How do Japanese people feel about kissing in public?

TOKYO —

In Japan, you’re not likely to see too much public smooching going on. As well as being reserved and modest by nature, most Japanese people also believe that drawing attention to oneself in public is bad manners. However, there are certain circumstances under which these rules are relaxed, as explored in this street interview video by That Japanese Man Yuta.

While the interviewees initially claim to be uncomfortable with public kissing, hand holding, and smooching, their answers do change somewhat depending on certain caveats. For example, being in a reduced state of inhibition, like after having a few beers, seems to make people more inclined to ignore the stares of others and get up to some public canoodling.

Another factor that might surprise some viewers involves the nationality of the other party in the relationship. Some interviewees said that they’d be more inclined to get smoochy with someone from a more “expressive” background like some countries in Europe, even if they were in Japan.

Rationalizing that dating someone from another country means embracing their culture, some interviewees said that they’d be okay with doing whatever their partner usually does in public in their own country. Interestingly, several interviewees said they’d be more likely to smooch with a foreign partner in public if that person were exceptionally attractive.

However, even the liberating feeling that comes from dating a foreigner can be curtailed by the restrictions of being Japanese in Japanese society. Overall, the people interviewed in the video seemed to have quite reserved ideas about public displays of affection in general, which pretty much confirmed our suspicions before we watched.

What do you think? Would you happily smooch in public places? 

Source: That Japanese Man Yuta

Read more stories from RocketNews24.
Men & women vote on which anime character they’d want as a little sister
Japanese people give their thoughts on Gaijin Hunters/English Vampires
Here’s what Japanese people think of Hollywood’s recent “whitewashing”【Video】

  • -9

    sensei258

    I don't see a problem with a quick peck, a hug, or hand holding. But if I see a couple really goin at it, I'll say something, especially if there are kids around.

  • 7

    Moonraker

    As well as being reserved and modest by nature, most Japanese people also believe that drawing attention to oneself in public is bad manners.

    Where do you even start with a sentence like that?

  • 0

    syarp

    The day when Japanese people show their love including in public maybe the country will be better understood and liked. Love is everywhere, remember :-) ?

  • -1

    sensei258

    Love is everywhere

    That's right. Like last summer at the beach when I saw two guys french kissing in front of everyone

  • 9

    Rightsided

    Japan tries to emulate western culture in almost every other aspect of life, why not how they show affection?

    Let's face it, Japanese people shouldn't have to change how they act or live in order to be "liked" or fit in. Besides, I'm happy to see some of these people not engaging in affectionate manner anyway.

    Be yourself Japan!

  • 5

    goldorak

    First, 'hand holding' and a 5min-long pash/snog on a public bench/ street are not in the same 'display of affection' category and the latter isn't that common either in so called 'expressive' western countries.

    Actually have the impression I see as much 'hand holding' in japan as I do elsewhere tbh, especially among young couples. The pashing thing is a different story and I would say most of it happens in/.around clubs, bars, pubs at night time when alcohol is involved etc rather than randomly at say 5.30pm in front of a grocery store. Dunno if it's westerners who are becoming less expressive or Japanese who are catching up but imo the 'display of affection in public' gap between the 2 isn't that obvious in 2017.

  • 8

    bass4funk

    Doesn't bother me, it depends on the person, some people are very affectionate publicly and some aren't. My wife is a passionate woman and just follows her feelings and doesn't pay too much attention to the social norm, but some care very much about it. Nowadays, I see more young people kissing out in public and not caring so much and as long as the individuals involved feel comfortable about it, it's a good thing.

  • 1

    smithinjapan

    "As well as being reserved and modest by nature, most Japanese people also believe that drawing attention to oneself in public is bad manners."

    I always love ridiculous generalizations like this, which are inevitably followed by one of three things: 1) except with certain conditions (as with the "caveats" here), which are vague and all-encompassing, 2) excuses, like, while... that's different! (When they refuse even to admit #1), or when they run out of attempts to justify, 3) you can't understand because you're not Japanese.

