Moderator: Moderators
Clearly they have already defined it via synonyms as being immoral and irresponsible.adjective: promiscuous
1. derogatory having or characterized by many transient sexual relationships.
"she's a wild, promiscuous girl"
synonyms: licentious, sexually indiscriminate, wanton, immoral, fast;
More informal easy, swinging, sluttish, whorish, bed-hopping;
datedloose, fallen
"a promiscuous teenager"
antonyms: chaste, virtuous
2. demonstrating or implying an undiscriminating or unselective approach;
indiscriminate or casual.
"the city fathers were promiscuous with their honors"
synonyms: indiscriminate, undiscriminating, unselective, random, haphazard,
irresponsible, unthinking, unconsidered
Why not ask: Why is lying to BE promiscuous a bad thing? Lying to BE promiscuous doesn't really hurt anyone, as long as . . .DanieltheDragon wrote: It has repeatedly been pointed out to me while debating on this site that a part of moral decline is promiscuous sexual behavior?
I am really confused on how this is exactly morally bad
Question for debate is promiscuous sexual behavior morally bad?
I am not talking about someone cheating on someone that has more to do with lying than being promiscuous. If one is honest and does not have an intent to cause harm by their promiscuous sexual behavior how is it morally bad?
DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to bluethread]
Um, er, ah, uh, mmmmm, what?That doesn't have to do with sexual promiscuity.
That's like saying that a bullet doesn't kill a gunshot victim, a heart attack from loss of blood does.Freddie mercury died of aids not sex. Blaming sexual promiscuity for his death is like blaming the deaths of flew victims for hand shaking and breathing. Kind of a silly argument if you ask me.
With the above position, I think this debate about this topic can go absolutely no where. Other than you live your life and worldview your way, and others will live it with a definable morality on the other.As for Mr. Hachett I can't comment on the morality of that,as I am ignorant of his plight, are you suggesting it is immoral to father children please elaborate. I think that case might have more to do with the use of contraception not promiscuity. Please be specific instead of stringing together one liners.
I'm not making the argument that the only ways to get HIV is by casual sex or that casual sex always causes one to die of HIV. My point is that people who have a lifestyle of casual sex are much more likely to contract venereal disease, some of which is deadly.DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 6 by 99percentatheism]
Here I will explain it in more simplistic terms using an analogy so you don't have to make a leap of logic to understand my argument.
When you are talking about sex causing death via AIDS/HIV what you are really talking about is the means of transmission. So the argument is as follows
Casual sex caused A to contract the HIV virus which led to AIDS and death.
Simplified: Casual sex caused person A's death.
No, many viral diseases are not as deadly and are not so directly linked to a particular behavior.Now that argument is obtuse and silly because that can be said of any viral or bacterial agent. I brought up the flu as an example of this for several reasons.
Here you are presenting raw death tolls and not factoring in behavior. This is deceptive. There are some three times as many deaths from the flu than from AIDS, but there are a lot more handshakes than there sex acts.1. About 10-15,000 people die of AIDS related causes on avg. per year. Similarly the Flu virus causes 3-40,000 deaths per year on average. So you have a Similar impact as far as health is concerned.
2. It has a transmission that is not associated with sex but includes touch and air. This is important because to make a valid comparison it needs to have a disassociated emotional context but still be similar enough in terms of impact and transmission the Flu fits the bill.
"People with flu can spread it to others up to about 6 feet away. Most experts think that flu viruses are spread mainly by droplets made when people with flu cough, sneeze or talk. These droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs. Less often, a person might also get flu by touching a surface or object that has flu virus on it and then touching their own mouth or nose."
