SUBSCRIBEBANNED for Talking About Sex?
As Easter approaches, I’m left wondering what’s become of our nation and of Christianity…
What are we coming to when we show blood and guts sprayed all over the TV, even on the Family Channel and Cartoon Network, but it’s wrong to even talk about sex. God forbid, someone shows a breast - we all remember the Janet Jackson incident. What should have been a funny blooper ended up being turned into a complete scandal.
When did sex become evil and wrong? When did war and violence become the norm? It seems that we’ve become so desensitized that no one gives it a second thought.
This Easter, I’m asking you to do just that. Think about it. Question it. Ask yourself why things are the way they are. Is it possible that we are holding on to beliefs that no longer serve us? Is it possible that we are following blindly in our parents’ footsteps without ever questioning the different motivations and circumstances between the generations?
It’s no wonder that our society is so dysfunctional when it comes to sex and relationships, and why our children are killing themselves in record numbers. When we value violence more than love, happiness, and joy - this is what we get. I’m definitely not talk about more censorship or taking away more freedoms. We’ve done enough of that already!
What I’m talking about is taking personal responsibility for our society today. It’s time to question everything and then do something about it.
So just exactly why am I going off on this topic when it really has little to do with dating and relationships?
For the second time, AskDanAndJenifer.com was banned by an advertiser, Kontera Technologies - for none other than Adult Content. Now I don’t know about you, but when I think of adult content, I think of Playboy TV and the like. But Wait! We have no nudity, no graphic language, and pornographic material at all on our website - Period! Check it our for yourself.
When we questioned Kontera about their decision, here’s what they said.
"Your site deals a lot with sexual relations, even that there is no nudity or graphic language, it is still considered as mature content with us."
"Sexual Relations" (you have to say it in a whisper so that no one will hear you). They couldn’t even say "sex". Kontera turned us down because we TALK about sex! That’s their choice and I’m happy that we live in a time where they can make that decision freely, but do they really think their clients are not grown ups with the ability to discern what they’re reading? And Heaven forbid (yes, that pun is intended), our children actually stumble across a web site that talks openly and honestly about sex. They may even grow up knowing how to make informed decisions about sex rather than learning everything from their buddies and worse yet their first boyfriend or girlfriend.
My real concern is that this decision by Kontera represents a much bigger problem. Their views about sex are reflective of our society as a whole. Where are we going as a society when I can talk about war and violence all day long and show gruesome pictures of this violence on my website with no ramifications what so ever?
But… When we start talking openly and honestly about sex and giving honest advice to people who have questions about dating, relationships, love, and sex, suddenly we’re put into the same category as child pornography and hard core porn? There’s something seriously wrong with that.
Our children grow up knowing more about combat strategies and murder than they do about their own bodies.
This is the real problem. It’s time to take the stigma away from sex and start talking about it openly and honestly for what it is - a completely normal and healthy part of our lives.
Have You Read These Related Stories?
- Marriage - Just a Legal Contract or a Real Commitment?
- Sex, Religion, and Hypocrisy - Will Embracing Your Sexuality Offend God?
- Help! My Husband is Addicted to Porn! (Video)
- Texas Polygamists Lack Freedom Of Choice
- BDSM Dilemma - Should I Tell My Parents? (Video)
Check Out These Helpful Resources You May Like...
Looking for Sex with No Commitments? Did you know that Adult Friend Finder gets more visitors every day than Match.com and eHarmony combined? Read the story »
How To Give Her Mind Numbing, Leg Shaking Orgasms... Do you believe your girlfriend or wife when she claims to have an orgasm? Here are some surprising facts... Read the story »
How to Approach Any Woman Without Fear of Rejection - Pick Up Secrets Exposed by a Woman How SHOULD a regular guy approach a woman to get her phone number, a date, a... Read the story »
How to Go Down on a Woman and Have Her Begging for More... Amazingly enough, many women have NEVER experienced an orgasm! Think about that for a minute... Read the story »
How Well Do You REALLY Know Your Partner? 1000 Must Ask Questions for Couples How compatible are you really with your partner? Down deep, where it really counts?... Read the story »
500 Sex Tips and Love Making Secrets That Everyone Ought to Know Think back to your last date... after the date, and to that special, sensual part of the evening. Do you remember... Read the story »
Subscribe to AskDanAndJennifer.com today and get the latest Dating, Relationship, Love, and Great Sex content sent straight to your email inbox. Do it today so you don't miss a single article.
We Recommend
Singles & Dating
Sex & Intimacy
Love & Relationships
Related Sites
Comments
79 Responses to “BANNED for Talking About Sex?”
Uncovering Sex and Sexuality Censorship in Today’s Business World…
The level of censorship and phobias that exit in today’s business world are astounding - surrounding anything dealing with or even mentioning sex or sexuality.
You may not realize just how much censorship takes place every day that is keeping yo…
In my opinion, any movie that deals with any kind of violence or gang material should be rated 18+.
Violence, organized crime, beating people up or shooting them should NOT be a norm in human life.
Sex however is a very normal natural thing. I remember reading an article very simliar to this once upon a time. Why violence is OK, yet sex is not? Sex is more natural than violence!!!
Aggression seems to have taken place as a social norm in North America, and that sentiment is spreading throughout. It’s enough that a lot of intellectual people question the government and its underlying bodies of regulations/agencies as the advocates of such propaganda. The message we get is that love, sex, and other normal part of warm human life is a tabooed subject, yet we’d gladly show our kids how to shoot, blow things up, etc., breeding antoehr generation of war-mongering assholes - a perfect blend to keep up wars such as teh Korean War, Vietnam War, and Iraq.
Maybe this theory goes a bit too far as a conspiracy theory. I question whether the authorities have this much say in this, but teh society is rolling itself in that direction, which is even more alarming!!!
Regardless, it is disgusting to see such a great blog with great insights being tabooed as “inappropriate” content.
I can’t believe how many people there are still who don’t enjoy sex for what it should be, cannot keep up a healthy relationship thorugh love and bonding and sex, and they consider it abnormal to do so.
Abstinence is NOT normal, NOT part of the human anatomy. Sex is.
I wish I was surprised. I think the issue is businesses wanting to sterilize their reputations. It shows how conservative our country is sexually.
I got shut down by an advertiser a couple of weeks ago because I wrote an article for rape survivors. They didn’t respond to my email asking them to explain their decision.