    In other words, Japanese don't generally kiss in public, unless they do.

    I don't care as long as its not full-fledged heavy petting in public for lack of a hotel. In fact, it can be quite sweet to see a couple kiss, regardless of age, when they're smiling and happy. Who are we and what right do we have to interfere in their moment of love and happiness? To those kissing, I say "who cares what others think?" If they don't want to, then fine. Oh, and I've been with a few who liked doing it because it was with a foreigner, which is a little sad if that was the only reason.

  • 4

    commanteer

    I saw a well dressed middle aged couple going at it on top of some garbage bags in the street once in the middle of the night. The nearby love hotels were probably all booked. Very romantic to see such passion is not confined to youth.

    However, I don't see why other Japanese should feel pressured to kiss in public if they don't feel comfortable with it. To each his own. I rather like the usual reserve of the Japanese in this regard.

  • 4

    paulinusa

    I've seen hand holding quite frequently in Tokyo, especially among younger people.

    "Interestingly, several interviewees said they’d be more likely to smooch with a foreign partner in public if that person were exceptionally attractive."

    Not sure what this indicates. Maybe it's an ego thing: "Hey look at me kissing this beautiful/handsome person.

  • 0

    lostrune2

    Here, let me do it, then I'll ask them afterwards, lol

  • -1

    bones

    I don't have a problem with it, and if it's two women kissing even. Enter.

  • 1

    Yubaru

    I don't have a problem with it, and if it's two women kissing even. Enter.

    Then you shouldn't have a problem with this either....

    That's right. Like last summer at the beach when I saw two guys french kissing in front of everyone

    If you are ok with one the other should be fine as well right?

    A show of affection is one thing, but lip-locked, well, that should be saved for somewhere a little more private, IN MY OPINION!

  • 1

    Novenachama

    To kiss or not kiss remains an ambivalent question where different layers of meaning disguise any straightforward attitude to the gesture of kissing. So taking a closer look establishes that in communication, nothing is straightforward as it seems, however culturally determined as it may be, culture, as such, is in constant flux and human interaction, therefore, is continuously changing and adapting. Thus the only thing we can is to pay close attention to our surroundings whenever we are, and be prepared to kiss or not.

  • 1

    choiwaruoyaji

    Just have a long deep kiss in public... the world won't end and you'll feel happy.

    The funny thing is, some Japanese women (especially hot mature women) are amazingly talented kissers... they really get into it and give it all they've got.

  • -5

    MsDelicious

    What did kissing arise from? What is its purpose to be exact. I don't mind holding hands in public, but heavy spit swapping should be done in private.

  • 1

    Thunderbird2

    Had two Japanese girlfriends... holding hands in public was as far as it went. Once gave one a peck on the cheek and she gave me a bollocking for doing that in public. So not all Japanese ladies who date people from abroad accept our little ways. Oh and hugging seems to be okay, as long as not many people are around lol

  • 2

    Leander van der Plas

    As a westerner I would feel a bit awkard on Japanese streets regarding what is acceptable in public and what's not. Somehow I even had that with smoking :D

    On the other hand I wouldn't french kiss at daytime on a busy spot here anyway (I'm living in The Netherlands). Its not only cultural but als personally dependable.

    And may be because so few Japanese have a relationship they feel confronted with that fact when they see a couple being intimit in public LOL

  • 0

    bones

    Two women, two men, doesn't bother me. I don't let what two consenting adults do with one another bother me at all, unless it effects my life in a negative sense or interferes with my progress. I would just be more inclined to watch two women playing tonsil hockey that's all.

  • 4

    kaynide

    Honestly I've never personally seen that big a difference on this topic between couples in Japan and America. If anything it might be regional. In my hometown in USA the people tend to be fairly conservative/traditional. I would hardly expect a girl from Tokyo to have the same mannerisms as say, Okinawa.

  • 2

    FightingViking

    smooch with a foreign partner in public if that person were exceptionally attractive.

