Has anyone been able to rebut Bertrand Russell's famous argument In Marriage and Morals? Einstein even gave great praise to the work
>Love as a relation between men and women was ruined by the desire to make sure of the legitimacy of children.
>The psychology of adultery has been falsified by conventional morals, which assume, in monogamous countries, that attraction to one person cannot coexist with a serious affection for another. Everybody knows that this is untrue.
>Even in civilised mankind faint traces of a monogamic instinct can sometimes be perceived.
>I should not hold it desirable that either a man or a woman should enter upon the serious business of a marriage intended to lead to children without having had previous sexual experience.
>Science enables us to realise our purposes, and if our purposes are evil, the result is disaster.
>Joy of life... depends upon a certain spontaneity in regard to sex. Where sex is repressed, only work remains, and a gospel of work for work's sake never produced any work worth doing.
>Gluttony is regarded by the Catholic Church as one of the seven deadly sins, and those who practise it are placed by Dante in one of the deeper circles of hell; but it is a somewhat vague sin, since it is hard to say where a legitimate interest in food ceases and guilt begins to be incurred. Is it wicked to eat anything that is not nourishing? If so, with every salted almond we risk damnation.
Russell's father allowed Russell's mother to sleep with Russell's tutor, and Betrand Russell grew up to be a genius and win the Nobel Peace Prize.
Russel is a cuck, stop spamming him or i'll smash your mothers pussy
>>1230582
How about a reason-based argument instead of ad homs?
>>1230582
>>1230908
Why use reason when you can just spam the same thread over and over again, right?
>>1232244
Are we really going to call "letting someone else fuck my wife" reason now?
>>1230576
It seems pretty silly, honestly, but I assume much of those lines are out of context with one another.
I'd imagine the largest criticisms would be raised against sex and love. To think of sex as this important to the joys of life and that it is in dichotomy with work seems excessively irrational and ignoring of the finer and respected parts of love itself.
Dealing with attraction and affection, it extends from love that you wish to fulfill one another in a relationship in every respect. Mainly emotionally but also sexually as well. To involve others purely out of attraction shows a failure to love those involved but simply use others. And if one in a relationship turns away from the other to use yet another for their gain then it would follow that the one rejected sexually was done so lack of utility in comparison to the one accepted. The one doing adultery has literally expressed a lack of affection (in different ways) for both parties in the act itself.
And the gluttony comment seems like a throwaway. It is vague and thus requires contemplation, which the church praises, but he fails by mentioning damnation as what he's speaking about deals with a venial sin. I highly doubt he even grasps the venial/mortal sin dichotomy.
>>1232244
Why does right look like a Jew? Shouldn't it be the other way around?
>>1232264
If you charge them for it
>>1230576
>MUH ENGLISH FALLACY
>>1230576
>Love as a relation between men and women was ruined by the desire to make sure of the legitimacy of children
Only if you're a sex addict.
>>1233444
>>1233439
He's self-hating.
Because if you commit to someone and they decide that you aren't enough, what purpose is there for maintaining this imbalanced relationship? As has been said in this thread, the "free love"/ polygamy concept boils down to just using people for a fix. For a short feeling. But loving someone isn't just a feeling, it's an act of devotion.
If you can't devote yourselves to each other, then why pretend that it's love?
>>1230576
>how do we draw the lines
>More autism
gah
This way of thinking is so boring to me.