“Violence, organized crime, beating people up or shooting them should NOT be a norm in human life.”
EXACTLY. For some reason it’s ok to see someone getting beaten senseless on reality TV. I dread the day that I have to explain that to my son.
I know you two are in Texas. Last time I was in texas, I was too young to figure out what’s what.
And obviously I don’t judge people right away - Dan and Jen are obviously open-minded, well-educated, and are able to see through things pretty darn well.
But i’m wondering about the general sentiment in the southern states when it comes to issues like this.. I remember hearing about this highschool principal banning cheerleading because he felt it was immoral, and I believe that was from texas.
Are traditional and heavily religious views a thickly embedded part of life in a lot of the Southern states? I’m very curious to know what USA is really like..
Last time I was in the states, I was in Las Vegas - last december. It was a blast, met peopel from all over the USA and there was quite a collage of people.. Definitely a different places from vancouver for sure.
Sexual activity IS evil and wrong in God’s sight, when it is done outside of marriage between a man and a woman. The Bible says in dozens of places that the following things are sinful and condemned by God: fornication, adultery, homosexuality, sodomy and beastiality . . . and pornography is included because of one’s lusting in one’s heart. If anyone has a problem with these thoughts, they need to read God’s word and talk to Him about it. Christians didn’t make the rules; they just try to LIVE by them and are encouraged by God and Jesus to do so and encourage OTHERS to do so. By the way, as horrible as these sins are, God will forgive anyone of doing them if they REPENT, which includes confessing their guilt, expressing sincere sorrow for their sin AND CHANGING THEIR WAYS. God loves us–yes–and in return for that, He expects obedience to His will, as shown in the Scriptures. 1 John 5:3 says: “This is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.”
Ok, I feel a bit like Br’er Rabbit taking a swing at the tar baby here, but here goes.
Yes, Scripture speaks of the sinfulness of sex before marriage, but that is only for Christians. And even then, there is forgiveness in the eyes of God.
The deeper sin, as you well know, is judging others. Calling others out because of their views on sex is judgemental, and contrary to all of Jesus’ teachings.
You speak of the commandments, let’s not forget that the PRIME commandment, the rule above all other rules for Christians, is this:
Jesus said: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
In other words, judge not, lest ye be judged.
Perhaps before you condemn Dan and Jennifer for their openness about sex and sexuality, you should take some time to understand why they are talking about sex. From their mission statement:
“Our mission is to help people create more conscious relationships based on love and acceptance rather than fear, jealousy, anger, and ownership.”
Sounds a lot like what Jesus was talking about, doesn’t it?
In my observation, we have as a nation become confused about the difference between being sexually active and being in a healthy, committed relationaship (marriage). We have lost the balance of equal accountability between spouses and equal rights for both genders. We have ended up putting children at risk for the sake of political correctness, while preserving the idea that abusive behavior on the part of one gender would not be abuse if practiced by the other. In a misguided attempt to be ‘conservative’, we ban conversation that should enlighten when it is about sex, but we pander and titilate with violence in an effort to entertain. How sad. We should be talking about sex as a blessing to be shared responsibly, as a form of true communion, not taken lightly, but joyfully.
Oh Susan, you poor thing.
Who wrote the bible? Was that God? Have you ever tried to find out how the bible came to be? Was that God compiling the books?
There is more reference material out there, but if the Muslims want to relegate all thought to the Q’uran, the Jews to the Talmut and the Christians to the Bible, than Lord save the world. We’ll never get out of the ancient past.
Did you ever notice, Susan, that the Lord seemed to change his tune from the Old testament to the new? Little less bloodshed and mass killings? Turn the other cheek instead of an eye for an eye? Yeah, things change even for the Almighty.
Move along and don’t bury your mind in an ancient text. There is more.
Sex is not love. Sex is an act of love in the right context(marriage, committed relationship) I don’t want my child thinking its okay to have SEX anytime she feels like it because its normal. NOTTTTTT I country to going to crap because GOD has been taken out of everything and its only going to get worse.
I would say that the way you approach sex is the problem, not that you talk about it. We have a whole section of our store devoted to sex and the theology of sexual relations and have never been banned by anyone for “adult content”.
Your approach of everything is okay as long as it is consensual is the problem.
As a Seminary educated Minister of God, the Bible no where says that sex is evil. There is no doubt that man can use sex in an evil and deviant way, but that only makes man evil when he displays that type of behavior. Jesus was a sexual man. If you deny he came in the flesh, you are the Antichrist (I John). Many Fundamental Christians in America take scriptures out of context, like "….keep His commandments….", in order to manipulate people to control the way they think they ought to behave. In my professional and personal opion, this is an unloving and ungodly type spirit. At best, the attitude is an expression of ignorance, and at worse, the attitude is very legalistic, similar to those religious fanatics who wanted Jesus crucified.
I agree with Dan and Jennifer’s approach to sexuality. The subject needs to be discussed and is neither evil or dirty. We are all born with sexual desires because we are sexual beings. We are not born with a manual, but we learn our behavior from our natural desires and surrounding influences.
God gave us our parents to help understand that which is natural. Unfortunately, our parents in a lot of cases abrogated their responsibility of passing healthy sexual attitudes onto their children, and lately, it has been strict, legalistic, religious, and outside influences that seem to be gaining a foothold of influence on our society. These influences seem to be creating an overwhelming amount of undue anxiety and guilt onto a population that already excercises paranoia and low self esteem. God is the author of neither.
My hope is that none of you act in evil and deviant manners, but that all of you have a healthy sexual relationship with a significant other. The Good News is Jesus died for you so you can, and you can enjoy those relationships free from condemnation and within the love of God. I am convinced, that nothing, no, not principalities, governments, man, angels, or anything, can separate us from the love of God, not even people who want to misquote the Bible to judge us. I thank God that He is the ONLY judge that counts.
Becoming anestisized IS what is happening in this world.
Sex is suppose to be a private matter and everyone wants to portray it as something to do for those who are bored, just to pass the time away. Why don’t people get a real life and stop obsessing about living out fulfilling their own sexual gratification and fantasies!
Children are so over exposed today that they don’t have a chance to be children. It’s part of the way they can grow up to be responsible adults to make good choices in life. The same goes for all the violence, kids aren’t learning how to handle situations, they just react.
