hasn’t already.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Oral cancer is one of the 10 most common cancers in the US with a flip-of-the-coin death rate. We can reduce our risk of oral cancer by avoiding all forms of tobacco, restricting alcohol consumption, avoiding obesity, and eating at least five servings of vegetables and fruits each day. Other risk factors include having more than 5 lifetime oral sex partners and prolonged (more than 20 years) marijuana use.

Do you think they controlled for protected oral sex?

brimstoneSalad wrote:Women who have had many sexual partners or whose partners have had many sexual partners may have an increased risk for cervical cancer at least in part because they are more likely to get a sexually transmitted virus.

Same question, drop the 'oral'. If they did, then it’s clear. If they didn’t, then there may be another way of significantly reducing the risk.
If comparative research shows that variations in STDs cannot currently be explained by differences in sexual activity (vs. behavior) in different populations, that sounds pretty promising.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Condoms are essential if you're going to engage in risky behavior, like a safety on a gun. But maybe just not doing it in the first place, until there's chance of a more stable relationship, is even better. If somebody recognizes that, that should be congratulated for the rational decision it is.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Stupid kids are going to be stupid and have sex either way. But if one kid is smart, why should we encourage him to be stupid too?

We're not encouraging him to do that at all. We're only encouraging him not to develop that 'should' mentality that can make him become judgmental of others who might act differently.
However I do understand you find those people immoral in some super tiny(my opinion) way. But hey, you brought my opinion from ‘zero immorality’ to ‘potentially tiny’, that’s something…
I still think it's important to meet people where they're at and weigh the risks against potential emotional benefits though.

brimstoneSalad wrote:When you're on dates, you just ignore each other and play games/watch movies on your individual phones.

Can they at least watch them on the same phone, pretty please?

PS. Sorry to be talking about you in the third person on your own topic, Red.

inator wrote:They should do what increases overall benefits. What makes people happy is at times irrational and based on subjective perception.

So if being an islamist, or a carnist, makes somebody happy, they should stick to it?
No. You miss the idea that there are alternatives. I don't care how much you love praising Allah, as an atheist you could enjoy science just as much. I don't care how much you love bacon; as a vegan you could learn to enjoy tempeh just as much.

Tastes are not only subjective, but versatile and malleable. There are not people who are just genetically made to be irrational, and who can only enjoy those kinds of behaviors. This is an issue of education.

inator wrote:Small doses of Mania can be gratifying if the feeling is returned.

So can be bacon, or blowing yourself up in the name of Allah -- both also quite harmful.
Or, are you saying people should just eat a little bacon, or just use a little bit of explosive when they detonate themselves?

Small doses of a bad thing are still bad.

inator wrote:Ludus can create connection and fun and attraction.

And harm people substantially. You don't understand the emotional damage you can perpetuate in your quarry when you play the hunt.

inator wrote:Agape also comes in different doses, no one said you focus it all on one person. It’s normal to have a stronger empathetic connection with the person you’re most intimate with.

Or your friends, if you like. People can also romanticize best friends; or bromance. And there's no reason he can't have that if he wants it. Just be the best damn friend he can be, come hell or high water, and always be there for his friends even if they treat him like shit or aren't there for him.
I don't think that kind of social attitude is helpful, though.

inator wrote:No, none of these serve a very rational purpose (maybe an evolutionary one…), they simply feel good and therefore increase happiness.

They don't, though, not really -- not in the long run, and not globally. They are more harmful than helpful. People love to rationalize how the happiness they get from bacon exceeds the sufferings of pigs too; when you have an attachment to an irrational and harmful behavior, it's hard to think objectively about it. Consider if you might have some biases here that are flavoring your perceptions.

Take another look at the harm these irrational behaviors and attitudes cause.

inator wrote:You could argue something similar for friendships.

There are good and bad friendships. People need to be practical about these things. Some people are just shit and don't deserve your devotion as a friend. Addicts take advantage of friends all the time -- and yet we're supposed to stick by them, and always forgive them and be there for them? Irrational behavior can apply to all kinds of relationships.

inator wrote:I thought it was 16 in most states? Here it's 14.

What you're talking about is more statutory rape, and age limits. Age of legal consent is 18 most places -- but statutory rape laws may set different limits for different kinds of prosecution. Sometimes a certain age range, like four years older, when the other is under that age.

inator wrote:That’s what good sexual education is for, to make sure early on that you’re getting the information and understand it.

