/lit/ - Literature

>>11302147
>Ok retard
I would argue that anything that leads to the net harm of society is a perversion of the natural order, i.e., what would define any quantitative utility anyway. But I imagine you're not the type to squander an opportunity to make a pointless semantic objection.

>Isn't it funny how this whole discussion spawned from the fact that I was attacking Scruton
Yes. Because it was clear that your entire problem with Scruton was the fact that he wasn't a raging standard-bearer for progressive thought.
>The two are not the same, brainlet. You can have nonprocreative sex with the same person your whole life. Or is your paranoia so strong that you believe sterile married couples don't exist?
You really think that society is encouraging monogamist relationships when they push for non-procreative sex? You are totally clueless. Get out of your basement.
>I never knew that cartoonish representations of your political opponents are "statistics".
With you, the only thing I did was post 1) racial IQ statistics; 2) anti-promiscuity statistics; and 3) anti-promiscuity religious excerpts. None of these were "cartoonish representations" of my political opponents. I'm still waiting on the logical/empirical refutations, which are probably never going to be made. You are such a delusional hack, it's not even worth arguing with you. And you STILL haven't provided any reasonable alternatives.

I hereby declare you, BTFO. Don't @ me again, faggot.