    Oh ! Maybe THAT explains why, many moons ago, when I first arrived in Japan, my Japanese boyfriend (later - husband) came running towards me along the Shinkansen platform in Kyoto and gave me a BIG kiss in front of everyone ! I certainly wasn't expecting it because he had told me, before leaving France, that kissing is NOT done in public in Japan...

  • 2

    smithinjapan

    Remember my first girlfriend here after I arrived... we were still pretty new in the relationship and after a date I left her with friends she was going to meet for a kind of enkai. I wanted to give her a peck on the cheek, but as her friends watched us I just gave her a quick hug and said she should email me later. I started to walk away, but it wasn't what I wanted. I had wanted to kiss her, and something in me decided I would, others be damned. I walked back to her, tapped her on the shoulder, but instead of a peck when she turned around I put a hand behind her neck and wrapped the other around her waist and dipped her slightly, giving a good, deep smooch (no tongue). Her friends were surprised, as was she, but they said, "iiiina!", and said girlfriend was just speechless. I said I couldn't resist it, and reiterated my call for her to email me later. She did, and said she never thought about kissing in public or being involved in other displays, but being taken by surprise like that the way I did it was very romantic and exciting. Things were quite good after that for a while, but eventually she didn't even really like to hold hands in public. It was a romantic and passionate moment, and that was part of it, but I expect they (her friends who later complimented her) thought it was also part novelty. Ah well... still a great memory.

  • 2

    therougou

    I don't mind seeing couples kiss, but what I can't stand is when they stand there close to each other and talking like that Schmoopy thing from Seinfeld. Even worse is when they pick at each other's face or ears. I have no idea what couples are doing sometimes but it makes me sick.

  • -1

    Frederic Bastiat

    Depends on the persons, in fact. I've been with both deeply passionate ones and cold ones. Married a passionate one!

  • -6

    mt9334

    Kissing, a means of showing affection, ought be done sparingly in public. Furthermore, if done in public at all, it ought to be done solely by a male with a female. What is true and correct need not be kept hidden, although what is reserved for ones mate is to be kept from others (visually), or else it is not reserved at all.

    How do we know what is "true and correct"? Heck, basic biology will reveal that the sexes are to mate not with the other as our physical structures are such that they reveal this. Only those blinded by their own desires would ignore what boilogy teaches and succumb to their perverse desires.

  • 1

    Confusius

    Kissing, a means of showing affection, ought be done sparingly in public. Furthermore, if done in public at all, it ought to be done solely by a male with a female. What is true and correct need not be kept hidden, although what is reserved for ones mate is to be kept from others (visually), or else it is not reserved at all.

    How do we know what is "true and correct"? Heck, basic biology will reveal that the sexes are to mate not with the other as our physical structures are such that they reveal this. Only those blinded by their own desires would ignore what boilogy teaches and succumb to their perverse desires.

    Right, that's why even other animals show homosexual behavior as well...There is no "true and correct" here, just some people who think that their opinion holds more value than the opinion of others.

  • -7

    mt9334

    Sorry for my typo...I meant to write, "...biology will reveal that the sexes are to mate not with EACH other...".

    @Confusious,

    May I ask, are we to then to emulate animal behaviour? Some animals nurture their young, some eat them...

    Do you consider it "opinion" that the sex organs are intended for reproduction, and provide pleasure as a means to an end, and not as an end itself?

    Kissing, a means of displaying sexual love for another ought be done between sexes, and not with a same sex individual....especially if it is to be done in public.

  • 0

    turbotsat

    again, I ask what is the grounding for your moral framework by which you claim an "ought"?

    I thought we could claim any moral framework we like.

    After all, public kissing and same-sex sex are not banned in Japan, so if we disagree, we can't rely on a legal framework.

    I'm pretty sure there's at least one person in Japan who thinks public kissing is immoral and at least one other (maybe even the same person) who thinks that same-sex sex is immoral. An atomic framework! No need to rely on Church of Bob or anything.

    It's not much use relying on the position of sex organs as being purposed solely for reproduction. I'm pretty sure the great majority of the time, probably well exceeding 99%, they are used for purposes other than reproduction. The number of sex acts per successful pregnancy has to be extremely high, not even counting urination, etc.