Are you saying that you think sex education is of such a quality that we should trust sex ed teachers?
They're far more conservative than what I'm saying.
I think you may be shooting yourself in the foot here.

inator wrote:I.e. don't force an asexual to have sex, even if he's objectively 'ready'.

That came across very differently.

inator wrote:I’m saying that if you add protection into that calculation, the risk becomes tiny.

It's not, though. People just can't use basic math.

Like I said before, 99.9% safe sounds huge -- sounds virtually impossible to fuck up, right?
But then when you compound it 100 times: .999^100 = only 90% safe.

inator wrote:Anyway, you’re making a good case for the ‘risk’ side of things, I won’t deny it. I still feel like it’s a bit paranoid, but only assuming that someone uses protection correctly and gets tested regularly.

Even if you do that, tests are not exhaustive. There are a lot of STDs out there, just like the flu. So many viruses, so many strains of each one, even a large number of virulent bacterium.

inator wrote:I'm pretty sure all that data on risk didn't control for using protection, that would be too difficult - which would exaggerate the risk.

Nope, the risk is explicitly based on correct usage. We're talking clinical trials here. For pregnancy and HIV, it's based mainly on failure rate in condoms due to unavoidable manufacturing defects. Condoms break sometimes, and more often may have small invisible defects.
Other STIs can be transmitted around condoms, to the scrotum or base of the penis, or from there to the woman.

If you want to be totally safe, wear a thick seamless rubber wet suit with a thick built in penis glove of some kind (something like that probably exists, but it's doubtful you'd feel anything). Fluids splash everywhere during sex, and there's a lot of vigorous contact and friction.

inator wrote:I didn’t miss it, using condoms is the absolute condition. I said that if you can and want to spend all that money on sex, go for it. Otherwise just go to the nearest clinic and fill your pockets with the free ones… But seriously, why are condoms so expensive there?

Those are not vegan condoms. They are made with casein.
If you're willing to use animal products for unnecessary sexual pleasure which also risks personal health, how can you criticize somebody eating a slice of cheese for unnecessary gustatory pleasure that does the same (just different kind of health risk)?

inator wrote:Sure, then you can argue about effective altruism and how you should have spent those 2$ on charity and that time on helping the homeless, or actually the children in the desert because they’re worse off, and what are you doing sitting there right now when there are all those kittens stuck in trees? (It’s actually a valid argument, but right now we’re talking about reducing harm).

Sex is usually a selfish act, but not an inherently immoral one. Spending money on yourself isn't wrong, it's just not right either. I'm not saying it's wrong because it's not charity, I'm saying these kinds of sexual practices are wrong because they're harmful to others and yourself.

Regarding bug chasing:

inator wrote:The only room for discussion here is on the possibility that you could indirectly affect others. It may not be moral to infect someone, even if they want it, because you can’t control the possibility that they might infect someone else later on.

That's the point. Catching STIs risks spreading STIs, and even if the person wants it you shouldn't do it, because they may spread it to others later. Risking catching STIs is thus immoral, particularly since you can't even test for many of them, so you're just guessing whether somebody was clean or not.
Also, as I mentioned, social attitudes and pressures.

inator wrote:Interesting thought on the alcohol thing, that should be discussed somewhere if it hasn’t already.

https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... 571&p=5523

I recognize that people have their sacred cows, even people who are otherwise rational, and won't behave in a 100% rational manner due to personal habit, society, etc. We have to choose our battles. But I'm also disinclined to pretend something is fine or benign when it's harmful. And if some people recognize the harm and chooses to avoid it, good on them.

inator wrote:Do you think they controlled for protected oral sex?

Hah, no, I don't think they did. Almost nobody has protected oral sex though, so I doubt it matters much.
Herpes is still a concern, though, along with HPV which could be transmitted by skin contact, which are the most likely culprits (it less likely has to do with the semen itself -- but maybe I'm wrong).
I would be interested in more research on that.

Given you've both been tested and cleared of herpes and other major testable STIs, you use a good condom, roll it all the way up, and wear underwear (use the little trap door) so there's no skin contact and no saliva gets on you... if you want to go that far with protection, you're probably mostly in the clear (as long as the practitioner is not too toothy).