So, let's use logic here. The greater number of means of transmission combined with the overwhelming number of periodic incidences of those means results in a death RATE related the flu that is minuscule related to AIDS. Also, the ability to control those means is much easier with regard to AIDS than there with the flu. Therefore, logically, there is no comparison between the morality of shaking hands haphazardly, and promiscuous sexual behavior. Though Howie Mandel my see the shaking of hands as risky, it does not involve biologically invasive behavior.Now using your logic in terms of AIDS/HIV we can make a logical comparison
When comparing of isolated incidents, that is not an insane comparison. In fact those are part of the standard diagnostic procedures in an autopsy. However, however, conflating that to a general population without taking the factors of invasiveness, nature of the means of transmission and rate as a percentage of the entire population, as you have done, makes the comparison completely invalid.Casual sex caused A to contract the HIV virus which led to AIDS and death.
Hand shaking caused B to contract the Flu virus which led to his death
simplified:
Casual sex caused person A's death.
Hand shaking caused person B's death
Now you can clearly see how insane the argument actually is. They are both the same exact argument using the same exact terms for cause. Is hand shaking immoral?
Yes, if everyone with a given disease had a big sign on them identifying all viruses that they carry, then there would be less risk. Kind of like the prenuptual health exams that used to be required in some places. However, we are not talking about responsible sex , but promiscuous sex.When you actually look at what caused the death its not the transmission its the virus itself. Sex and handshaking do not manifest viruses they help spread viruses but they are certainly not the cause of the virus. That is an important distinction to make when talking about these things. If you want to dismiss my reasoning I expect you to at least follow along and keep up with the conversation I don't enjoy giving remedial lessons in reasoning and logic now if you would actually care to address my argument instead of throwing out a string of baseless one liners I would be glad to have this discussion about the actual morality of casual sex and not discussions about disease transmission.
And people who have a lifestyle of shaking hands and hugging people are more likely to contract the flu. In fact people who frequently shake hands are more likely to contract a disease transmitted this way then those who don't. Some diseases are deadly.I'm not making the argument that the only ways to get HIV is by casual sex or that casual sex always causes one to die of HIV. My point is that people who have a lifestyle of casual sex are much more likely to contract venereal disease, some of which is deadly
Some deadly diseases are linked to the specific behavior of breathing does that make breathing immoral? Some diseases are linked to drinking water specifically does that make drinking water immoral? Some deadly brain eating amoeba's are linked specifically to swimming does that make swimming immoral? Again the cause of transmission has nothing to do with the morality of it.No, many viral diseases are not as deadly and are not so directly linked to a particular behavior.
That was not the intent the intent was to show that each disease causes a similar enough amount public harm. Your right there are a lot more handshakes that makes handshaking even more dangerous! Except we don't advocate people to wear gloves like we advocate people to use condoms. Hmm actually I think we just touched on to something that actually relates to morality. Depriving people of information that could save their lives seems like a pretty cruel and immoral thing to do wouldn't you agreeHere you are presenting raw death tolls and not factoring in behavior. This is deceptive. There are some three times as many deaths from the flu than from AIDS, but there are a lot more handshakes than there sex acts.
Notice how I said similar note exactly the same. Ebola transmits via bodily fluids is that close enough? or should I talk specifically about Naegleria fowleri a brain eating amoeba that is specific to south eastern lakes. You would have to specifically peform the task of swimming in south eastern lakes to become infected by this pest. It is a lot more deadly than HIV too 99% kill rate. Is lake swimming immoral?No, the flu does not fit the bill. Aids is a blood born disease and the flu, as you have pointed out is a water-air born disease. There are many more ways to transmit water than there are to transmit blood.
pro·mis·cu·ousYes, if everyone with a given disease had a big sign on them identifying all viruses that they carry, then there would be less risk. Kind of like the prenuptual health exams that used to be required in some places. However, we are not talking about responsible sex , but promiscuous sex.