  • -5

    mt9334

    @turbostat,

    You wrote, "I thought we could claim any moral framework we like"

    Well of course we can claim any moral framework we want! But, laws such as those that would regulate kissing in public, if they are to be normative, must come from an objective transcendent source. Yes, you may have your moral framework that differs from mine...but then how do we decide which is correct? Surely the legality of a law does not imply correctness, for the killing of Jews was once legal. Should consensus be our guide? If the majority of people in Japan would deem kissing in public "wrong", would that then make the act objectively wrong?

    The use that one would give a particular body structure is irrelevant for what the intended purpose of that structure might be. Science is of great benefit here..may I suggest a course in basic biology?

  • 0

    turbotsat

    the intended purpose of that structure might be. may I suggest a course in basic biology?

    The use of these parts as mandated by the evolution of our ancestors is to generate and foster DNA. Something more than 99 percent of the time (I estimated, and you didn't disagree) the DNA is not combined with other beings' DNA to create progeny. How then can you demand people to not emit any DNA unless they are going to try to make babies with it every time? And if you can't demand that, how can you demand they only kiss in private, and when they're going to try to make a baby really soon?

    ... how do we decide which is correct? ... Should consensus be our guide? ...

    I don't see Japan or USA restricting public kissing any time soon, after having legalized it.

    Scroll forward 10 or 20 years and public sex will probably be legal, as well. Kibitzers on hand to give advice to young couples. Maybe some public areas will be famous for it the way some are given over to chess, go, calligraphy, or tai chi chuan now.

  • -2

    mt9334

    Turbostat,

    Why did you not answer my questions?

  • 0

    turbotsat

    mt9334,

    Which ones? Are you sure they are not answered by my post of "Jan. 10, 2017 - 10:08AM JST"?

    If you want to know " how do we decide which is correct", it's been decided by the law. Public kissing is legal. Your available choices are to not participate in public kissing, to complain bitterly when you see it, to take stronger action (subject to the level of legal penalty you feel comfortable in approaching), to attempt to have the laws changed, to emigrate, and probably some other possibilities I haven't thought of.

  • 0

    borscht

    Kissing in public! What could be worse!? Don't the kissers know they're supposed to produce progeny and keep it between man and woman? Just like the bible says! (Solomon 900 wives and concubines, Noah procreates with his daughters etc.)

    One ex-girlfriend didn't mind holding hands in public but no kissing; anything went in private, though. She was also fairly conservative so much that she insisted she paid at restaurants (with my money) because that's they way it should be.

  • -2

    thetoleratedone

    Obviously not comfortable. In 8 years I have never seen it. Maybe twice I have seen a couple holding hands.

  • 0

    Jay Tee

    several interviewees said they’d be more likely to smooch with a foreign partner in public if that person were exceptionally attractive.

    Almost certainly Japanese ladies. Because they are showing off to other women: "Look, I've got me a good-looking gaijin!"

  • -1

    DickTaterTots

    He forgot the obvious explanation that kissing is considered a more sexual act in Japan than it is in a lot of other countries, and therefore something that a lot of people save for when they have some privacy. And that it also can come across as rude to other people when couples are too show-offy as a couple in front of others, particularly friends, the big exception though is when newlyweds are socializing and drinking and all their friends are pressuring them to kiss in front of everyone. I have to admit, after many years in Japan, I do feel awkward when I go abroad and in social situations there is at least one very touchy couple in the group, especially if everyone in the group is aware that others in the group are single, or there is a couple going through a rough spot. I feel like it's inconsiderate towards those people but at the same time my awkward self doesn't dare to ask.

  • 4

    papigiulio

    Furthermore, if done in public at all, it ought to be done solely by a male with a female.

    The middle-ages called, asking you to drop by.

    Personally im not all that for public affection but whatever makes people happy.

  • 0

    gaijinpapa

    "several interviewees said they’d be more likely to smooch with a foreign partner in public if that person were exceptionally attractive."