Mucosa are the most vulnerable points for transmission. Save the money and inconvenience, and just get a hand job or fingering from somebody who just used hand sanitizer (before and after). Keep nails trimmed so they don't scratch, and watch out for any obvious cuts or sores. You should be fine. Safer, cheaper, and less weird.

inator wrote:Same question, drop the 'oral'. If they did, then it’s clear. If they didn’t, then there may be another way of significantly reducing the risk.

The correlation would still hold, it would just be weaker, so it doesn't matter if they did, but they would be motivated to in order to get a stronger correlation.

inator wrote:If comparative research shows that variations in STDs cannot currently be explained by differences in sexual activity (vs. behavior) in different populations, that sounds pretty promising.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Population studies won't give you much; I'm not sure why you find them more credible. There's not much variation in sexual activity between populations, and the large difference between protected and unprotected sex (I'm not arguing against the fact that unprotected sex is much worse) would make those correlations more difficult to observe.

Efficacy of protection is well studied clinically; that's what's more important.

inator wrote:However I do understand you find those people immoral in some super tiny(my opinion) way. But hey, you brought my opinion from ‘zero immorality’ to ‘potentially super tiny’, that’s something…

I agree that it's not a hugely immoral act. Compared to carnism, this is a drop in the bucket.

The problem with judging people rather than behavior is that you have to look at the whole picture, and that's not always available.
I wouldn't say "you're a bad person because you're a slut", but rather "you might consider not doing that, it's not a good thing to do since it increases the risk to yourself and others".

I'm not saying to not have sex. I'm saying wait longer. Choose more carefully. And select relationships with significant long term potential and lower potential drama.

inator wrote:I still have to meet people where they are and weigh the risks against emotional benefits though.

What you see as emotional benefit, I see as confirmation bias and rosy hindsight. When you weigh the effects of the irrational components of romance an an unbiased way, you may come to a very different conclusion. Perhaps you haven't seen many more rational relationships to compare it to? We're talking about healthier mindsets. No, it's not easy to change people's minds on these topics when they're invested in mania (or some other irrational precept), but they're better off when they mature out of it (if they ever reach that point).

I know falling in love feels so good... but so does cocaine. That's not a good argument to do it.

inator wrote:Can they at least watch them on the same phone, pretty please?

Why would you want to do the same thing? That's weird. It's unlikely you'll want to watch the same movie. And if she wants to watch the same movie as you do just because you're watching it, you may have made a bad selection for a fake girlfriend.

Stop trying to play match maker with Red's imaginary fake girlfriend!

brimstoneSalad wrote:So can be bacon, or blowing yourself up in the name of Allah -- both also quite harmful.
Or, are you saying people should just eat a little bacon, or just use a little bit of explosive when they detonate themselves?
Small doses of a bad thing are still bad.

brimstoneSalad wrote:They don't, though, not really -- not in the long run, and not globally. They are more harmful than helpful. People love to rationalize how the happiness they get from bacon exceeds the sufferings of pigs too; when you have an attachment to an irrational and harmful behavior, it's hard to think objectively about it. Consider if you might have some biases here that are flavoring your perceptions.

Take another look at the harm these irrational behaviors and attitudes cause.

No, I'm saying it's only bad if the overall result of the ethical calculation is bad. Consequences.

Carnism isn't different, you still make the same calculation. But you can be sure that it will result in a negative overall consequence for others and yourself.
That doesn't mean I'm not also weighing the potential pleasure you could get from eating meat. It's just that it can never exceed the harm (not risk of harm - inevitable harm) to the animal. And then there's also the harm to yourself in health concerns. It's lose-lose.

I think it's possible to allow yourself some 'controlled' indulgence in sentimental matters without resulting in negative overall consequences.

brimstoneSalad wrote:And harm people substantially. You don't understand the emotional damage you can perpetuate in your quarry when you play the hunt.

I don't think Ludus is only about the hunt.
"Ludus (blue) is used by those who see love as a desiring to want to have fun with each other, to do activities indoor and outdoor, tease indulge and play harmless pranks on each other. The acquisition of love and attention itself may be part of the game."

I was referring more to the first part. The second part is a bit more problematic, it's true.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Tastes are not only subjective, but versatile and malleable. There are not people who are just genetically made to be irrational, and who can only enjoy those kinds of behaviors. This is an issue of education.