Ah, we are playing the "Guess My Morality" game. In my view of morality not all immoral acts are equal and, risks to others and society are a consideration. It appears that in your version of morality neither of those are the case.DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 8 by bluethread]
And people who have a lifestyle of shaking hands and hugging people are more likely to contract the flu. In fact people who frequently shake hands are more likely to contract a disease transmitted this way then those who don't. Some diseases are deadly.I'm not making the argument that the only ways to get HIV is by casual sex or that casual sex always causes one to die of HIV. My point is that people who have a lifestyle of casual sex are much more likely to contract venereal disease, some of which is deadly
Secondly contracting a disease by an action has nothing to do with MORALITY which is the subject of the debate. It does not address the morality of the act it addresses a potential risk associated with the act but not the morality. The risks of which can be mitigated if not eliminated by safe sex practices, much like washing your hands after shaking someone else's hand.
Yes, indiscriminate breathing, drinking water and swimming are not only immoral, but they are illegal. The operative terms with regard to the question at hand from the definition you presented below are undiscriminating or unselective. If one is mitigating ones behavior, one is not being as promiscuous.Some deadly diseases are linked to the specific behavior of breathing does that make breathing immoral? Some diseases are linked to drinking water specifically does that make drinking water immoral? Some deadly brain eating amoeba's are linked specifically to swimming does that make swimming immoral? Again the cause of transmission has nothing to do with the morality of it.No, many viral diseases are not as deadly and are not so directly linked to a particular behavior.
Again, it is not the commonality of an activity that makes it dangerous, it is the rate and degree of the risk. When it comes to shaking hands and sex rate of and degree of negative consequences is night and day.That was not the intent the intent was to show that each disease causes a similar enough amount public harm. Your right there are a lot more handshakes that makes handshaking even more dangerous! Except we don't advocate people to wear gloves like we advocate people to use condoms. Hmm actually I think we just touched on to something that actually relates to morality. Depriving people of information that could save their lives seems like a pretty cruel and immoral thing to do wouldn't you agreeHere you are presenting raw death tolls and not factoring in behavior. This is deceptive. There are some three times as many deaths from the flu than from AIDS, but there are a lot more handshakes than there sex acts.
Yes, drunk man walking down the street and an airline pilot who is drunk on duty are similar, but the man walking down the street is less immoral than the airline pilot. Yes, promiscuous swimming, ie. without regard for the nature of the lake is immoral. The question is not whether sex is immoral. The question is whether promiscuous sex is immoral.Notice how I said similar note exactly the same. Ebola transmits via bodily fluids is that close enough? or should I talk specifically about Naegleria fowleri a brain eating amoeba that is specific to south eastern lakes. You would have to specifically peform the task of swimming in south eastern lakes to become infected by this pest. It is a lot more deadly than HIV too 99% kill rate. Is lake swimming immoral?No, the flu does not fit the bill. Aids is a blood born disease and the flu, as you have pointed out is a water-air born disease. There are many more ways to transmit water than there are to transmit blood.
You really just are not getting it are you? I could go line by line by line of your argument and none of it actually addresses the morality of casual/promiscuous sex.
What you are doing is addressing risks associated with the behavior your not addressing the morality of it. Why don't you try doing that.
It would be less promiscuous then, wouldn't it. Let's compare apples to apples. Which is less moral, risking condom failure in a committed relationship or a one night stand? A one night stand where one is honest about one's intentions, or sex in a relationship where ones intentions have been tested over time?pro·mis·cu·ousYes, if everyone with a given disease had a big sign on them identifying all viruses that they carry, then there would be less risk. Kind of like the prenuptual health exams that used to be required in some places. However, we are not talking about responsible sex , but promiscuous sex.
prəˈmiskyo͞oəs/Submit
adjective
1.
derogatory
having or characterized by many transient sexual relationships.
"she's a wild, promiscuous girl"
synonyms: licentious, sexually indiscriminate, wanton, immoral, fast; More
antonyms: chaste, virtuous
2.
demonstrating or implying an undiscriminating or unselective approach; indiscriminate or casual.
THIS CAN BE DONE RESPONSIBLY ITS CALLED CONDOMS ITS CALLED BEING HONEST ABOUT YOUR INTENTIONS. Having the state require prenuptual health exams is an invasion of privacy and immoral. If your partner is not being honest its immoral. There are lots of things that can be immoral.