    Now i feel so used ...

  • 0

    jj1067

    I'm a Japanese born and raised in Japan and my first kiss was when I was 18, it happened in public. No one freaked out and we didn't care.

    I'm telling you. if you love someone and want to kiss and your counterpart wants that too, forget the argument, don't study, just do it.

    It's love. that overrides "culture shock" and everything. Do IT!

  • 0

    mt9334

    @turbostat,

    You wrote, "If you want to know " how do we decide which is correct", it's been decided by the law."

    Your response only pushes back the question....it does not answer it. For then how do we decide what laws should be enacted? How do Law makers decide what laws to promulgate?

    Please, do not simply respond with, for instance, "The law makers decide which laws to pass by what their constituency demands. ", for then the question is back to how does the constituency decide what laws to pass.

    Oh, I hold that kissing is public, if done sparingly, is perfectly allowable. I have no grounding for a law that would prohibit kissing in public. I have used a law against such as a hypothetical...

  • 0

    turbotsat

    mt9334,

    Law is what actually is. If someone's view of morality is contrary to the law, it is generally still weaker than the law, absent a theocracy.

    The old idea of 'the foundation of society is provided by theocratical mores' no longer applies when the population becomes multicultural. Why expect others to conform to the morality of the religion of a subset?

    Would you wish to be constrained by the religion of those folks who don't believe in electricity on Saturdays? Or use of computers, at any time? Don't they have just as much right to impose their morals on you as you have to impose your morals on heavy public kissers?

    If you can get your morality into law, that's the point where you can exert it over others. And there's a lesser level, imposing social conformance via approbation. The law lets you get away with that, too.

    I guess there is a divide that I'm picturing as, you one the one hand saying something like "I wish law and society had a moral basis", and I'm saying something like "No use wishing, multiple possibilities arise as everyone has slightly different moralities, legal plus social constraints define what IS, look to that."

    The more developed countries have explicitly dropped religion as a basis, in most cases. There are a lot of holdovers on individual points, more so in some countries than others. 'In God We Trust' on US coins, the contortions over hijab in France, etc. But they're approaching secularism. That's what is.

  • 0

    mt9334

    @turbostat,

    Thank you for your response. If, you would be so kind, could you clarify your view a little more?

    You wrote, "Law is what actually is." , which while true by virtue of it being a tautology, explains nothing. You have yet to give a grounding for law. I have asked you, how is one to decide between contrary views which is to become law..and I have yet to hear a response from you.

    Keep in mind, if you would respond that a consensus or majority is to deem what is lawful, then we are left with the weak getting oppressed, with no appeal left to them. Martin Luther King appealed to a higher law in order to promulgate his appeal contra slavery. In a majority rule, slavery would still be legal.

    Should "might make right" then? Should the more powerful rule over the weak by virtue of their might?

    You continue, "... multiple possibilities arise as everyone has slightly different moralities, legal plus social constraints define what IS, look to that." ____You beg the question. I have asked how legal systems come to be, and you respond that legal systems are what define what is. One cannot have the building before the bricks.

  • -1

    turbotsat

    mt9334,

    In previous times and in theocracies, religion and moral codes are/were a primary source of law. That is now much less true in the First World. We can exclude those other places (theocracies, oligarchies, etc.) from our discussion. Then, to proceed ...

    Law is negotiated in legislatures, between legislatures and the executive branch, and through evolution in the courts, between the judicial and other branches.

    Moral codes are a much less prevalent input to these processes than in previous times.

    You may even prefer this outcome, as I mentioned. If you can force your code on others, others can force their codes on you.

    Some of the Mennonites emigrated to Mexico where they obtained guarantees to their freedom to practice various customs. This is an unusual case. As it would be difficult to obtain for most people, the best outcome is not the theoretical best where you get to practice your own code and have others conform to it as well, but a negotiated best outcome where your code does not impinge too much on others', theirs do not impinge too much on yours, and the law as it stands has stopped worrying about social customs as much as it used to.