This is actually a good point. But once again, the reach of well-being can exceed rational behaviours in some limited cases, since emotions are an integral part of who people are.
I'm not on a crusade to transform people into perfectly rational individuals. Yet. That's a fight for when all other more cost-effective measures of creating well-being have been tried and have had results. But we're a long way from that moment, and there's no reason to be idealistic about what means we should be using now to increase happiness.

brimstoneSalad wrote:There are good and bad friendships. People need to be practical about these things. Some people are just shit and don't deserve your devotion as a friend. Addicts take advantage of friends all the time -- and yet we're supposed to stick by them, and always forgive them and be there for them? Irrational behavior can apply to all kinds of relationships.

It applies to all relationships, not just friendships. There are good ones and there are bad ones.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Are you saying that you think sex education is of such a quality that we should trust sex ed teachers?
They're far more conservative than what I'm saying.
I think you may be shooting yourself in the foot here.

No, I'm saying we should put our efforts into making sex ed of such quality. This will probably be more effective and less costly than trying to convince kids to abstain.

brimstoneSalad wrote:when you have an attachment to an irrational and harmful behavior, it's hard to think objectively about it. Consider if you might have some biases here that are flavoring your perceptions.

I love it when people make assumptions about someone's behaviour, simply based on their making the case for more tolerance on a variety of issues. It's like saying that because I argue against racism, it must mean I'm black, otherwise I'd have another attitude.
You come in contact with different perceptions simply by existing in this world.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Nope, the risk is explicitly based on correct usage. We're talking clinical trials here.

That would put another perspective on things. But I'll double-check that sometime if you don't mind.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Hah, no, I don't think they did. Almost nobody has protected oral sex though, so I doubt it matters much.

brimstoneSalad wrote:The correlation would still hold, it would just be weaker, so it doesn't matter if they did, but they would be motivated to in order to get a stronger correlation.

brimstoneSalad wrote:I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Population studies won't give you much; I'm not sure why you find them more credible. There's not much variation in sexual activity between populations, and the large difference between protected and unprotected sex (I'm not arguing against the fact that unprotected sex is much worse) would make those correlations more difficult to observe.

I mean that you should combine the results of clinical data and comparative studies.
Clinical data shows more partners results in more risk. But on top of that, comparative research indicates what's the main cause of that in large populations - in this case, lack of protection instead of sexual activity.

If you control for using protection, the correlation still holds but the actual risk becomes waaay smaller. This callenges that arbitrary number that they've come up with to be safe. 5, was it?

brimstoneSalad wrote:Those are not vegan condoms. They are made with casein.
If you're willing to use animal products for unnecessary sexual pleasure which also risks personal health, how can you criticize somebody eating a slice of cheese for unnecessary gustatory pleasure that does the same (just different kind of health risk)?

There are vegan condoms and you can use them.
I addressed this and aknowledged that not encouraging abstention may result in more use of non-vegan condoms, since most people are not vegan. But that's like saying we should encourage people not to throw birthday parties because they might have non-vegan pizza. It's not the birthday party that's bad, it's the pizza.

brimstoneSalad wrote:https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... 571&p=5523

I recognize that people have their sacred cows, even people who are otherwise rational, and won't behave in a 100% rational manner due to personal habit, society, etc. We have to choose our battles. But I'm also disinclined to pretend something is fine or benign when it's harmful. And if some people recognize the harm and chooses to avoid it, good on them.

I think that if an alcohol cosumer gets as much benefit from a good beer as from good sex, you could already say they've got a drinking problem. Especially if it's American beer.
The amount of benefit counts in the ethical calculation. That's only if you don't completely exclude yourself from the calculation, which would be arbitrary.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Given you've both been tested and cleared of herpes and other major testable STIs, you use a good condom, roll it all the way up, and wear underwear (use the little trap door) so there's no skin contact and no saliva gets on you... if you want to go that far with protection, you're probably mostly in the clear (as long as the practitioner is not too toothy).

Mucosa are the most vulnerable points for transmission. Save the money and inconvenience, and just get a hand job or fingering from somebody who just used hand sanitizer (before and after). Keep nails trimmed so they don't scratch, and watch out for any obvious cuts or sores. You should be fine. Safer, cheaper, and less weird.

Outstanding analysis.
Weird can be good I guess....

brimstoneSalad wrote:I agree that it's not a hugely immoral act. Compared to carnism, this is a drop in the bucket.
The problem with judging people rather than behavior is that you have to look at the whole picture, and that's not always available.

