@SFaccountant  
I’ve abstained my whole life as well, at being at the point during which I’ll probably have the highest libido of my life, I can’t say I’m struggling with it xD

@Lawful Girly  
Well, this is kind of late, and pretty pointless, but I don’t understand how abstention is any kind of achievement. I’ve done it all my life, and it’s REALLY easy.  
Not saying that having sex is a big deal either, but I at least have to admit that a lot of people DO say that. Hence the joke. Which I found quite amusing, regardless of the feuding that it’s apparently caused.

@Lawful Girly  
I’m not sure how much intelligence changes over time, but knowledge certainly does. (Either one can be pretty useless without the other though) Regardless, someone could be ignorant and stupid, that doesn’t bother me. What really bothers me is a person who beyond all doubt is ignorant on a subject or incapable of properly understanding a subject, and yet they insist they’re knowledgeable. (I’m not talking about this conversation, really just a rant) Look at people who argue science, especially in politics. You’ll see an English teacher stating to know more about the state of the earths climate than the whole of scientific minds and scholars, it’s really quite upsetting to see people think like that.

@Lawful Girly  
Whether or not it’s possible, that was the question. We are on a site about fictional talking ponies after all. I could just as easily say that you were transported to a different reality, whether parallel, ponyville, whatever. If ones objections change or go away completely in this scenario, then they’re not being entirely honest about what the root cause is, and it is that root cause I’m looking at, since if it’s a more practical subject that root cause is what you’re trying to solve. Like debated about eating meat, it’s actually becoming possible to just grow meat without a living animal, therefore the root cause is being addressed rather than trying to minimise problems.
 
It may not lead to any real change, but I still think it’s a useful way of thinking, essentially trying to think as objectively as possible. Like when you get down to the root cause of someone being homophobic, if you really pry then the only real reason they have is person distaste. If someone were to recognize that that were the root cause of their dislike, it leads to the possibility of acceptance should they realize personal distaste isn’t a valid reason for calling something wrong. I’d say such style of thinking has it’s place, but of course isn’t perfect.

@Techy Pony  
Oh, also, that test was ~7-8 years ago, and I’ve only gotten smarter since then. XD That said, this is at least the most literate, not to mention cogent, argument I’ve seen on the Internet in years, meaning both sides know what they’re doing, so, good.

@Techy Pony  
Yeah…not entirely sure what that says about Derpibooru, you, and/or them. Probably best not to ponder too hard.  
I’ll also probably PM you later, but quick thoughts: 1) if you have to put that many “what ifs” into something to make it palatable, that should tell you something, and 2) it’s fruitless and a tad nonsensical, like asking, “If all humans were inherently good, what would be the harm in war?”

@Lawful Girly  
You wouldn’t believe (or you might) how many times I’ve had a conversation on derpibooru and it ended in someone saying they were just trolling. Why can’t someone just have a genuine conversation, dammit? xD
 
“I just disapprove of promiscuity and prefer abstinence to casual or unwed sex.”
 
While I can agree with this for the most part, especially in the real world, I don’t find either inherently wrong. As in no good really seems to come from casual or unwed sex, but that doesn’t mean it’s inherent of the action. (will elaborate in a bit)
 
“the nihilism should have been a clue”
 
Frankly I didn’t want to get into it, the conversation already side tracked enough as it was.
 
“Really, though, you should save the putting words in people’s mouths for tumblr.”
 
If I did so it was not my intention. Being that it’s difficult or impossible to outright change someone’s opinion, one’s best bet is to make them realize that they do agree with you on some ground, and try to make that point extend further into the subject. At the very least it might inspire some personal thought, which is really the only way people change their opinions, they have to come to conclusions on their own, you just have to try and lead them in the right direction pointedly. (since I’ve never really recapped with anybody after a conversation, I have no idea how successful any of it is)
 
Since anyone can lie “through their teeth” on the internet, stating IQ really doesn’t mean much. Regardless, the top 1% means an IQ of 135+, and while 135 is nice and all, I prefer being in the top 0.14% xD However, despite some massive disagreement and unnecessary insults, it was apparent you are above average.
 

 
 
!!!(I ask a million little questions in the following paragraphs, do not even attempt to answer them all please, it’s really more of a big picture type of question split up)!!!!
 

 
 
Anyway, back to my original question “Do you find anything inherently objectionable about sex?”
 