    If you don't mind light public kissing, but don't like heavy public kissing or anything heavier, I'm wondering how you'd fare in the area (areas?) in San Francisco where nudists like to hang out. I think it was reported at one point that SF got them to put towels under their bums, via ordinance, for public hygiene, as they were sitting on public benches. I don't know if SF finally stopped the clothing-optional part or not.

  • 0

    mt9334

    @Turbostat,

    I do appreciate your response! Lets continue shall we?

    You wrote, "In previous times and in theocracies, religion and moral codes are/were a primary source of law. That is now much less true in the First World. We can exclude those other places (theocracies, oligarchies, etc.) from our discussion.____I disagree, but I will concede this point in order to allow our discussion to continue.

    Next, you attempt to respond to my question...you write, "Law is negotiated in legislatures, between legislatures and the executive branch, and through evolution in the courts, between the judicial and other branches."

    Please note that you still have not answered my question.

    You articulate who establishes the laws...not how they go about determining what should be made law. How do the legislatures go about determining for instance if a particular act should be permitted or deemed illegal? Ultimately, even if the decision is to be made between legislative branches, it still comes down to individuals. How does an individual decide what is right or wrong?

    Feeling? If so, then why should anyone's feelings be made normative? Are decisions on right and wrong made arbitrarily?

    Majority? I have already provided an argument as to why this fails.

    The 'Greatest good for the greatest number"? Who decides what is "good"? Why? How?

    How do we avoid relativism?

  • -1

    turbotsat

    mt9334,

    There's been an active shift in the law away from moral codes.

    In representative democracies creation of laws is delegated to legislators.

    The alternative is to require the active involvement of every citizen in the creation of laws.

    The delegation is not voluntary on the part of all citizens but that's the status quo.

    How do we avoid relativism?

    What is wrong with relativism?

    In the old model, when most people never strayed from a few miles around their village, they didn't need to adjust to the morals of different cultures. Those who did travel did have to make such adjustments, or bring along enough force to force their own adjustments on remote cultures.

    Part of modern living is to adjust to different moral beliefs held by our neighbors in a multicultural society.

    In fact, the current environment in the USA gives a lot of leeway here. PDA laws dropped, if not as much as some would like. (SF apparently passed an anti-nudity law in 2012, allowing public nudity without threat of arrest only to holders of parade permits allowing such nudity, so my paragraph on that is out of date.) Private secular and religious schools and home schooling are allowed. Non-official polygamy is allowed. If church memberships find themselves too divided on issues, they're allowed to split on their own. There's probably lots of examples you can think of.

    If you're talking about issues like forcing bakeries to make gay cakes, we're back to law.

    Law is backed up by force. Laws are delegated by legislators. They negotiate and decide the laws. People get involved in this process as much their inclination, ambition, luck, and success allow them. If a point of contention is important enough that it needs addressing and resolution, then it might be, via the legislatures and courts. If in time it's reduced, then it is, by evolving sentiment.

    People individually create and consume their own moralities on a micro basis. Groups combine these on a macro basis. Individuals and groups have the alternative to withdraw if the moral environment they are forced to live in by happenstance is not to their liking. This is what the Unabomber did as an individual and the Mennonites in Mexico did as a group.

    They can also attempt to negotiate their stance, as lobbyists for various groups attempt. They can also attempt to force their stance, as the Crusaders and jihadists did.

    The moral environment may not be perfect, especially to some people, but it's the status quo that evolved and was negotiated.

    .not how they go about determining what should be made law.

    Strong points of contention are negotiated (with and by the three branches of govt), weaker points that there's less motive and less energy available to contest are ignored and people adapt on their own. The USA system provides various levels and venues of negotiation, terminating in the Supreme Court.

    How does an individual decide what is right or wrong?

    Decide as they grow, what to take from the parental environment, the educational environment, their self-learning process, their peers. Even if no libraries are involved, this happens.

    Feeling? If so, then why should anyone's feelings be made normative? Are decisions on right and wrong made arbitrarily?