I'm not saying to not have sex. I'm saying wait longer. Choose more carefully. And select relationships with significant long term potential and lower potential drama.

Yes, it's good to try your best. I'm only challenging that arbitrary number of sexual partners, chosen based on a risk that's exaggerated by studies that may not have controlled for using protection.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Perhaps you haven't seen many more rational relationships to compare it to?

I know falling in love feels so good... but so does cocaine. That's not a good argument to do it.

Or maybe you underestimate the amount of irrationality in any relationship (be it romantic or just a friendship). There's not much rational argument in favor of any.
But people are social creatures by evolution (for cooperation and procreation purposes), which makes companionship simply feel good - and lack of it potentially very depressing.

If cocaine didn't have so many direct and indirect bad consequences that outweigh the benefits, I wouldn't be against it. The calculation is possibly different for some romantic relationships.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Why would you want to do the same thing? That's weird. It's unlikely you'll want to watch the same movie. And if she wants to watch the same movie as you do just because you're watching it, you may have made a bad selection for a fake girlfriend.

Maybe she's just awesome and likes Family Guy too....
That's why people have movie nights, because it feels good to have a shared experience.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Stop trying to play match maker with Red's imaginary fake girlfriend!

Ugh, fine Dad....

inator wrote: No, I'm saying it's only bad if the overall result of the ethical calculation is bad. Consequences.

It's not just a simple tally, but also opportunity cost: comparing the sum against other options.
There are other delicious things to eat, so even in terms of utilitarianism (which does value selfish pleasure) that pleasure is not exceptional.

inator wrote:That doesn't mean I'm not also weighing the potential pleasure you could get from eating meat. It's just that it can never exceed the harm (not risk of harm - inevitable harm) to the animal. And then there's also the harm to yourself in health concerns. It's lose-lose.

It's also not meaningful that you "weigh that pleasure" because it is not inherently greater than other options that are available. Utilitarianism doesn't function at all aside from choosing the best available option. Although that is often a problem with utilitarianism (the utility monster).

People may say: "It's good that I raped that girl, I did something good, since she was drugged and will barely remember it, and I got a lot of pleasure form it. I increased the pleasure in the world. It would have been better if I had had consensual sex with another girl, which I could have enjoyed equally and she would have liked too, but that would have been slightly less convenient. So I still did a good thing, I'm just not a saint."

These things quickly become problematic as people justify any selfish act as ethical duty, as long as they perceive it to harm others slightly less than it pleasured themselves.

inator wrote:I think it's possible to allow yourself some 'controlled' indulgence in sentimental matters without resulting in negative overall consequences.

When it's at the expense of others, and there are other options that are pleasurable and are not harming others? No, that's not reasonable, and it's not good. Not even utilitarianism considers that a good choice.

inator wrote:I was referring more to the first part.

That can be provided by friends and playmates, or video games if you're not so social.

inator wrote:the reach of well-being can exceed rational behaviours in some limited cases, since emotions are an integral part of who people are.

That's absurd. People are not just some programmed set of likes and dislikes. People change over time; they can mature, and advance beyond finding pleasure in things like putting explosives in frogs' mouths, or whatever other dumb and evil shit kids do.

Like I've said, this whole "you do you" thing is toxic to rational ethics, because it makes the ridiculous presumption that whatever you were pre-inclined to do is somehow important to your personal identity, and it's the right thing to do to express yourself and "be who you are".

NO. There is no rational reason to believe that or uphold it as a value. What positive consequences come from that kind of mind set?

inator wrote:I'm not on a crusade to transform people into perfectly rational individuals. Yet. That's a fight for when all other more cost-effective measures of creating well-being have been tried and have had results. But we're a long way from that moment, and there's no reason to be idealistic about what means we should be using now to increase happiness.

Parsimony is fine, and GOOD. We want to do cost effective things, and this isn't an issue I spend a lot of time on.
If that was your argument -- that it's too hard and less cost effective to focus on this -- fine. I'd agree. I'm going to spend my time more on telling people they shouldn't eat meat rather than that they shouldn't have sex in this or that situation. It prevents more suffering, will be received better, and followed better (even with the abysmal recidivism rates now).

But arguing that there's actually something intrinsically good in 'a little' irrational behavior is another thing entirely.

inator wrote:No, I'm saying we should put our efforts into making sex ed of such quality. This will probably be more effective and less costly than trying to convince kids to abstain.

