[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 88 KB, 345x533, 1352210916362.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3329775 No.3329775[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Is sexual slavery objectively wrong?

>> No.3329778
File: 81 KB, 711x742, 1356572396565.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3329778

>> No.3329781

>objectively

no such thing

>> No.3329782

if it's non-consensual, yes.

>> No.3329784
File: 36 KB, 264x400, 1351623187820.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3329784

>>3329781

>> No.3329786

>>3329782
Based on what universal law?

>> No.3329788

>>3329775
Of course it is, dumbfuck.

>> No.3329789

fuck no, unless one of the partners is unconsenting. slavery sex is hawt as fuckep

>> No.3329790

>>3329788
see >>3329786

>> No.3329791

>>3329788
>>3329782
>morality
>objective

>> No.3329794

>>3329775
OP If I kidnapped you and (hypothetically speaking, all rights reserved) forced you to be my sex slave how would you feel about it?

There's your answer ya chode.

>> No.3329795

Why should consent be listened to?

>> No.3329796
File: 9 KB, 292x281, 1323587972819.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3329796

>>3329775
>objectively wrong?

this is ridiculous
what would this even mean?

I'm getting mad just thinking about it!

>> No.3329797

>>3329794
>I don't like it so therefore it's objectively wrong

Not how it works.

>> No.3329798

>>3329789
>implying consent isn't a social construct

>> No.3329801

>>3329786
mine.

>>3329791
sophomoric objection.

>> No.3329803

>>3329798
so are all the other things in op's post, what's your point.

>> No.3329804

>>3329790

>> No.3329805

>>3329801
>your opinions
>objective

>> No.3329806

would it be wrong to force people to breed with each other if an entire generation was brainwashed into believing they must kill themselves and the human race faced extinction because of this

>> No.3329808

>>3329784
glorious.

>> No.3329810

>>3329805
what's my name?

>> No.3329822

>objectively

no of course not shut the fuck up

>> No.3329824

>>3329822
>thinks rape isn't objectively wrong

Wow, super edgy bro! How's life as a backwards misogynist piece of shit, you fucking neckbeard?

>> No.3329832

>>3329824
pls go

>> No.3329899 [DELETED] 

>>3329824

what is morally right and what is wrong?

>> No.3329900

>>3329824

>OP tries desperately hard to save his failed troll thread

>> No.3329932

>>3329778
this is hot

what is it

>> No.3329936

>>3329899
Actions that inflict pain on others are never ok you sociopathic piece of shit. Come back when you get over your edgy teenager phase.

>> No.3329941

>>3329932
Some erotica about sexual slavery.

>> No.3329945

>>3329805
subjectivity man, subjectivity

>> No.3329950

>>3329936
>Actions that inflict pain on others are never ok
>never ok

so we have to outlaw dentists and sports now?

what makes them "not ok" I don't get it, this seems arbitrary. Do you have any logic or is this just a personal preference?

>> No.3329984

>>3329775
Under what context op?

>> No.3330058
File: 164 KB, 600x853, 1350558840590.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3330058

If rape isn't objectively wrong, then why haven't you raped a girl yet /lit/?

20% of rape victims report having an orgasm, so they enjoy it on a primal level.

>> No.3330101

If it is coercive, then yes. Of course like anything it's not immoral (at least not innately, there are of course "moral" systems such as religions that would reject it), but it is unethical, as it violates basic notions of solidarity and empathy.

>> No.3330126

>>3330101
>but it hurts my feelings :(

>> No.3330153
File: 24 KB, 190x288, 1347871951917.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3330153

>>3330058
The risk/reward ratio isn't good enough or else I would. There's this slut in one of my classes that thinks she's all that, I'd like to knock her down a few levels.

>> No.3330154

>>3330126
No, I said it's an ethical issue, as in there are rational reasons why you shouldn't do that. To spell it out for you:
1. You destroy what is essentially a union of egoists by creating coercion between you and the slave, so you can't expect the same courtesies to be returned to you by that person, and more importantly, by other potential parties of this union. So even though it "feels good man," you are in the long run fucking yourself over, e.g. the slave/a relative/random white knight fucking kills you because you have a damn sex slave.
2. Save for those with psychopathy, humans are naturally empathetic beings, and inflicting unwanted pain on people will fuck with your psyche, even if you don't consciously realize it. Why do you think dentists have the highest suicide rates of any occupation, and that people who go on killing sprees usually off themselves?

>> No.3330155

>>3330154
>ethics
>rational

>> No.3330158

>>3330058
>so they enjoy it on a primal level
Ok, well assuming you're a male with a prostate, sufficient stimulation of the prostate forces ejaculation regardless of sexual arousal. Does that mean you're going to let dudes fuck you in the ass?