    On specific points, someone had enough motivational energy and devoted enough procedural energy to reach this point. If it was contested, someone lost, and someone won. Someone may have cheated, in the other side's view. If so, this is another point to be contested, by the same process. It doesn't mean they come out at the very final end with everyone agreeing on the outcome and that no one's been cheated or forced.

    Majority? I have already provided an argument as to why this fails.

    (mt9334, a previous post, I guess this is what you meant by 'provided', above): For then how do we decide what laws should be enacted? How do Law makers decide what laws to promulgate? Please, do not simply respond with, for instance, "The law makers decide which laws to pass by what their constituency demands. ", for then the question is back to how does the constituency decide what laws to pass.

    It's not really much of a question. The system evolved and is backed by force. When I said 'delegated by the people' it was an overstatement, I knew it. Governments are in business for themselves, the input of the public (in modern democracies) is mostly limited to shaking them up at election time. Everyone directly participating or being allowed to vote on every decision is not feasible. Increasing the level of participation by decreasing the scope and increasing the number of things that people vote on is possible, but not to the extent that everyone gets input on every decision.

    If you're specifically complaining about gay cakes, abortions funded by Catholic healthcare, etc., there's no real recourse except conformance in varying levels, or changing the tide at the ballot box, or emigration. Or others I haven't thought of. Discussing how unfair it is you have to conform to others' disagreeable moral codes is probably an analgesic, not a recourse :).

    I keep feeling reminded of the NorCal / S. Oregon Yurok (?) tribes' response to visiting strangers. They'd kill them on sight. Who now can say it was wrong? Their way of life is erased. Their descendants follow the ways of the invaders. Their policy wasn't successful but it was correct and moral for the day, evidently even the invaders held somewhat similar beliefs.

    Bye for now :).

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/California_tribes_%26_languages_at_contact.png

  • 0

    mt9334

    Turbostat,

    I have purposely been trying to lead our discussion to an examination of our basic presuppositions about what is real, how we know what we know, and how one ought to live ones life. I hold that, ultimately, we share common presuppositions, and therefore come to similar conclusions. What I want to show is that in the case of one who is a secularist, their conclusions are contrary to what secularism would lead one to. For instance, if we are nothing more than animals, then really there is no "ought" in ethics. One "ought" not have respect for all life, it is just that we choose to. One who chooses the opposite is not more correct than we are.

    There really is nothing objectively wrong with rape, murder, slavery, etc....we just choose as a people not to do it. Of course, we could just as easily choose otherwise. (at least this is where secularism leads)

    Your write that there is no proof for deism, and commit the fallacy of presupposing that one would go about proving the existence of deity just as one would go about proving any other fact, completely ignoring the fact that Christianity asserts that God is other than the universe. The assumption that all existence claims are questions about matters of fact, the assumption that all of these are answered in the very same way is not only over simplified and misleading, it is simply mistaken. The existence, factuality or reality of different kinds of things is not established or disconfirmed in the same way in every case.

    Moreover, I would argue that if the Christian biblical God did not exist, nothing would be provable. (quite a claim I know! I can elaborate on this...at least until the moderators remove my posts for being off topic!)

    You write, " Actually, the Bible doesn't like homosexuality but Nature is OK with it."

    I think, it would be wise to define our terms. When I use the term "nature", I do not mean what is found in nature such as the trees and the beasts of the fields, but rather what is natural refers to our end directedness, the teleology of our nature, and of our being and our biological structure; and then metaphysically inferring what the obligations that stem from this nature are, and how they dictate what our morality should be.

    Further, I am careful not to commit the fallacy of reification when using the term "Nature", for Nature cannot condone or disapprove of anything.

  • 0

    toshiko

    Check 1947 laws. The law is ignored but kissing in public and hugging in public are not repeal,yet. Another one dancing was teppealedblast year, remember? It. was a big. news on JT.

Login to leave a comment

OR

グローバルに
活躍したいあなたへ
外資系転職

バイリンガル人材の
ための求人サイト

見てみる

More in Lifestyle

View all

View all

Find Your
Apartment
in Japan

10,000’s of properties available today!

Search