People like you who write this garbage are thieves, you are stealing from the younger generation their innocence. For the parents who are doing their best to keep the coruption out they still don’t have a chance. Our society is so permeated with it in everyday life that unless they move to nowhere land and have no tv or radio and never leave the house there isn’t a hope in hell for any of them.
Ditto to what Susan said. Many people have forsaken God and become prey to media influences which fuels the immoral society that presently exists. The permissive attitude that prevails blinds them to the fundamental issues of life.
What a sad commentary on our current society it is when a website dedicated to Dating, Relationships, love and Sex is being attacked by over-zealous religious fanatics for talking about sex. Folks, it’s in their definition.
The sad part is the only acceptable place for discussing sex for these people is with their preacher / pastor. These are the same people that tell battered women to stay married since divorce is a sin. What kind of rational advice are you going to get from someone who only has one acceptable outcome of any situation. (that outcome they read in the “Human Manual” called the bible)
Check the statistics, the countries that are the most restrictive with sexual discussion and nudity are also the countries with the highest sexual crime rates. Conversly, countries that are more open with the human body and sexuality have much lower rates of sexual violence.
OH MY GOD
I cannot believe there are religioius zealots like Susan out there still.
From the perespective of somebody who’s lived all over the world, and is very well educated/experienced with politics/cultures/religions, and from sombody who is very spiritual, I cannot hide my awe and shock at the degree of ignorance displayed in people who simply reason their rules by sayign “it says so in the bible.”
Bible was a man-made article, and so is religion. The God(s) never change - people do, and religion does. Take advantage of sex?? No, people have been taking advantage of the Gods to manipulate the learnings of people.
It was in the 4th century when Constantine, the emperor of Rome, who was, from a Christian view, a Pagan (he worshipped the Sun Gods, just like the Egyptions) who converted Rome into a Christian state, only because he realized Christianity was the next big thing, and to not follow the fad would mean a weakened Rome.
At this time the Bible was heaviliy modified, and based on the masculine, chauvinistic views of the panel who reviewed the gnostic scriptures from old who modified Jesus from a happily married Jewish man to some holy being who did not have sex. It is part of a gigantic cover up and a conspiracy which brings sex down, which brings women down as sexual objects shunned beyond the scenes, and used only to reproduce with upon approved marriage, etc.
Hey, Susan, have you ever looked at a dog, trying to get into his dog cage with a large stick across his mouth? The stick is too wide for the door cage, so he cannot get in. He keeps crashing into it. Now, if it were you trying to get a long stick into a door, you’d turn it around the long way, and get it in, right? Well, the dog, unfortunately, does not have that degree of wisdom - to get A into B, he shoves A into B as it is because that’s all he knows. And when you look at the dog, you realize the evident difference in the level of understanding of this world between you and the dog, and you sympathize.
That’s how I feel when I look at you.
Violence isn’t unnatural, sorry guys. Animals hunt and kill eachother for food all the time. There’s little difference; it just seems different because we have many different means of survival. They also fight over mates and infringement to their social standing.
Not that I agree with the censorship, just saying!
Ian
Why is consentual sex between willing partners the problem, regardless of what they’re doing?
I understand you’re saying “anything”, but again, where is the line of acceptability? What the bible says? What you say? What the government says? What I say? What your neighbor says? Do you see the problem here?
Why is one thing between consenting adults acceptable and not another? I think your attitude that sex between consenting adults has to pass your test of “approval” or it’s not OK, is the problem!
I am a Catholic and after reading what the Catholic Church teaches about sex, accept its understanding as the proper understanding.
Everything has a proper time and place. Sex is no different.
To A Visitor:
The problem with Dan and Jennifer is not that they talk about sex. More power to them for discussing it. The problem is that they have taken the approach that anything you get someone to consent to is perfectly okay.
I guess it wouldn’t be a big deal if they didn’t keep dragging Christianity into the discussion. No version of Christianity has ever espoused what they promote.
Ian, well your catholic, good for you. You don’t hear me critiquing you for your beliefs. Only 24.5 percent of the US population is catholic, so don’t expect the rest of the country to believe the way you do or act the way you do. You do your thing in the bedroom and we’ll do ours. (we’ll just have a lot more fun doing it). Sorry, just had to say it!!.. lol..
Please tell me again why something that you say is unacceptable, is wrong when agreed on by two consenting adults in the privacty of their own bedroom. Forget the bible, not everyone thinks it’s the word of god. Give me a logical reason. For many of the religious fanatics, I know logic isn’t a word you’re used to hearing, but let’s try a logical argument rather than a faith-based argument.
Lastly Ian, you said that Dan and Jennifer keep dragging christianity into it. I just did a quick re-read of their position and I didn’t see anything about religion. It’s people posting that bring religion into it, and normally it’s the religious folks that first bring it up and reasons why not to do something.
Dan and Jennifer, keep up the good work!
If you really want to discuss this, then we have to establish a couple of things first.
1) Is it possible to say that something is absolutely right or wrong?
2) If so, what criteria determines that and what is to say that the criteria is absolute?
3) If there is no such things as absolute right or wrong, what is the best way to determine what we arbitrarily decide is right and wrong?
Theology of the Body for Beginners
Ian,
Well, I’m not sure you really want to discuss this. I asked you a very simple direct question. You didn’t answer it and leave me with three questions you want answered. I’m going to answer them as best I can in good faith, hoping you then return with an answer and not just more questions.
1) Absolute right or wrong? I’m guessing you’re talking about moral relativism. Do I believe that there is an absolute right or wrong with no grey areas? No, and neither do you. The bible says "thou shalt not kill". Is that an absolute? What if someone is trying to kill you? What if someone is trying to kill your family? What if someone is trying to kill a friend or a neighbor? Is it Ok to kill that person in these situations? Would that not be a relativist attitude? What if you came onto a situation where one person was trying to kill another? Do you act, who’s the good guy / bad guy? Do you let the attacker prevail? Do you step in and help, and possibly assist the "bad guy"? Everything isn’t black and white as you might think it is. I know you think the bible will tell you all, but it’s not black and white either.
Another scenario, Eskimos in the frozen tundra have been known to put an infant or elderly person outside in the harshness of the winter to die. We look at this and say what an atrocity. However, in that situation, they only have a limited amount of food for the winter and a hundred generations of past experiences and learning tells them they don’t have enough food to make it through the winter and have everyone survive. The then face the dilema of letting the "weaker non producing" member of the family die in the winter, vs having the entire family run short of food and everyone die. Maybe you’d just have faith that god would allow a shorter winter so you could all survive, but then you might have just killed your entire family if your wrong. Maybe you’re Ok with that and will say it’s god’s plan. But, the rest of the world might see if differently.