Sure. But when somebody asks earnestly for advice about optimal behavior -- say they're ready to do whatever you recommend -- what do you tell them is the best behavior?

There's nobody more likely to do precisely the right thing -- with a minimal investment on your part -- than somebody who already sees the irrationality in standard human behavior and is openly asking for advice.

And I will add: This is a serious vegan issue too, since one of the main causes of recidivism to meat eating is relationships with carnists. Having the wrong attitudes about sex and love harms veganism.

1. Imma have sex with random people, there's nothing wrong with that
2. Thanks to hormones and irrational feels beyond my control, I'm "in love" with somebody I have nothing in common with and wouldn't have even been friends with otherwise
3. Therefore, he/she is perfect, he/she is my soul mate, he/she is good
4. Also, as it turns out (like most people), he/she eats meat
5. Therefore, eating meat is not wrong.
6. Imma go ahead and just start eating meat again so we can be closer (and become one person in a creepy mania way) and share meals, since it's not wrong after all (proved by the fact that a perfect person does it)

inator wrote:I love it when people make assumptions about someone's behaviour, simply based on their making the case for more tolerance on a variety of issues.

You're making some strange arguments. I'm just saying, be aware of your biases if you have any. There's a strong bias to be in favor of things like meat and promiscuous sex, because they feel good. The naturalistic fallacy is hard to overcome.

inator wrote:But on top of that, comparative research indicates what's the main cause of that in large populations - in this case, lack of protection instead of sexual activity.

It's a confounding variable, like vegans using trans-fats in shortening to replace butter. Clinical trials are more meaningful in these cases, because you have adequate controls.

inator wrote:If you control for using protection, the correlation still holds but the actual risk becomes waaay smaller. This callenges that arbitrary number that they've come up with to be safe. 5, was it?

These population studies are meaningful because they deal with typical, average behavior. If people don't use protection in general for oral sex, it's reasonable to expect them not to anyway.
We don't know how much larger that number would be with protection, or even if anybody really uses protection consistently for oral sex, so if that's all the data we have we should be conservative.

In either case, with or without, smaller is going to be better/safer.

inator wrote:There are vegan condoms and you can use them.

Again, which are expensive. Can you afford an extra $60 a month just for condoms?

inator wrote:I addressed this and aknowledged that not encouraging abstention may result in more use of non-vegan condoms, since most people are not vegan. But that's like saying we should encourage people not to throw birthday parties because they might have non-vegan pizza. It's not the birthday party that's bad, it's the pizza.

Having a birthday party without pizza doesn't dramatically increase your risk of getting and spreading STDs, or cause unwanted children to be born.
This is a bad analogy. There's no negative consequence to a vegan birthday party, and it's not even more expensive than a non-vegan one. Also, non-vegans would have eaten animal products anyway, so there's not likely any meaningful uptick in animal product consumption from a birthday party (only change in type of animal products).
This analogy fails on every level.

If people were otherwise accidentally vegan, but usually had non-vegan pizza at birthday parties (thus a net increase in animal product consumption), and if there was no pizza there would be terrible consequences like the neighborhood kids would get so angry they might beat you up or murder you, and if vegan pizza was so expensive that most people couldn't afford it (and wouldn't care anyway), then I would recommend against birthday parties period.

For promiscuous sex, either people won't use protection (bad), or they'll use non-vegan protection (also bad), and that accounts for the overwhelming majority. When a causation is that tight, you should be able to look at the consequences and just generally advise against something even if you have to put a caveat on there for extreme cases.

Anyway, that wasn't the argument I was making, but it would be a sound one even so for 99.9+% of cases.

inator wrote:The amount of benefit counts in the ethical calculation. That's only if you don't completely exclude yourself from the calculation, which would be arbitrary.

As we discussed in the other thread, that's only in utilitarianism, not altruistic consequentialism. And it's not arbitrary to not include yourself; it's arbitrary TO include yourself. Ethics is about your actions upon others. Your actions upon yourself are not really on the moral scale.

inator wrote:Yes, it's good to try your best. I'm only challenging that arbitrary number of sexual partners, chosen based on a risk that's exaggerated by studies that may not have controlled for using protection.

I don't see condom use as very practical in a long term relationship; it's just going to be too expensive for most people. The cost and availability will discourage sexual intercourse.

inator wrote:Or maybe you underestimate the amount of irrationality in any relationship (be it romantic or just a friendship). There's not much rational argument in favor of any.

