Hedonism and Hell-Raising – The Dialogue #67

13
353

After talking about morality vs. hedonism, we get into discussing the woman’s march, and why hysterical liberal women fail to represent the dignity of true women. Also, Tim suffers a flashback attack regarding a 4 year old conflict over “the condom myth” (and BOY was that drama!). And are babies in style again? Only if you’re Beyonce! Lastly Cal and Tim discuss some mind-numbing personal experiences they had over the past week involving an islamic apologist, and a Brooklyn yuppie.

 Subscribe

13 COMMENTS

  1. Cal, this is one of those episodes where you make a lot of sense.
    I had a feeling you two would talk about Ashley Judd’s nasty woman speech.
    And it’s weird how Tim stopped the video clip at exactly the same mark I did. LOL.

    Any women who enjoys bashing the male gender has father issues.. It really doesn’t matter how males in general treat you, when your father-daughter relationship is okay, no women in her right mind and a healthy self image would find themselves engaged in any male bashing sessions whether private or public.
    I actually feel for Ashley Judd, Madonna and the rest of these angry speakers, they have a lot of suppressed unresolved father issues carried into their late adulthood.
    We should pray for them for healing.

  2. AFlowerofStTherese 
    I’m only about 1/3 of the way through this episode, so I might add another comment later.
    In the part of seen Cal has made sense but his underlying premise remains hollow.
    His argument is “too much of a pleasure ruins the pleasure.” That’s a grossly limited premise to base one’s ethical principles on. How can this logic be applied to sexual ethics?
    Sin damages and distorts the conscience. The more one embraces sin, the more harm it does. I’ve read examples of heterosexual males who started by indulging in soft core pornography. They then moved to harder pornography and the type of pornography continued to get more and more extreme, because they needed a harder dose of it over time to get that same pleasure hit. I’ve even read, back when I was researching this area, examples of heterosexual men who ended up becoming homosexual men after years of abusing hardcore pornography.
    As Cal rejects the law of procreation completely as an ethical premise (having rejected God and intelligent design), his moral premise doesn’t allow him to simply say unnatural sex acts are sins. To him, they are perfectly fine in moderation irrespective of whether they are natural or unnatural i.e. in accordance with Divine Law.
    Unfortunately it doesn’t work that way in the real world.
    Sin is toxic. It kills some slowly. It kills others fast. But in either case it always causes immeasurable harm over time, to individuals, families, communities and whole nations.
    Romans 6:23
    23 For the wages of sin is death. But the grace of God, life everlasting, in Christ Jesus our Lord.

  3. Holy_Fire AFlowerofStTherese  “His argument is “too much of a pleasure ruins the pleasure.” That’s a grossly limited premise to base one’s ethical principles on. How can this logic be applied to sexual ethics?”

    But I don’t base my ethical principles on this one limited premise. My words were in response to a direct challenge that someone issued me on the subject of hedonism. I said this in the video. Do you realize that you are being dishonest? And if you do, could you please stop it?

  4. AFlowerofStTherese  “Cal, this is one of those episodes where you make a lot of sense”

    LOL thank you very much glad to be of service 🙂

  5. CalKane Holy_Fire AFlowerofStTherese 
    That was the argument you made against hedonism.

    I illustrated why the argument you gave is unsatisfactory and you’ve offered nothing of substance in response.

    If you’d like to give a fuller answer or clarify why not simply do so instead of trying to make it personal?

    If it’s easier to simply label me as ‘dishonest’ instead that says a lot more about you than it does about me.

  6. Holy_Fire AFlowerofStTherese You seem to have an axe to grind for Cal. Sometimes you’re too hard on him or you judge him  unfairly.  I’m not asking you to give him a free pass (and he wouldn’t want one anyway) but I wish your criticism was a little more fair and less demanding.  I though this “too much pleasure ruins the pleasure” point was quite good. It was simple, concise, and true.  It isn’t the whole of his philosophy on the matter, but that wasn’t the purpose.  Play nice, boys, play nice. Don’t get too rowdy 😉  God be with you my friend.