The simplest way I can put it is that if anything were to change that could make it acceptable in your eyes, then you don’t find it inherently objectionable.
 
Ex.-If someone were to state that there is not moral way of eating meat, though not necessarily practical in real life today, I’d ask if there was anything inherently objectionable about eating meat, meaning is there anything about the act of eating meat that is immoral. They might say “yeah, because it required killing an animal”. I’d say “I never said anything about killing an animal, just eating meat. If a person could eat meat in such a way that never in any way shape or form required harming (physically or emotionally) an animal, would it be acceptable then?” What if it were like star trek, you’ve got a replicator and you can simply manufacture meat that never came from a living animal, then one would have to concede that in that case eating meat is fine, and thus not inherently objectionable.
 

 
If disease were eliminated would that make sex more acceptable? What about if it were possible to prevent fertilization 100% of the time when desired? (that way there’s no dispute about killing a fertilized egg)
 
You say you don’t like ”…promiscuity and prefer abstinence to casual or unwed sex.” Does that mean sex is fine when it’s in wedlock? (did all those social negativity go away?)
 
About all those social disadvantages, what if with time they all disappear as society evolves? Homosexuals are leaps and bounds more accepted today than even 50 years ago, changing gay from being a social impossibility to something closer to normal. If all these negativities went away would you disapprove of sex then? Sure we don’t know if that’s possible or if they ever will but that’s not the question.
 
“Sex is objectionable in all social conditions because it tends to promote social disharmony and undermine personal and public morality. It is to be avoided as much as possible. Thus abstinence is better.”
 
What if it didn’t? It may currently work that way, but the way it works isn’t inherent to the act. If all these things were not the case, and they are not inherent to sex as such social ideas have evolved greatly showing they’re not fixed, would sex be fine then, completely unobjectionable?
 
Is it possible that there is any way for sex to not have anything negative associated with it, if so then you must concede that such negativities are not inherent, and merely common place. Could any situation exist such that you’d have absolutely no reason to want to abstain, where abstaining poses no benefits, such that avoiding sex would be denying pleasure and profound connection for no good reason.

@Techy Pony  
OK, I can’t hold it in any longer. I’ve been having way too much fun with this. The truth? I just disapprove of promiscuity and prefer abstinence to casual or unwed sex. About halfway through this I decided to make my arguments as ridiculous and over the top as possible to see how long you would keep arguing about it (the nihilism should have been a clue). Pretty long, turns out. It just looked like you were being sophistic and I was bored. I generally don’t like trolling, but eh.
 
This isn’t an excuse, I’m not mad, and I might actually agree with you after all in some form or other. I don’t know. Really, though, you should save the putting words in people’s mouths for tumblr. We’re just here to see the ponies. C’mon, man. So what is it you were gonna say?
 
As far as that last part I was referring to my ranking in the 99th percentile of IQs nationally (IE the top 1%), which is true. It isn’t always that helpful for Internet arguments, though.

@Lawful Girly  
Learn what “inherent” means, re-read my original question and understand what I’m really asking, and you will understand how unnecessary this conversation was and how unnecessary you going on about how your opinion won’t change was. I’m not saying we were actually agreeing due to some passive aggressive agenda, but because it was actually the case. Frankly, I’ve not been trying to convince you that you were wrong, but I was trying to understand how you felt on a particular question. I was not trying to alter your morality, but rather figure out what it really was, your “superior intellect” should’ve told you that. Just fyi, having a unique opinion on something doesn’t mean it came about due to superior and unique thought and that you’re “not following the crowd”, it could just as easily mean you’re wrong in a ridiculous way.
 
Your intelligence has been confirmed mechanically? What does that even mean?

@Techy Pony  
Oh, @Lawful Girly, is that so? And here I thought you just called that dodging the question. And heads up: personal ethical questions can’t be learned, merely evolved over time. As I said far before, you will not convince me to alter my morality, because my convictions are firm. I came to state my opinion on a matter, and I’ve stated it, and yet you continue to try and “disprove” something that can’t be disproved, or attempted to show how I must really be thinking like you. Yet you think I’m being arrogant. I certainly don’t need your input to confirm my intelligence (it has been done mechanically, but that’s another story).
 
This is true–but so are the most intelligent of people, self-assured that “If you don’t think like me, I need to convince you that you really do or should!” They won’t consider viewing things from the other perspective and insist on carrying on long arguments.
 