>> No.3330162

>>3330155
... yes, rational. That's what ethics *are*, and why they aren't morals. Objectivism and egoism are ethical systems, even though they are subsets of moral nihilism. Or are you so edgy that you've rejected conventional definitions, or perhaps rationality all together?

>> No.3330164
File: 49 KB, 258x247, 1349371445236.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3330164

>>3330158
But I thought in order to achieve orgasm, women had to be mentally stimulated as well?

Women are more "mental" sexual beings, that's the popular conception.

>> No.3330167
File: 21 KB, 264x400, 1354390903262.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3330167

>>3330162
>rationality
>not an enlightenment replacement for God
>not a social construct

>> No.3330176

>>3330167
Rationality as in reason, not as in rationalism. You can go ahead and reject boolean algebra and FOL if you want, though you'll have to stop using your computer if you do.

>> No.3330184
File: 70 KB, 500x628, 1355888849313.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3330184

>>3330176
>implying the laws of physics are objective
>implying they aren't skewed by human perception
>implying true rational thought is possible when the source is the human mind

>> No.3330187

>>3330164
I wouldn't find it hard to believe that there are mental defense mechanisms to protect a person from total mental breakdown. For example, molested children generally grow up with fucked up sexscripts, but that hardly means they wanted it.

>> No.3330188

>>3330184
go to bed kant

>> No.3330191

>>3330184
Except that boolean algebra and FOL are true regardless of physics; they're consistent logical systems. Whether they apply to the empirical universe is debatable, but that they are consistent is not. If you'd like, you can use another paraconsistent logic, though you'll find none of them apply to our perception.

>> No.3330194

>>3329796
objectively mad

>> No.3330195

Only if you value all people equally.

I don't see anything wrong with "slavery" of lesser people so long as they are not mistreated.

>> No.3330199

>>3330195
Except that's wrong.

>> No.3330200
File: 20 KB, 429x420, 1352365447968.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3330200

>>3330191
>Whether they apply to the empirical universe is debatable

Precisely. They are true only within the context of human perception, and have no claim to objectivity in a universal sense.

>> No.3330201

>>3330199
Which part?

>> No.3330205

>>3330201
>Only if you value all people equally.
It doesn't matter if you view the other as your equal, their role can be just as detrimental to you for reasons explained earlier.

>> No.3330210

>>3330205
Who cares? Just because my decision may be a shitty one for my well-being doesn't mean it's wrong.

>> No.3330212

>>3330200
Again, Boolean algebra and FOL are true regardless of perception. Empiricism is irrelevant in that context. No matter what, you have to choose some consistent logic to apply, or else you are provably incorrect.

>> No.3330215

>>3330210
Wrong in the ethical sense, it sure as hell does. Morality no, but ethically yes.

>> No.3330217

>>3330205
What reasons? Slavery is defined by the status of someone being forced to acquiesce to the will of another despite their wishes. The reason we subjugate dogs and other domestic animals is because we are superior to them. There is nothing wrong with this. If, for example, you were to view the Negroid as an inferior species and ascribe no inherent worth to human beings he would be an inferior animal with which you, by the laws of nature, would be called upon to dominate. Nothing wrong with that.

>> No.3330218

>>3330212
>provably incorrect

In what way?

>> No.3330223

>>3330218
As in it creates an inconsistent logic, which is impossible. Or at least, anything you could say is true, I could prove is false using it.

>> No.3330228

>>3330217
See
>>3330101
>>3330154

>> No.3330233

>>3330228
All you did was appeal to nature. You're one big logical fallacy.

>> No.3330239

>>3330233
like you aren't?

>which you, by the laws of nature, would be called upon to dominate.

>> No.3330243

>>3330233
You mean... human nature? Does biology not apply to you or something?

>> No.3330247

>>3330239
The difference is I did not say this was a good or bad thing. I simply stated it was. No judgment value is necessary or relevant. I am simply stating the fact that our tendency to dominate is paramount. If you believe we are not a dominant species, you would do well to elaborate.

>> No.3330249

>>3330233
>completely ignores the first point
>psychology doesn't apply to me!

>> No.3330250

>>3330243
Define "human nature".

>> No.3330255

There's nothing wrong with any sexual act when consent is given by all parties involved, this includes acts of sexual slavery (though the point would likely be argued that this isn't 'slavery' per se)

>> No.3330256

>>3330250
Psychology. Specifically, empathy. Evidence: see previous examples.
Which is far less of an appeal to nature than your argument. I could easily argue that humans are by no means dominant, it's impossible to argue we have no psychological predispositions.