There are rights and wrongs that can be explained with logic. Murder is wrong. Logically you can’t have a society where people can go around killing others, there would be no security. So for a society to exist, Murder has to be illegal. However, as pointed out earlier, there are grey areas, which is why we have courts and judges. Logic can help determine what is right and what is wrong. Even in the bible, right and wrong changes. Just look at the differences between the old and new testaments. What about the differences between the bible and the Koran? Muslims will tell you that Sharia Law is the only absolute right and wrong. Why are they wrong and you’re right? Every religion has their own text that will defend their actions and beliefs. Why is yours correct? So, to answer your question. I’d say there is no absolute right and wrong, there are shades of grey in everything. This being said, there is right and wrong, and all can be explained logically. Your questions 2 and 3 are both answered in this statement as well.
Now, please answer my earlier question about why something between consenting adults in the privacy of their own bedroom should be of your concern or should be wrong. And why is it wrong for Dan and Jennifer to tell consenting adults that as long as they’re consenting it’s Ok?
The reason I asked is because I can’t begin to make a point if we aren’t in agreement about right and wrong.
To you, it seems that morality is based on what keeps society from destroying itself and what is “necessary” for survival.
If I understand you correctly, there wasn’t anything wrong with the holocaust because it was a decision made by a government, backed by the court system and didn’t lead to societal chaos.
There also wasn’t anything wrong with slavery in the US because, again, it was agreed on by the legislature and backed by the courts.
I’m asking these questions not to put off your initial question but to clarify if you really mean that there are no absolutes. If you truly don’t believe that there are absolutes, then nothing I can say will mean anything to you.
If that is the case, then I certainly don’t want to live in a country run by people like you because then you could legalize or ban anything for any reason. At least in a Muslim country, as repressive as it is, I know where I would stand and what I could and couldn’t do.
Religions are merely an ancient method of interpreting God as well as a propaganda tool to govern nations by a common moral value.
The way any religion interprets God is far below the greatness of this universe, and every religion tries to humanize God to such a low level it’s disgusting.
I find it incredibly disrespectful for people to think that God is petty enough to bless or condemn individuals for their own actions - that this God figure even gives a damn about it.
God, if it exists, is much more than a humanized being - it is the ultimate being that created the quantum physics of this universe, created the rules of chemistry, created every law of nature that permits a balanced world to exist, and gave every living being the power and the potential to have free will.
If you think God concerns itself with whether you takle it up your ass or not, you must be referring to some tribal leader of an ancient wizard of some sort, because God is much greater in scope than that.
I’m not saying there’s no wise teachings in the Bible - every bible or myth does, just like the Koran, Greek Myths, ancient Egyption myths - they’re all on a parallel, and equal to each other. But you must realize they are all man-made, and artificial.
When I see somebody quoting the Bible like it is the words from God that never changes and is the only law to follow, I feel like I’m looking at a 3 year old arguing about nothing.
Jeff - you come by this definitive knowledge of how God and the universe operate… how?
Ian,
Of course we’re not in agreement about right and wrong. Why else are we having this conversation. You think it’s wrong for a couple to do something that’s outside your scope of what some individual, the pope, interprets from a book written two thousand years ago. I think that’s absurd. I think if you have consenting adults in the privacy of their own home doing anything they want sexually is fine, you don’t. So, lets make one thing clear, you and I don’t agree on what’s right and wrong, so let’s stop tyring to pretend that’s the reason your dodging my question. The real reason is you have no logical answer to back your premise. All you can do is quote the bible or quote the pope’s interpretation of the bible. That’s not logical. So, if you can’t answer logically, then just say so and we can continue with the discussion at hand. Just say your entire belief system is based on faith and you can’t locigally explain many things. At least I could give you credit for honesty.
Now to answer your other ridiculous statements. Did you honestly just say that the holocaust didn’t cause social chaos?? You’ve got to be kidding me! 6 million people are pulled from their homes and slaughtered like cattle and that’s not societal chaos!! What would you call chaos?? Homosexual’s living together, is that chaos to you??
Of course Slavery was wrong. Our society recognized it was wrong and corrected the problem. Why don’t you look at the history of Christianity and tell me there weren’t many many mistakes made that were corrected. In fact, if you want to really talk about where chaos lives, just look at the history of Christianity over the past couple thousand years. More people have died at the hands of man in the name of religion than any other cause!! Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not anti religion, I’m against people of religion throwing their beliefs on everyone else.
Now, I’m going to ask again for you to answer the question at hand that I’ve asked you twice already and you’ve dodged twice already. Also, considering our discussion here, you’ve refused to address any comment I’ve made directly. All you’ve done is make generalizations. If you have a problem with something I’ve said, please address it directly, rather than only bringing up other topics. I’d also like to hear your take on the absolute of “thou shalt not kill”. Read my previous post if you need the reference. One more thing, considering the topic at hand here is absolutes, and you’re claiming absolute right and wrong, why don’t you give me an example of an absolute after answering my other question.
Ian,
It’s a far better explanation than some mystical God who flooded the world while tipping off one guy about it. It’s a far better perception than some God who wrote out 10 rules on a piece of stone.
It’s a far better explanation than some God who claims to bless all human beings yet allow a free-for-all economic imperialism by the Bush administration to allow the invasion of Iraq, and allow globalization to reap the wealth from the 3rd world countries and pour them into the 1st world countries, hence creating places like South East Asia or Africa (and what a joke, we set up charities from North America for these people - it’s like raping, and then cuddling to say sorry).
I have those theories (and a lot of intellectuals do) after observing different parts of the world, learning more about other religions and cultures, and after studying science and quantum physics as well as human psychology with a deep level of understanding.
I’ve lived in 3 different countries across 2 continents, I’ve been through polical turmoil of all sorts and seen religious conflicts and the ideas. I have a very deep understanding of those things - theology, culture, science, human nature, etc.
I’m not some kid who grew up in rural Arkansas going to Church every sunday, being preached at about the "American Way of Life" and "God’s Will" while not knowing what is beyond the borders.
That’s why I have that perception of what the universe is made of. I’m not saying I’m 100% right - but it’s a better explanation than from any religious standpoint.