  7. JediMasterTim Holy_Fire AFlowerofStTherese 
    Brother, the worst thing I’ve ever done to Cal, numerous times (although not more recently thanks to praying the full traditional rosary daily, it’s soooo calming), is laugh at the absurdity of his logical premise where it contradicts. Was this laughter a little rough? It probably was given that my tone and behaviour has naturally refined itself since doubling down on the Holy Rosary.
    You’ve lectured me here on being more respectful to Cal and then concluded your lecture by saying that the point which offended him in the first place was a good point! Hahaha
    Brother, no axe to grind! Sometimes the truth in and of itself is an axe, case in point! Hahaha
    You guys spent part of this episode mocking ‘snow flakes’ and right now you and Cal are both acting like a couple of snowflakes together! Hahaha
    Love you both Tim (lighten up a little)! 😉

  8. Holy_Fire 

    I really don’t know where all this is coming from brother and it’s not something I enjoy at all. The whole point of the show is to compel people to engage in honest and calm conversation, not draw a line in the sand and start trying to score points. And if you have to use this style of conversation, all I ask is that you give me a fair shot and at the very least engage with what I said and not try to twist my words. I think this is a fair request.

  9. CalKane Holy_Fire 
    Cal, I stopped laughing because I knew it was offending you. I’ve got no problem with toning it down. This message from Tim was just too much though. I had to laugh at that one with all due respect! hahaha
    You’re completely misunderstanding me. In that reply to you ‘offense taken’, I didn’t laugh at you for this very reason. What I did do is turn what you said around back onto you to encourage self reflection. It was a fair response given the accusation you made toward me (implying dishonesty), which again, lacked substance and needlessly diverted us down this road going nowhere fast. (And no, for the record, I wasn’t offended in the slightest in that reply. Again, it’s purpose was to encourage self reflection and to challenge you to dig deeper).
    I think it’s best you have a good chat to Tim in private about this particular exchange.
    It’s been completely blown out of proportion.
    Love you brother! Chill!

  10. Cal/Tim,
    A good show with considerable diversity the very concept of integrating women’s rights and sharia law, and the fact someone said that I would suggest that this shows that the brain is in neutral at best.
    As far as the subject of hedonism goes I never got the impression Cal that you were or show any tendency having viewed the Dialogue over the last few months since coming across the site. Your use of the law of diminishing utilities to show your point was well stated . When you see modern society it doesn’t look promising for those who have a rational moral mindset and what Tim showed that women’s march is disturbing for the future in the western world. There are no safe spaces for the rationality minded as we become fewer do you think that we can claim minority rights? In the past liberal political ideology wasn’t as insane as it is today when Winston Churchill first entered parliament he started on the liberal benches
    Tim one of the speeches of pope BenedictXVI warned against the tyranny of moral relativism about a decade ago

  11. Holy_Fire JediMasterTim AFlowerofStTherese  I’m just saying “play nice”. It’s not a lecture. You sometimes work in a little venom in your responses to him (whether you’re trying to or not). I’m only saying it’s unnecessary to talk to friends that way. Challenge him if there’s something to challenge him on; push hard if there’s something to press him on. But don’t attempt to belittle him in the process.  That’s all I’m saying. It’s not a big deal.
    Thanks brother. And love you too!

  12. Hi Cal and thanks for answering my challenge! So my last name is actually Paolantonio. I didn’t want it to be do long during comments lol. I understand a little better where you are coming from but the reason I thought you were kind of trapped into hedonism by your idea of objective morality was less from the “maximizing pleasure” aspect of hedonism and more of the other half of it (which might be more important to hedonism) and that is the minimization of pain/suffering. You did mention this briefly but you didn’t probe that enough. If you say that science is how we determine human well-being, how can we be scientifically certain that if a person is suffering, it’s for their own good? I can almost guarantee that the person who is suffering is not going to like being told that it’s for his/her own good lol. And there is the problem of science being fallible and I don’t see how a truly objective morality can be fallible. If it’s fallible, it’s subject to change/correction. The operative word in the previous sentence being SUBJECT lol. I remember you saying that back in the day, scientists believed that electroshock therapy was beneficial despite the suffering it caused. Well, now science believes that it was wrong on that. So did a good thing become a bad thing over time? I look forward to your response!

    Matthew

Comments are closed.