>> No.3330259

>>3330249
So, uh... your entire point is that "do unto others as you would want done unto yourself?"

Point A: I consume animals. I do not want to be consumed. I consume animals because they are not like me.

Point B: I am human. This is a broad definition. All I need to do is narrow it to dominate a subrace of humans. I control the Negro. I do not want to be controlled. He is not like me.

Point C: The reason science resists racial realism is because the fact that genetics exist can justify slavery.

>> No.3330263

>>3330247
superior and inferior have moral connotations.

>No judgment value is necessary or relevant

this is why you don't belong in society.

>> No.3330265

>>3330263
How do superior and inferior have moral connotations? A ferrari is superior to my Toyota but it isn't a moral judgment.

>> No.3330266

Take this shit to /pol/. Why even engage, you retards?

>> No.3330267

>>3330265

>superior

depends entirely on what rubric you're using to define said

>> No.3330268

>>3330265
when applied to humans you disingenuous piece of shit

>> No.3330269

>>3330266
An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument. This is generally done because it is easier to discredit the author of a statement than his statement.

>> No.3330271

>not using moral language non-cognitively
>2013

>> No.3330272

>>3330101

What is according to you the difference between morality and ethics?

>> No.3330274

>>3330259
>So, uh... your entire point is that "do unto others as you would want done unto yourself?"
No you fucking dolt, I never said that. Where the hell did I ever say anything remotely resembling it? I said that coercive measures destroy unions of egoists and that inflicting pain on people fucks with your psyche.

None of your points make any damn sense at all, what the fuck are you even talking about? It's like you're looking for some excuse to talk about racism or something.

>> No.3330276

>>3330268
Egalitarianism bleeds in your brain, friend. By all accounts, Leonardo Da Vinci is superior to either of us or both of us combined unless you fabricate a standard of worth for humans that exists beyond the material.

>> No.3330279

>>3330272
Morals are innate to the universe, ethics are rationally created by people. Most people here, myself included, are moral nihilists and believe they were made up by religious types, and don't really exist at all.

>> No.3330282

>>3330274
>I said that coercive measures destroy unions of egoists
>do unto others as you would want done unto yourself
The same thing? Why are you confused? Your entire line of reasoning is wrong because you're operating under the fallacy that all people are equal.

>> No.3330288
File: 27 KB, 482x321, laughing-women-friendship-greetings.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3330288

>>3330279
>Morals are innate to the universe

>> No.3330289

>>3330282
>has no fucking clue what a union of egoists is
Go read some stirner and get back to me
the golden rule is pretty much the exact opposite of egoism

>> No.3330292

>>3330288
>I am an illiterate tard who didn't read the whole post

>> No.3330294

>>3330289
No thanks. Using fancy esoteric terms literally invented by some guy doesn't give your point much merit unless "some guy" is really smart and worthy of becoming a golden standard of argumentation. Yours isn't.

>> No.3330296

>>3330269
Jesus, learn rhetoric you two-bit faggot. Debate isn't fencing or the UN, you don't raise your hand with a formal objection and get a point. In any case, ad hominem applies when someone says any given statement is wrong because the one saying it is, say, a fucking idiot. Note that it is needed to have the progression "x is an idiot, therefore, y is wrong." Most ad hominems are insults, but not all insults are ad hominems and most aren't. You are such a thick fucking piece of shit, for example, is just an insult.

Now to the matter at hand, appealing for people to stay on-topic and not feed the troll is not participating in the discussing (i.e: not asserting any position) nor is it ad hominem. Good night, you thick piece of shit.

>> No.3330301
File: 37 KB, 501x525, 135578729120.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3330301

>>3330294
... so your argument is... you aren't going to read something.... because you assume it can't give much merit? Why the fuck are you even on /lit/?
also,
>doesn't know who Stirner is
>youmustbenewhere.jpg

>> No.3330303

>>3330301
>someone I like said something
>therefore it's the gold standard of all ethics

That's not how it works.

>> No.3330308

>>3330296
>entire post is laced in ad hominems attempting to discredit controversial science and opinions
>so obtuse both morally and intellectually that he takes his opinions as such an axiom they are incapable of being challenged and therefore not capable of being "defended" by slap-shod ad hominem attacks
If you have valid, scientific or ethical input, your post will be appreciated. Otherwise, you will not be appreciated amongst any circles sans those you feel so comfortable inhabiting that your opinions have evolved and morphed into abject fact.