I have never heard a Christian or a Jew take “Thou shalt not kill” as anything other than “Thou shalt not murder”. It has never been understood as a blanket condemnation of all killing. That’s just a straw man.
Why was slavery wrong? You say it was but you also say there are no absolutes. You can’t have it both ways.
The holocaust didn’t cause societal chaos for Germany as a whole. The war did. In fact, if Hitler had just kept to himself instead of invading Europe, her probably would have been able to kill all the Jews in Germany without any other government lifting a finger. Again I ask, if Germany saw the Holocaust as being in its best interest, why was it wrong? Everything was voted into law and the German courts didn’t disagree so you can’t even really call it murder since it was legal.
Back to your original question, would you consider the stability of a society a general “good” that we could agree upon?
Jeff - Why couldn’t an all-powerful god / God / gods spend some of his / her / its infinite time paying attention to his / her / its creation while still allowing for free will?
I don’t think the Bush administration is exactly proof that God doesn’t care.
Ian - think of a lab where they try to culture germs or cells.
When you put the samples into a petri dish and start the nurturing process, it’s more or less a given that a lot of the specimen will be killed off throughout the process.
Imagine God being the lab researcher, and us as the cells. The researcher is much more of a greater being who set up the environmental variables in order to make the whole cultivation a success, and couldnt’ care less about the 1.5 million out of 10 millino specimens that were killed off in the process.
That’s how I view God vs. human relations (and I don’t even believe that humans on this planet are the only intellectual beings - God made it possible, by law of physics for some planets to be habitable with living organisms that proactively create chemical reactions - we are one of the 0.0000000000000001% chances).
Ian,
I so love how the religous folks will change what the meaning of the bible is to suit their needs. It is clearly stated that “thou shalt not kill”. It doesn’t say thou shalt not murder, or thou shalt not kill unless your life is in danger. It says “thou shalt not kill”. So, basically, you’re interpreting “god’s meaning” of the word kill. How about we do that throughout the bible? I’m sure we could really come up with a lot of changes. You either believe the bible is true as written or it’s not, you can’t change words to suit “your” needs. You’re not even changing something small in a later book. You’re changing the Ten Commandments!! Again, I don’t care how christians or jews interpret the word “kill”. It says kill, not murder. So, you want to talk about a straw man!!
I will say again, taking 6 million people from their homes and slaughtering them like cattle, having employees of the government responsible for the killings. You’re still saying that’s not societal chaos. I don’t even know how we can continue talking if you can’t admit that chaotic!! There were about 43 million people in Germany in 1940, kill 14% of the population and that’s not chaotic! And to answer your question again even though you’ve still refused to answer my simple question. Why was that wrong, as I mentioned earlier, logically, for any group or society to exist, there has to be some level of security that someone, whether it be an individual or a government, won’t come into your home and kill you and your family. That’s simple logic.
So, you want to talk about Slavery? Our society defined slavery as being wrong. Do you know that most of the people taken from Africa to be slaves were already slaves in Africa? Do you know your Christian history?
“Although slavery was widespread in Palestine during Jesus’ ministry, the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) does not record his opinion of it. Slavery was casually mentioned without criticism in the various books of the Bible. It was accepted as a natural part of life by almost all Christians until the 19th century CE”
Do you realize that most of those who promoted slavery throughout history have quoted the bible and used it as reasons to justify slavery. You say I can’t have it both ways?
Would you please just answer my question. I’m not going to answer another random question from you until you answer the question I’ve posed to you three times already! Again, just admit it if you don’t have a logical reason. At least I could respect that answer!
Ian,
One other point. Since I’m guessing you’re going to argue forever about the meaning of thou shalt not kill. So, lets change slightly to something you can’t argue. How about thow shalt not steal? Is that an absolute? How about for the folks in New Orleans after Katrina. The grocery stores have no power and are flooded. You’ve got no food or clean water for you or your family. The government isn’t coming in right away, is it Ok then to steal food and water from the grocery stores? Or is it still wrong and you just go ask for forgivenes and say a few heavenly fathers or hail marys and you’re good? Have you ever thought about that, when talking about your absolute right or wrong? Your argument is that you can do what you want, kill, mame, steal, rape whatever. Ask for forgiveness and you’re good. I don’t really see it that way.
Also, you were talking about thou shalt not kill actually meaning murder. However you attacked me and said I was condoning the holocaust by saying that courts determine what’s acceptable killing. Aren’t you saying the same thing? Who determines the difference between killing and murder? At least while we’re here on earth, it’s the courts and legislature. So, you’re arguing against your own argument!!
RR - Yes you are right. The Bible does state “Thou shalt not kill” - in its original English which I kind of doubt the Hebrews spoke several thousand years back. If God really meant not to kill, why did He then tell them to conquer Palestine? No Jew or Christian group has ever understood it to mean what you want to make it mean now. Again, a strawman of an argument.
I would be happy to provide you with a logical argument concerning sex but we have yet to establish what logical is to you.
You keep saying that slavery is wrong but instead of explaining why, you launch into a tirade against the Christian understanding of slavery. That’s called avoiding the question.
Concerning the Holocaust, was it only wrong because it, in your opinion, upset the stability of German society? That’s all you come back to. Germany seemed to think that killing all the Jews would actually improve the health of its society.
I can’t even begin to have a rational discussion with you about this until we establish what I asked in my original questions: Is there any absolute morality or is it based on the whim of the government / people? You say that there are no absolutes but then say that slavery and the Holocaust were wrong. You can’t have it both ways.
If it is based on the whim of the people can we at least start by saying that a stable society is a “good” thing?
Some of the most frustrating responses to get from hard-core bible-thumping christians is “God works in mysterious ways” and such things.
I can see why RR is getting pissed off cause I certainliy am. And I’m in agreement with RR’s view on social rights and wrongs.
The Gods never change. Religion does because people change.
Ian - God didn’t tell anybody to invade Palestine.
It was the Jewish who viewd the Arabs as the enemy, and the British/USA who capitalized it by using it as an excuse to install a pro-western regime of Israel in the Middle East.
Israel’s very existence is not justified - it is the one country that SHOULD burn and be razed to the ground. It is part of the Balfour Declaration which is a completely biased and unfair view of how the Middle East should be.
Once again. Israel MUST be razed to the ground by Hezbollah and PLO in order to restore balance in the Middle East. This may sound extreme but it is true.
