Do you not believe that sex outside of marriage is a "sin" and therefore evil? This is the context we've been talking about. Have you not been paying attention?
Yes, but this is irrelevant. I don't care what people do as long as it doesn't affect me or my family.
Do you think that you live in a vacuum?? That somehow the actions of others should never effect you because you somehow think that you are "separate"? You aren't separate. We are all connected by actions and you haven't shown that billboards are somehow doing actual harm to you. It's just an assertion without evidence. If all you're appealing to is that your personal feelings
are being hurt, well too bad. That isn't a demonstration of actual harm being done. Just as you have a right to drive your car down the highway (even it offends me
), companies and private parties have the right to place advertisements on their property. There's nothing immoral there, sorry.
Is humanity, for you, not "fallen", "sinful", and therefore against God? Is this not what you believe?
I believe all humans sin. However, this is also irrelevant.
Oh stop this bullshit. It is very relevant because earlier you said (implied) that you do not
think that these actions are "evil" by asking "Where did I say that?"
Nice try slick. Stop pretending and playing games. You're bringing your religious baggage to the table and wanting to force everyone else into that mold (i.e. - trying to force people to take their advertisements down because you personally
are offended). Well, once again the fact that your feelings are getting hurt is not a sufficient demonstration of actual harm.
You haven't spoken any "truth". All you're doing here (like everyone else in the world does) is expressing your own personal subjective option of what "immoral" means. That is leagues from actually showing that an act, thought, or intention by a person (or persons) is actually "objectively" immoral.
Why does it have to be "objectively" immoral? Murder is not objectively immoral yet we do not practice it. It only a matter of common sense.
By claiming that you have "the truth" you are implying that somehow YOU are the objectively "right" one and all else are wrong (or, secretly, that your personal theology
is the right one and all else are wrong, and that we should all be coerced by your bible interpretation). But if you don't think there is an objective morality please do say so.
Promoting sex would be advertising it. If you advertise burgers people will buy more burgers. If you advertise sex, albeit indirectly, people will have more sex.
And what does it matter if people are having more sex? By your logic, we should stop knife advertisers for knife billboards because people might buy more and then cut themselves on accident! This reasoning just doesn't follow. Again, you are presenting the converse accident fallacy.
A few things here. First, you are just factually incorrect. This assertion of sex being "plastered everywhere" is just your illusion. I'm looking outside my window right now. NOPE! No sex there. EDIT: I just drove an hour down the freeway and back, near my home here in southern California. NOPE! No sexual billboards. Sorry, it's not "everywhere". Second, what exactly is being called "sex" here, and how exactly are you attempting to argue that it's harmful to people in general?
How about underdressed men and/or women?
Are you that
disingenuous to actually ignore almost my entire response here? Try again.
Neither, eating too many 'whatevers' is a personal choice that one must take responsibility for. But even if it were the case that (somehow) eating too many whatevers was harmful to a person, it is still their choice to harm themselves and therefore the consequences are upon them.
Sure, but if you didn't want your child to be an alcoholic would you want the world to look like a bar?
You seem to be implying that the cause of the problem is the alcohol (or in this case the sex), rather than the people themselves. That is your problem, your life is governed by religious fear based psychology. Again, correlation does not equal causation. You need to actually demonstrate that the alcohol itself is causing the people to do harm, and not just the people themselves making irresponsible choices. This is the same thing with sex. You are attempting to conflate two things which are separate (an action in itself, and the harmful/irresponsible use of that action). They are not the same. Sorry.
So now let's replace hamburger (or whatevers) with sex. How much is "too much" and (more importantly) how can you demonstrate it? By what rational method can you actually demonstrate that sex between adults is "immoral"?
It is too much when it infringes on someone elses freedom.
Please make a demonstrable case that your freedom to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are being violated by billboard advertising.
But that is irrelevant to the point being made. You brought up exceptional cases where specific unfavorable results have derived from people having sex (implying that sex outside of marriage is "immoral" and that society shouldn't be aloud to promote/"plaster" it on the billboards, as it were - and this in similar fashion to the mere possibility of any-body using any-thing to harm any-one else).
Here are some good places to learn some actual facts
Please present and link to the actual facts, data, or statistics you are referencing (direct articles, not just websites for your convenience). Try this on for size: http://www.statejournal.com/story/17334114/report-evidence-shows-abstinence-programs-dont-work
Sorry, these abstinence programs you are attempting to reference aren't effective (namely b/c they are unscientific and dismissive of the facts). They are in fact more harmful in the long run because they attempt to deny what is natural to human kind - just as eating food and drinking water is. You aren't helping your case by trying to send me off on goose chases with these vague website URLs.
Btw, once again you didn't deal with my response directly. Pointing to cases where people have harmed each other as a result of irresponsible thinking is not sufficient to demonstrate that an actual act is "immoral". You should know that. Again, people can hurt each other with almost anything. It doesn't make the thing or action in itself immoral. Come back to critical thinking basics!
Great. Then I'm sure you won't mind admitting that what is moral or immoral, pertaining to sexuality, has nothing to do with marriage.
Yes I would mind. As the above sites show abstinance outside of marriage is superior, therefore more moral.
NOPE. These sites do NOT show that. In fact, the scientific studies on the case show that these abstinence only programs do nothing to hinder students from sex (and absolutely NONE of it shows that having sex outside of marriage is immoral - that is just your religious based assertion). Have you even bothered to do any honest research into the opposing position? Have you even bothered to do some studies on condom use, family planning, or any of the other answers to your assumed theological assumptions about what's moral? If so, where exactly? http://news.uga.edu/releases/article/abstinence-only-education-does-not-lead-to-abstinent-behavior/"Our analysis adds to the overwhelming evidence indicating that abstinence-only education does not reduce teen pregnancy rates,"http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/04/14/us-sex-abstinence-idUSN1423677120070414http://www.chicagonow.com/feminist-christian/2013/05/why-christians-should-give-up-abstinence-only-sex-education/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003.html
You keep using this term without actually defining it in the manner in which you are using it. Are you really that dense to not know that we do not agree on what is sexually "immoral"? If not, then please stop making statements like this and define your terms better.