As you’ll notice in the above post, I consider it a necessary evil. And I didn’t say I hated my life, in particular…

@Lawful Girly  
Screw it, an arrogant and elitist attitude isn’t worth my time. You’re not concerned with having an intellectual conversation, rather you simply want to feel you’ve “won” despite not actually doing anything but annoy your opponent. As I said, if you’re here simply to “confirm” how smart you think you are, rather than make any effort at learning, then I’m done.
 
I think you can agree, the stupidest of people usually are the most sure of themselves, the most cognitively biased don’t need anything more than “I thought it, it must be right”.
 
If you disapprove of sex soo much, you must really hate your life knowing it was required for your existence.

@Techy Pony  
That would be more of a panel or a summit. The goal of debate is to force the other party either to admit to being wrong or to become discredited in the eyes of the audience. I might say the same to you: I offered to end the argument a while ago, but you insisted on continuing. Seems to me like you just can’t believe someone both disagrees and won’t immediately back down. Morality, further, is an entirely Old Testament affair so far as I’m concerned. Oh, and the “ No, no, we really agree” technique is classic passive aggressive patronizing.
 
 
@AlsoSprachOdin  
Resisting one’s natural impulses.

@AlsoSprachOdin  
While I would gladly refute those points, I’m losing the desire to stay conscious. (Alarm clock is going to wake me in 1-2 hours, assuming I sleep at all)

@Lawful Girly  
The goal of a debate should be for both parties to come away with something new, hopefully right, or just simply inspiring thought, since unless we’re dealing with outright factual information there’s unlikely to be a black and white shift in opinion. If your goal really is merely to patronize (sure debate usually is patronizing, or simply leaving the false kindness at the door, but that shouldn’t be the goal) then this is a waste of both of our times. If you want to simply feel superior to someone, do so with someone who won’t try soo hard to make you second guess that.
 
Besides, patronizing would require hiding ones superiority complex behind a veil, which you quite hidding a few comments ago. Though I’m fine with blunt speaking, I must say I prefer a little kindness, especially when on the subject of morality.

Wow. That, as they say, escalated fast.
 
@Lawful Girly  
What? All you gotta do is sit on your flat ass.
 
@Techy Pony  
Alright.  
Pros: Assisted masturbation.  
Cons: Investment of time, energy, money. Risk of STDs, pregnancy, relationship.

@Techy Pony  
It’s patronizing. And really, isn’t that the goal of debate?

@Lawful Girly  
Being a little less snarky when I’m saying you’re not wrong (though you’re saying I am), even though I could’ve just as easily just said you were being irrational (as you said of me) would be greatly appreciated. As with every debate, we both think the other person is wrong, doesn’t mean one has to outright say it.

@Techy Pony  
Oh, yes, please do share your zen master-like wisdom. True, I don’t know everything (Socrates), but I do know morality and to a large extent history. So by all means send me a PM, but don’t expect to dissuade me, which you apparently do (despite noting that you must be somewhat wrong).

@Lawful Girly  
It’s a little complicated and long winded, and can send you a private message tomorrow (or rather later today) if you’d like to see if we are in fact in agreement.

@Lawful Girly  
Keep in mind everyone is sure their opinions are the right ones, despite the fact that statistically they’re likely at least partially wrong. True wisdom is knowing that you don’t know everything, rather than being sure you do.
 
i.e.- I admit I could be wrong, but unless you have infallible evidence on your side, (which if you understand my question you’d realize you in fact do not) there is evidently possibility that you’re the one who’s wrong yet your stubborn human cognitive biases prevent you from seeing it. (I’d prefer to think though that you simply misunderstood the question)

@Techy Pony  
Oh?

However, I’m not yet convinced you understand the question I’m asking. I don’t believe we’re in disagreement, it’s just the question I’m asking is one that’s difficult to word and I’m pretty sure if we were on the same page you’d agree, as one of your previous comments suggest you do agree.

@Techy Pony  
I wasn’t going to point it out, because I’m polite, but…

@Lawful Girly  
Well if neither of us will ever be convinced of the opposite side, then one or both of us is thinking irrationally ;) (since both sides can’t simultaneously be right)

@Techy Pony  
Not you–society. And you’re never going to convince me nor I you, as you said, so there’s no point in beating our chests.