When Korea was taken over by the Japanese, who was in alliance with Hitler, we had several activists organizing bombings and assassinations. We called them freedom fighters, whereas the Japanese called them terrorists. Thats how I view Hezbollah and the PLO- they are freedom fighters, fighting for what is right.
Israel must be gone.
Ian,
Knowing you were not going to admit that thou shalt not kill meant kill is why I went ahead and adjusted my argument to thout shalt not steal and gave that example. Which you again dodged. You also dodged the fact that you’re holocaust argument is only arguing against yourself since you said that the bible meant thou shalt not murder is what was meant. Germany didn’t look at it as murder, but cleansing. So, again where is the difference between murder and self defense or “god ordered killing”, it’s determined by courts and legislature.
Wow, I love how you guys use the translation argument to your favor when you want to change the wording. However, when someone uses the fact that the original language of the bible didn’t have a direct translation into english as an argument. Devout Christians will defend the accuracy of the bible. Talk about having it both ways.
I’ve defended my argument time and time again using logic and making logical arguments. You’ve don’t nothing but ask more questions and using questions to defend your premise. You say there is an absolute right and wrong, and yet the difference between the old and new testaments it tremendous. Your absolute right and wrongs sure changed a lot from old to new. So, the other question I’ve asked is why don’t you give me ONE absolute and lets see if you even believe there are absolutes.
Now, regarding slavery again. Is slavery an absolute god ordered wrong? No, I don’t believe there are god oredered rights and wrongs. But again, logically there has to be security that you’re not going to be dragged from your home to become a slave for another person. So it can be explained logically that slavery is wrong. Also, because one man is no greater than another man, that man shouldn’t be a slave to another. But again, if you really want to argue whether slavery is right or wrong, look at the bible. It’s full of “acceptable” slavery.
So, if I don’t get an answer in your next response, I’m done with this discussion. I’m not wasting any more of my time considering you don’t even give me the courtesy to answer the question at hand. And lets not forget it’s not my question, it’s you’re premise that you stated in an early post critisizing Dan and Jennifer for saying it’s ok as long as it’s between consenting adults. So, either answer / defend your premise or don’t even bother. You really seem to have a problem making any defense of your argument. Again, just say you can’t defend it and we can go on discussing the other issues at hand. So, assuming this wont happen, to the others reading. I’ve enjoyed this topic and hope we all had fun.
Jeff - RR asked me to provide you with a logical reason why sex between two consenting unmarried adults is wrong.
In order for me to do that, we first have to establish what “wrong” is and what “logical” is.
RR has said that slavery is wrong but also that there isn’t any absolute determination of right and wrong. That doesn’t make any sense and makes it impossible for me to say anything since we can’t even establish whether or not some things are always wrong.
The person you should be pissed off at is RR for continuing to set up a strawman and refusing to come to terms with his inconsistency.
It’s like he pulled out some board game, told me there are no rules but then asked me to play against him by some rules that he refuses to define.
What a surprise. Still no answer to defend his premise. So, if anyone else would like to discuss this topic, I’d love to continue.
Ian has asked me many many questions which I have tried to answer as best I can. Ian talks about absolute right and wrong. I’ve tried multiple times to get him to give me just one absolute right or wrong and he’s yet to do so.
Now, to Ian. Do you even know what the term “straw man” means. I’m thinking since I was expecting a logical argument that you just “googled” logic and read a few things and Straw man sounded good to you.
For those of you who don’t know, here is the definition of a straw man.
“A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “set up a straw man” or “set up a straw-man argument” is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent’s actual argument has not been refuted”
Ian has made an argument that consenting adults doing something in the privacy of their own bedroom is wrong if it’s at odds with his view of “theology of the body” which is Pope John Paul 11th’s view of how sex should be from the bible. So, Ian makes this premise and, in 7+ posts has refused to give any reason for his premise. All he has done is create a “straw man argument” about absolute right and wrong, which could have some relivance if he chose to use them in his defense of his argument, but he’s yet to put up any rhyme or reason for his argument. The holocaust and slavery arguments are really nothing but trying to get an emotional reaction from emotional topics. In all this he can’t even give me one absolute right or wrong, which is his argument to begin with.
I’ve said things are wrong, murder, theft, slavery and have defended them all logically and given logical reasons for why they are wrong. I’m yet to get one reason or explanation for Ian’s positions.
And Ian, I haven’t said specifically “unmarried adults” you have since brought in that term. You said:
“Your approach of everything is okay as long as it is consensual is the problem.”
So, that’s my problem with you. Consensual sex between adults is fine. Wheteher married or not, whether it falls into something you consider “taboo” or not. You seem to think only what you do in the bedroom is Ok, I think it’s Ok as long as it’s consensual. That’s the argument at hand.
Now, Jeff Kee.
I appreciate you defending some of my positions, however, after your last post, I’m going to have to distance myself from you. I don’t want to drag in a discussion on the middle east here and won’t get into that argument here. Now, I’m not at all and Israel defender or even supporter, but, when you defend the PLO and Hezbollah as freedom fighters and then make the statement that Israel must be razed to the ground. You just took a dive off the deep end my friend! Just lost a lot of credibility. Again, this is a dating, sex and relationship board and I won’t get into a middle east discussion.
To any North American and a person of the Westernized world that’s a tough one, especially for America.
I’m not anti-semitic. I have Jewish friends, but I also know that there are anti-zionist Jews as well, because they realize that the forceful eviction of the Palestinians from their land by the Brits/Americans 60 years ago was.. well. A load of sh*t.
But then they are US allies, and hence Canadian allies - where to draw the line of what is fair vs who’s side we take?? I don’t take sides. I just look at what is fair, and what is rightfully theirs. The land of Israel belongs to the Palestinians. If they can’t fight it back then so be it, but if they can, then they have every right to do so.
RR- The issue with Katrina and Theft wasn’t dodged, there was a delay in moderation of posts which made my response come in after your Katrina post before I ever saw it. It’s funny that you keep bringing up religion when you keep asking me to prove something without using the Bible or anything religious.
I said I could make a logical argument about why consensual between unmarried adults was wrong. The problem we have here is that you first, refuse to use logic. Telling me that people need security is not a logical argument to explain why the holocaust was wrong, it is simply your opinion. Why is personal security an absolute? Does the freedom from fear trump what a society deems to be in its best interest?