Friendship and familial love provides mutual benefit. The rational arguments are that of the buddy system; support networks are very useful.

Brimstone, as I said, I do see how sexual behavior becomes a moral matter when you take into consideration the potential risk of infecting others, which results from the risk that you may get infected yourself. It's less straightforward because we're talking about a multi-layered risk of causing harm (basically a risk of a risk of harm), as opposed to actual harm.

I also understand that the current recommendations for safety are based on average behavior. Which means that if you apply that to getting tested and using protection, the recommendations should be much more liberal in order to get to the same level of risk. The correlation holds, yes, but it's much weaker.

True, stable long-term relationships decrease your number of partners, however they’re also less likely to involve using condoms all the time. This could mean that it may be riskier to be with someone who’s had a few (say 3) long-term relationships, than with someone who’s had multiple (say 13) shorter-term ones with protection. Because it’s the protection that makes the bigger difference here, not the number.
There are so many possible constellations of relationships in one’s lifetime that could speak in favor or against this… It’s just very difficult to know who’s more of a ‘slut’ just based on the number of partners (if the word really is based on risk and nothing else for you), so it’s wrong to talk in such absolute terms.
And while you’re raising an eyebrow here, remember to just focus on the argument instead of the (perceived motives of the) person - but I do notice your politeness, go you.

I’m still not convinced that different elements of a relationship can entirely be replaced by substitute behaviors (hand+games+….), and that the sum of those will definitely result in the same value. That may be a reductionist way of looking at things, since there are probably also reinforcing interaction effects between those elements - making them work synergistically and be more fulfilling when you get them all together from one source.
That may be a reason why some people only want one partner at a time. It’s not necessarily mania or wishful thinking (could be, maybe not), perhaps the benefit really becomes larger the fewer the sources. I can only speculate based on the diversity of available perceptions, since the value is subjective and we have no numbers on it. It’s much better than to base it on one perception though.


Now this is something I'm more interested in, though it's probably a topic for another thread:

brimstoneSalad wrote:People may say: "It's good that I raped that girl, I did something good, since she was drugged and will barely remember it, and I got a lot of pleasure form it. I increased the pleasure in the world. It would have been better if I had had consensual sex with another girl, which I could have enjoyed equally and she would have liked too, but that would have been slightly less convenient. So I still did a good thing, I'm just not a saint.

brimstoneSalad wrote:These things quickly become problematic as people justify any selfish act as ethical duty, as long as they perceive it to harm others slightly less than it pleasured themselves.

The alternative behavior would work in utilitarianism too - you would also increase the enjoyment of the consensual partner, so you get that added positive effect. But I do get what you’re trying to say.

brimstoneSalad wrote:As we discussed in the other thread, that's only in utilitarianism, not altruistic consequentialism. And it's not arbitrary to not include yourself; it's arbitrary TO include yourself. Ethics is about your actions upon others. Your actions upon yourself are not really on the moral scale.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Sure. But when somebody asks earnestly for advice about optimal behavior -- say they're ready to do whatever you recommend -- what do you tell them is the best behavior?

My question exactly - not what I should do myself (that’s clear), but what I should tell others to do.

Let's say that I’m an altruistic advice giver, and someone asks me what to do in a particular circumstance. Do I advise him to do what will increase overall well-being - excluding myself, but including him, OR excluding myself AND him? My concern for his well-being conflicts with my concern for his morality/his altruistic decision-making position.

1. If I tell him to include concern for himself, that conflicts with his morality.
2. If I tell him to be altruistic, he will exclude the concern for himself. So me telling him to be altruistic comes back to him having a slight disadvantage (and me a slight advantage, since I'm not excluded from the concern), which makes my giving that advice less altruistic in the first place – conflicts with my morality.
3. I can also tell him to exclude the concern for himself AND me from his decision. But then, on a larger scale, if I give advice to Z1 to give advice to Z2 to give advice to Z3…..to give advice to Zn to do what’s good for the rest, and there’s only Zn+1 left, then my advice will only benefit one person. If the last person also takes advice, the whole thing just breaks down - conflicts with overall well-being.

It’s much less confusing if you just take the “point of view of the universe” and include equal concern for everyone from the start. Not that any of this is perfectly applicable in real life, but at least the logic has to be noncontradictory.