For my complaint it is defined as unrestrained sex.
Huh? What the heck does that even mean? You are just being uber vague again with your terms. What does "unrestrained sex" mean? Are you talking about sex without a condom? Sex in public? What? What specifically does this term refer to?
If you are (in a round about way) trying to refer to any sex that is outside marriage than all you're doing is trying to smuggle in the very thing you need to demonstrate (that sex outside of marriage, any sex, is somehow "immoral"). Sorry, pointing to cases where people have sex irresponsibly isn't enough to show it's immoral (just like showing exceptional cases of people hurting each other with knives isn't enough to show that knife use is immoral). Your logic is completely fallacious here.
Well great, but you've just gone off into a red herring (and question begging) because you haven't established that STDs, unwanted pregnancies, or abortions are (in and of themselves) "immoral". You've just claimed it without evidence.
It is only logical that abstinance outside of marriage is the optimal way to fight unplanned pregnancies, STDs, and abortions. The above sites, and many others, prove this.
No, they don't prove that whatsoever. And neither do they prove unplanned pregnancies, STDs, or abortions (in and of themselves) are actually "immoral". A child being born isn't necessarily harmful. Not all STDs are incurable or harmful to anyone except he/she involved (personal responsibility), and the abortion issue is a highly debated one (which I would be glad to take you to task on). You are practicing confirmation bias here b/c one could point to all of the cases where teens (for example) have had sex and nothing demonstrably harmful happened (just like all of the cases where people drove cars and didn't hurt others in doing so). Again, this is your confirmation bias attempting to skew the evidence. It's called leading the evidence instead of following it.
Oh so, what is "immoral" then for you is only about what offends you? It doesn't have anything to do with actual evidence or sound reasoning? If so please present the actual evidence and not just what offends you personally. I thought we already dealt with this when you agreed that morality has do with what is (unnecessarily) harmful or beneficial.
It is easy to determine. You are what you eat. Teens that take in sex from every direction are much more likely to have sex. The more likely they are to have sex the more likely they are to get harmful things. You reap what you sow. If you sow sex you're going to reap teen pregnancy, STDs, and abortions. All it takes is a little common sense.
A pure likelihood of harm does not indicate an immoral act (as I noted early with other examples). Your "common sense" is nonsense and irrational b/c it is based in your religious presuppositions, and attempts at reductionism, in the face of evidence to the contrary. These things are NOT easy to determine and neither are they simple problems (as you simpleton religious folk want to make them). That is the problem with making blanket religious assumptions based in dogma.
Again, there are car advertisements everywhere. So according to your fallacious reasoning we should stop people from using them because so many people get hurt every year. "Holy shit! We're all gonna die! Stop everything! Get me the duct tape and plastic sheeting! Board up all the windows and doors!"
So far, your line of reasoning has been logically fallacious and fear based.
Then what are you complaining about, billboards? Is it the billboards themselves that you are complaining about, or the "sex outside of marriage" (which you think the billboards causes) that you are coming against? If it's the latter, then again, please demonstrate the causation between the two. You do know that correlation does not equal causation, don't you?
Here is a fact. Advertising works. That is the causation between the two.
I challenged you to demonstrate (directly) how advertising actually causes harm, and you didn't do it. All you did was post some vague websites without reference to any actual articles are science. FAIL! It's quite clear that you don't really care whether or not your beliefs are true. You just want to make yourself feel comfortable.
The fact that advertising works is completely irrelevant to the question of whether sex outside marriage is immoral (and you still haven't shown that it is - you've just asserted it). An advertisement with a girl in a bikini could get someone to buy a hamburger. THIS-PROVES-NONE-OF-YOUR-CASE. Sorry.
This sounds like double think. First you say you are against the billboards (implying that you want them taken down and/or not allowed - which is the equivalent of a ban), and now you're saying you do not want to stop the billboards?? Make up your mind dude.
No. I want demand for such things to diminish.
You want demand for cars, burgers, and soda to go down? You just avoided the question I put to you and answered some other question that I didn't ask. Try again. What it seems like here is that you are willing to allow your personal feelings to get in the way of the actual facts. Please answer the question I asked you.
And from your outlook, you probably don't have children. I personally do not know anyone with children that is not offended at how sex has infiltrated everything from M&M commercials to children's cartoons. Two blocks from my house there is a billboard for a used car dealership with a picture of a woman with large breasts and her nipples almost showing the cleavage is cut so low. And there are several others in the area just like it. Children should not have to see all this stuff.
At any rate, I am done debating. Obviously you don't care what children see, how it affects them, or how it affects those around them.
I'll take this as an admission of your defeat, since all you have are irrational arguments and nothing to back them - and now you are backing out when you're about to get put in the hot seat. Once again, you've made assumptions about me (just like you have done with your religion). If you don't want your kids to see boobs then don't let them, but absolutely ZERO of your personal preferences demonstrates that a billboard of a woman is actually doing any real harm to a child, or anything immoral for that matter (especially since the woman is not nude - but even if she was, has your child not breast fed!). You could put your kids in the back of the car, tint the windows, drive a different way, etc (all that sheltering will only make it worse in the end b/c you don't have a realistic outlook on sexuality). Ever do any studies on kids whose parents shelter them? All you've basically talked about here is your personal offense, not what is actually harmful.