With slavery, you say that no man is greater than another. Why is that an absolute? If I am stronger than another man and can make him do what I want him to, doesn’t that make me greater? It seems that in a world without religion, the only logical assumption, based on Darwinian principles of science, is that the strongest genes should win out. Where does your “all men are equal” belief come from? It certainly isn’t from nature.
In order for me to make a logical argument without using the Bible or religion that “Consensual sex between unmarried adults is wrong.” we HAVE GOT to first establish two things:
1) What does “wrong” mean?
2) Is societal stability a “good” thing?
Without establishing some concrete answer to these two questions, making any defense of my proposition is like you asking me to paint you a blue house but refusing to tell me what shade of blue to paint it.
Jeff - concerning the Hebrews and Palestine, I was talking about the original conquest several thousand years ago, not the modern occupation by Israel. I think the current occupation is immoral on basic human rights grounds. I am curious why you think it is “wrong” since you think we are all just random samples in a giant universe of a petri dish. What do you base right and wrong on? Nature seems to say strongest wins.
You also talk about “Bible thumping Christians” and how they won’t make a logical argument, just keep saying it’s God’s will. I have heard just as vague and mysterious (one could say religious) statements coming from atheist / agnostic scientists concerning many unexplained things in science such as “How did the universe begin?” “What caused the “Big Bang”?” “Where did the matter come from to start the universe?” “What is gravity?” “What is “dark matter” and how does it create a gravitational pull to keep the universe from flying apart?” Scientists can’t answer these questions but they still hold that everything can be scientifically explained even though the “Big Bang” contradicts laws of physics.
Wow, Ian, you’re a magician. You again, dodged the question at hand. You said you didn’t intentionally dodge the Katrina question of whether thout shalt not steal is an absolute and yet you still didn’t address that topic, you just said you didn’t dodge is, and to top it all off, after asking 4 times for you to give me one example of an absolute right or wrong, you’ve still yet to do that. Do you understand what a back and forth discussion is?
So, let’s look at the fact that this board isn’t just you and I, but that there are other people reading this. You say that you can explain anything to me because you think I have a warped sense of right and wrong and can’t explain any of my beliefs logically. Although, I’ve tried to do so for the past 7 posts. So, for the sake of all the other people out there reading our discussion. Why don’t you explain to them why any type of sex between consenting adults is wrong. The only absolute I really see is that you absolutely refuse to answer any question posed to you. So, maybe you’re right, there do seem to be some absolutes.
Now, point by point. The only religion I’m bringing up is trying to give an example of what you might consider as an absolute by using the ten commandments. This is only because you REFUSE to give me even one example of absolutes you seem to claim exist.
Next, you claim that I don’t use logic in my argument. My logic of security being the basis that murder, theft, the holocaust and slavery being wrong is sound. How do you think the first humans formed small groups together, (ie simple societies). They had to have simple agreements that they wouldn’t kill each other. So, to help you understand this, for example, if there were no laws regarding murder or theft, would you live alone somewhere in the wild where you might have some resemblace of security or would you just take your chances living in a society where the person walking down the street could just kill you on a whim? Or might you actually form a small group of people where you had an agreement that murder would be wrong, and hope everyone followed this. So, this is a very logical reason for murder to be wrong.
You are in some way right in your Darwinian argument regarding slavery and the strengh of man argument. However, only slightly. The reason is the Darwinian law of “only the strongest survive” doesn’t fully apply to man after we formed societies and especially after we formed advanced societies. Again, security for people in a society has to exist. If this wasn’t the case, each person, if able, would relocate to a group where they could be the dominant one. This would be a problem for the smaller weaker of the species. There would be no security that a stronger person wouldn’t come and enslave or kill you. This theory is also non-applicable after man invented weapons where anyone can kill or enslave another via weapon. My view that no man is greater than another comes from our society. However, if you actually read the other posts, you’ll see where I said that I don’t see slavery as being an absolute wrong. Again, how you make any argument of slavery when the bible condones slavery throughout ABSOLUTELY amazes me! (quick point on the darwinian argument. Many scientists will point out that the weakening of the human species is a result of the weaker of the species pro-creating over and over again. This doesn’t happen in nature, and we’re now paying the price)
1. Wrong means anything that can be explained with logic why it isn’t acceptable, why it can’t exist in any society. Again, what’s wrong in our society might vary in another society.
2. Don’t think I don’t know what you’re doing here. You’ve been laying this trap for 4 posts now. You’re trying to lock me into an answer about stability so you can claim that unmarried sex destabalizes a society. Poor argument, but I believe that’s what your trying for here, so here goes.
Of course societal stability is a good thing, but not the only thing. For example, war greatly de-stabalizes a society, and yet in many cases it is needed, so while important, stability isn’t the only standard for right or wrong.
So, now let’s see how you’re going to side step all the questions at hand this time. I said it before, but if you again dodge every question at hand and just again prove you’ve got no defense for your premise, this will be my last post directed at you. I’ll no longer respond to what you have to say. Again and again, I respond and try to answer the questions you’ve posed to me and again and again, you just play games. So, this is your last chance to make any point. I’ll give you a quick review of the topics at hand.
1. Why is consensual sex between adults in the privacy of their home wrong?
2. What is or are examples of an Absolute right or wrong?
3. How do you defend the Katrina argument about the absoluteness of “thou shalt not steal”?
Let’s see what happens now.
Hoo ha, but you two go at it!
Blah, blah blah.
Let’s forget all this fancy shmancy bible vs logic rhetoric and look into ourselves.
To harm another is wrong.
It’s your conscience that tells you that, not society, not culture, not law, whether God-given or Legislature ordained.
How are consensual activities harmful? Given that both parties are informed and not under any duress.
Who is harmed? Both have enjoyed themselves, smile at each other and feel like they have shared some intimacy and a moment apart from the general public.
Of course slavery is wrong. It usually subjugates an entire people and forces the will of another upon it. Is that not harming another. Sure it is. There’s no question here. Ask yourself, would you want to be a slave? If no, then how could you do that to another? Simple as that. Golden rule.
Forget destabilization! Forget security. That’s a lot of hot air. Would you want your people killed off? No? Gee, then don’t support those who do it to others. Holocaust wrong? Duh. Murder is murder no matter whether it is state sanctioned or not.
No one else is in this conversation because you two are making the whole discussion cumbersome and winless. Too many words, not enough heart.
RR - I would say that the intentional taking of someone else’s property without permission and without any intention of compensating that person for the loss is always wrong, even in the case of Katrina. If those who took necessities (food, water) intended on paying the stores back in whatever way possible, then I would say that it wasn’t wrong.
