Sometimes I want to explain to someone what "begging the question" means in its original definition as a conclusion that relies on itself as a premise. I've oft

Sometimes I want to explain to someone what "begging the question" means in its original definition as a conclusion that relies on itself as a premise. I've often wished there was a perfect example of question-begging I could point to as a demonstration. Well, now I have one. The most important - really, the only - point that this waffling diatribe offers is that food and sex are moral equivalents. Except it doesn't ever prove that point. Rather, it sort of wafts it in the air ("is food the new sex?"), assumes they are connected ("The question before us today is not whether the two appetites are closely connected") then throws out random just-so assertions ("Both [...] can prove ruinous not only to oneself, but also to other people, and even to society itself") The next thousand lines of condescending feigned surprise basically amount to "oh, how strange it is that although sex and food are very similar, we treat them differently". Yes, that would be surprising if they were very similar. But what if they're not very similar and you just made that up because it would be convenient for your worldview? When your conclusion is your premise, anything is possible. I present here my new essay: Is Sex the New Eugenics? Sex and eugenics are inextricably linked. At various times laws have been made and wars have been fought over both sex and eugenics. We previously thought eugenics was a good idea but we now see it as morally bankrupt. We previously thought sex was morally bankrupt but we now see it as a good idea. But since they're the same, that's wrong. Sex and Eugenics are the same. Nietzsche.