Eva

Is that right? Are you free to choose a relationship where you rape a woman every day and be morally exempt? Do you not think there are women who would voluntarily agree to that? The do all the time when they marry abusive husbands in full knowledge... No it isn't. You said children "are bound". Rocks "are bound" by gravity is not the same as rocks are held. Just like you cannot rationally justify restricting someone's sexual freedom you cannot justify the ownership of children within a monogamous family, which is an immorality, and exactly the root of the problem you have.

No. The enslaving part is wanting to have a "relationship" as a concept before the fact and, as I said, introducing the biological/sexual fidelity requirement—which is largely an unjustified restriction of someone's freedom to do whatever they want with their male or female bodies. You mistake this fidelity for commitment; I can commit in all sorts of ways to someone, not just sexually. To me, the fact that this element is given this much importance just comes to show how far the marriage/girlfriend concept is from a rational definition of love. Choosing your own enslavement does not make it moral, especially when there are children involved. I am sure there are many statists and religious people engaged in understanding empathy and virtue, and that does not excuse them either. This is not true. Parents enslave their children. It is not a strawman; she is right. And Kevin strawmans himself: He does not seek a romantic relationship with his guy friends.. I just wanted to add that I am very sorry for you guys feeling this way towards women. There is a certain amount of hatred (toward your parents) still in wanting to own a partner; and she or he is not to be blamed for your self attacking about their actual or potential choices—which is what the "commitment" around sexuality is basically protecting. I really hope you get over this fear of the other sex by pursuing relationships that are truly free; though I completely understand it is not easy.

No. And how does that compare to how many children are kidnapped by parents—which is what makes anyone a statist, or a freak?

They imply human ownership and, with their emphasis on sexual fidelity, they reproduce the original parent-child biological attachment relationship—which is not good. "Wife" and "girlfriend"—and their masculines—are 'a priori' concepts that are imposed over the reality of people because they have a dysfunctional need to own others and feel owned, which comes from their having been owned by their parents... They are anti-philosophical concepts.

Is it you? Be my friend!

Hi Casey. I like what you say about how disgusting that female behaviour is, but then you go on to say men and women cannot be just friends, which is not what I was expecting at all, if you think it is somehow morally wrong to take advantage of the other sex. I know I can be friends with men, as I am, and that is a result of morality and truth being more important to us than sex--and obviously the universality of morality and virtue transcends gender or age... This is also the reason I do not look for sex in a "boyfriend" or "husband" anymore, as I realise how those concepts are linked to these exploitative needs. So, summing up, what you say seems contradictory, and might be because you are still doing that which you condemn. Don't you think?

All this false dichotomy and conversations show is how devoid of meaning and philosophy the concept of friendship is for most people, and how deeply ingrained certain false morals around monogamy are... I think it is very sad. For those who understand friendship requires intimacy--and of course that mind and body are not separate--sexuality is just another side of friendship.

I (a woman) attack feminism like I attack any "ism": because they are arbitrary or a priori values. Although, to be more precise, I don't really attack them—it's only those who operate from "isms" and any sort of bigotry that do attack and feel attacked.

Hi Kevin, thanks for the info! I have read a bit of RTR, yes... Well, I am not sure RTR can add much more to UPB, really, as surely any propositions being made in the context of a relationship have to be UPB compliant to be "healthy". I guess I saw that when having a look at RTR, and decided it wasn't so important..

Wow, thank you so much for your responses! Quite a few of you speak about your own personal experience, while I was asking for an objective opinion, or from Stefan's perspective. I suppose it is hard not to view this from the personal anyway. I still get the feeling UPB is the most important, although my favourite keeps being 'On Truth'.

Hello everyone! I have covered quite a lot of material already, mainly about self knowledge. Currently having a look at UPB... I get the impression that this might be Stefan's most important book, perhaps? At least it seems more methodical and solemn I would appreciate if those who are most familiar with his work could share their opinion; or maybe Stefan has mentioned this already somewhere? Cheers!

About my "irrelevant" argument, you first say: The questions were supposed to illustrate a point you were seemingly interested in—to the point you argue it is desired to feel obligated—but then "suddenly" you are not interested in it: Try this theory: you are defensive (because you don't want to accept the major point that you cannot create arbitrary positive obligations), which is why you don't reply to my other points, you bring up irrelevant appeals to emotions, and project in me the same dismissal ("slap") you actually initiated.

Look, you say this: I proceed to provide examples illustrating how this is not to be desired, and you give me that paragraph above?? Sorry, dsayers. I have left enough arguments around the central issue of obligation and I have no time to read your lengthy paragraphs about how I am assuming false premises. Do you care to show me how it is I have done that?

I feel with this you try to pass me the ball and rationalise your not addressing the questions and the valid threads that are there on my previous post. I cannot trust you will not do the same if I address this meta-conversational claim, so I won't. You might as well say that you are responsible for any accident that happens to you just because of "choosing the risks" involved in living. Using a prophylactic or looking both ways before crossing the road are precisely ways to diminish risk; which is the complete opposite of taking it (if I choose to use a prophylactic, I am not taking the risk involved in not using a prophylactic...) and which are both intentions. Yes, intention is the measure, and you know that because you are the one saying that parents are obliged to take care of children based on the fact they have chosen to do something (or what would otherwise mean to choose something you did not have an intention towards?). Morality is about human will. If I am "responsible" for the chain of events that resulted in your window being broken, when it wasn't my intention to do so, then so is the wind, the rock, my mother and all my ancestors... If the man that gets run over is "responsible" for it—as he "chose the risks"—then what you are saying is that the driver/s that did it were not responsible—or that the sperm was not responsible for reaching the egg... I am not saying there cannot be some amount of negotiable or reasonable responsibility, but this is not what you are saying when you almost elevate this contract toward children to the category of moral absolute.

Choosing to have sex results in sex; just like choosing to cross the road results in you crossing the road, as was your intention. The fact that crossing the road bears the risk of getting run over doesn't mean you intend to get run over. Knowing there is a risk—or possible consequence—in an action is quite different from intending that risk, especially when it comes to assigning moral responsibility—you would have a hard time proving that someone who had a child had that intention. This is very clear. You might as well say a man who gets run over is responsible for it. A man who gets run over is as responsible for the traffic and the accident as a mother is responsible for the baby growing in her belly, or having an indigestion because she ate... Do you feel "obligated" to not drink sewage? Do you get up in the morning and first thing you feel glad that some logic keeps you from sabotaging a nuclear plant? Do you think the best acrobats are those who feel obligated to stay on the high wire? ... How does a shopkeeper behave with you if he feels obligated to serve you? How about feeling obligated towards a child? How would that make your parenting? If being a biological parent means someone feels obligated towards a child, then I don't want this person around the child. Yes. Reasoning is logical, or propositions derived logically; not propositions in and of themselves. Not even the fact that you derive a proposition logically makes it true. You simply cannot make an "ought" from an "is" (Hume) because it is "logical". You can say parents who choose to have kids and neglect them are murdering, but you cannot say they have an obligation not to do that, just like nobody has an obligation not to murder. They are just moral propositions.