I would also say that the intentional killing of an innocent human being is always wrong.
I don’t know why asking if a stable society was a good thing is a “trick”. It seems to follow directly from your Hobsean absolute that people feeling secure is an absolute good. Which then contradicts your later statement that slavery isn’t always wrong. I’m confused.
Okay, so this is where we are.
1) We have concluded that personal security is always a good thing (I think).
2) We have concluded that, contrary to proposition 1, slavery isn’t always wrong and that because the German government thought it was in its best interest to intern / kill .75% (not 14% as you asserted earlier) of its population, the Holocaust wasn’t wrong either.
Since the two propositions can’t be logically reconciled despite your claims otherwise, I will start with proposition 1 and go from there.
1) Personal security is always a good thing. I am stating this since it seems to be the one common thread you come back to even though you contradict yourself several times.
2) Personal security can only be guaranteed in one way: living in a stable society. Unstable societies may sometimes be able to guarantee personal security but can’t always; therefore a stable society is best.
3) A society is stable when a) its economy is growing b) when the great majority of its members are psychologically sound c) when those in the society can trust the other members of society in the various agreements they enter into d) when the population age distribution is in a pyramid form so that there are enough younger people to i) keep the population from collapsing ii) support the higher costs required for care of the elderly and sick e) when its members accept and defend the premise the society was founded on f) when the society is strong enough to defend itself against foreign influence and occupation.
There may be some I have missed but I think this pretty well covers it.
4) Sex has three results a) pleasure b) bonding between those having sex c) reproduction.
5) The bonding aspect of sex has been shown to be a scientific reality. The release of various hormones during sex leads to the creation of bonds between those involved.
6) The reproductive aspect of sex is essential to the stability of society. If the society isn’t reproducing, a), d) and f) of 3) are threatened, leading to societal instability.
7) Children are most psychologically sound when they are raised in a stable environment. There are plenty of studies that show that daycare, multiple marriages or no marriage at all lead to psychological and economical problems that lead to societal stability problems.
9) If 5) is true, then consensual sex between unmarried people leads to a psychological contradiction - my hormones, emotions and mind are bonding me to this other person but I also know that this person can leave at anytime. Such a discrepancy can lead to two things: a) a suppression of natural mental responses to sex in order to continue such behavior and or b) a general distrust of anyone who the person has sex with. Either result is bad and leads to the instability of b) and c) in 3).
10) As is frequently the case, sex leads to reproduction. If the child is born to unmarried people, the consequences of 7) and
kick in and lead to an unstable society.
11) Even if reproduction in the unmarried population could somehow be completely eliminated, either through forced abortions or perfect contraception, the problems resulting in 9) would still be occurring.
12) As I have stated in 2), a stable society is the only way to guarantee personal security if individuals plan on living in society. Therefore, it is in the best interest of society that its members engage in sex only within the context of permanent marriage otherwise the consequences resulting in sex between any consenting unmarried individuals, if performed by a large enough portion of the population, will result in the instability and collapse of the society resulting in the loss of personal security of its members.
13) Therefore, consensual sex between unmarried people is always wrong as it leads to the instability of society and the loss of personal security which was asserted as the greatest good in 1).
The sunglasses smiley was supposed to be the number eight and a parenthesis. The blog automatically converted this.
Peter, unless there are some absolutes, your conscience is just your own personal opinion. Maybe my conscience tells me that enslaving others is okay. Sure, I don’t want to be a slave but I sure want to be the slave owner so I will do whatever is necessary to keep myself in a position of power.
The golden rule is useless in a Hobbesean world because doing unto others as you would have them do unto you only works as long as someone doesn’t think he can amass enough power to seize control of the society for his own personal interests.
Machiavelli did a good job of proving this in The Prince and Stalin and Hitler put it into practice.
In a world with no absolutes, everything is based on the whim of the most powerful in society - a pretty scary way to live.
Peter, good point. As much as I agre with what you’re saying. There are many others that don’t see anything but the bible, and although I know that there is no way I will change any minds (don’t want to change any minds anyway) but it becomes a discussion that at a minimum gets people thinking and talking.
Now, Ian. My first thought and comment is, Was that so hard to do?? You finally made an argument. Although I disagree and will attempt to dismantle it, you finally (after way too many posts) made an argument. I’m going to start with saying Thank you for doing so!
Regarding Katrina, in that situation, taking food and water to keep your family alive, especially in a situation where what you had taken was going to go bad anyway, can’t be considered wrong. I think you saying you would have to do so with the intention of paying the store back is just making hot air in an attempt to defend your point. This of course is only for the necessities and does not in any way defend the people taking TV’s, CD’s or that damn woman that stole a Dyson Vacuum cleaner! They all should be thrown in jail!
I will mostly agree with your statement of killing any innocent human is wrong. However, how about in the case of the Eskimos living up on on the pole (see earlier post)? What about in the case of assisted suicide for terminal seniors in constant pain? That’s a tough one, I agree, but in many people’s eyes, an acceptable “murder”.
The reason I said your social stability comment is a trap is because you’ve been trying to get me to commit to that statement since you and I started talking. That’s the entire basis of your argument and that’s why you wanted me to commit to it. Hence it was a trap so to speak.
Next post will work the rest of your argument.
Sorry, I didn’t want this to be a post that was too long to read (hence breaking it into two.) I’ll work your argument point by point.
1) I never said that personal security was an absolute good, I said it’s a good basis for a logical argument. It can be taken too far and violate other’s personal security at the same time. But for the sake of argument, lets say that personal security is primary.
2) I said Slavery isn’t an absolute wrong, this being because I don’t believe there are absolute wrongs. Again, how do you defend calling slavery an absolute wrong and yet it being condoned all through the bible? I definately never said the holocaust was not wrong. Btw, 43 million people in Germany at the time, killing 6 million is 14%, not .75%. That doesn’t even include the 1/4 million non jews (political prisoners, homosexuals, jehovah’s witness, communists etc.) I don’t know where you’re getting your numbers.
So, to sum up. We can somewhat agree on number one since personal sercurity in generally is a must, but not an absolute. Number two is completely incorrect.
You start again with 1 and 2.
1) Same as above #1.
2) No society can guarantee personal security, stable or not. So, this one is out completely. Secondly, you then follow up with unstable societies c