>> No.3330313

>>3330303
But that isn't what I said at all. My point was you said that I was basically espousing the golden rule because I pointed out that the situation violates a union of egoists, then I pointed out that you're a fucking idiot who clearly doesn't know what the term even means, and are trying to rephrase the debate in terms you already understand, despite the fact I never made the points you're arguing against. You don't even have to think they're right, but the fact you aren't even addressing their ideas but some shitty straw man (that is funnily enough pretty much the opposite of what it actually says) is what makes you fucking retarded.

>Ethical egoism is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest.
-Wikipedia

>> No.3330317

>>3330308
I'm not attempting to discredit anything, I'm calling you personally a deep fucking tard with no understanding of rethoric.

Anyone who thinks >>3330266 is ad hominem is a poor fucking imbecile.

>> No.3330326

>>3329775
is a perversion... i don't know is wrong or good

>> No.3330329

>>3330317
Again, you've said nothing relevant and actually managed to write a text book (apparently the manifest way you can understand a concept) ad hom attack in your latest offering. Why even post here? Your opinions as an author are inherently worth about as much as dog shit as an anonymous poster until you substantiate them.

>> No.3330330
File: 2 KB, 123x125, 1355556080037s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3330330

>>3330313
>arguing with a retard
>surprises he uses retard tactics
>continues to feed the troll thread

jesus fucking christ dexter

>> No.3330337

>>3330329
>still thinks every insult is an ad hominem

Ugh, you people are fucking worthless.

>> No.3330343

>>3330337
But you are above those people, aren't you? You're special. You're not like the others.

Isn't that the vein?

You've consistently opted to discredit posters you have deemed to be "/pol/" exclusives and their implied opinions. You are not special. You are not worthy of praise. You are a bitter, useless failure who is only worthy of my negative attention because you have ceaselessly acted the fool to earn it.

>> No.3330354

>>3330343
>But you are above those people, aren't you?

Yes, since I understand the words and concepts I use. Which apparently is a big accomplishment when dealing with you prissy fuckers.

>> No.3330449

So yeah I'm probably going to add objectively/subjectively related words to my filter along with Rand

>> No.3330627

>>3330449
I'm gonna add my dick to my "your ass" filter.

>> No.3330652

>>3329775
>Is sexual slavery objectively wrong
No. It's considered wrong by social consensus.

>> No.3330653

>>3329775

>objective morality

I don't think so, OP.

>> No.3330654

>>3330279

WOW THAT WAS A SHIT POST

>> No.3330657

Is OP always an edgy faggot?

>> No.3330677

>>3330657
Facts aren't edgy.

>> No.3330680

>>3330677

They actually are.

>> No.3330687

If you think like this NOTHING is objectively wrong.

>> No.3330693

>>3330687

Welcome to your first day of thinking.

>> No.3330697

>>3329781
>>3329786
>moral relativism
>2013

grow up.

>> No.3330700

>>3330697
No, it's amoralism, not moral relativism.

>> No.3330703

>>3330697
>believing in objective morality
>2013

Get educated, son.

>> No.3330707

>not adhering to a quiet egoism/altruism hybrid where you take care of your own simple needs first but once acquired you enjoy helping others as they come along your way without actively searching out ways to change the world
>341BCE-2013CE

>> No.3330708

>>3330700
i see; should have written moral subjectivism instead, or, amoralism as you say. what was moral relativism again?

>>3330703
>Get educated, son.

get educated, as in, turn myself into a stubborn baby-nihilist like you?

>> No.3330712

>>3330707
not a bad motto indeed; can somewhat relate

>> No.3330713

>>3329950
Actions that inflict pain on others without their consent. You play a sport or go to the dentist because you need to.

If you don't want to play it morally (see: not being a dick), then under US law, your rights to do whatever end where another's begin.

>> No.3330716
File: 43 KB, 500x605, gaspard-love-his-smirk-pic--large-msg-120639970924.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3330716

>>3330708

sure is ad hominem in this thread

>> No.3330718

>>3330708
>i see; should have written moral subjectivism instead, or, amoralism as you say. what was moral relativism again?

No. Moral subjectivism or relativism =/= amoralism.

>> No.3330721

>>3330708
There's a difference between moral relativism and amoralism. The first implies there's different moral views, the second denies morality altogether.

>> No.3330722

>>3330713
>then under US law, your rights to do whatever end where another's begin.

aaah, 'legalsim creates objective morality'. I see. So slavery used to be objectively moral, but now it's not?

>> No.3330725

>>3330718
>>3330721
ok.

>>3330716
>implying i give a rat's ass about ad hominems on the Internet

>> No.3330759

>>3330725

Damage control

Damage control everywhere in that post.

This means that you are losing the argument.

It's ok, you remained anonymous. Just walk away now.

>> No.3330771

>>3330759
there was no argument to begin with, ass munch.

calm down.

>> No.3330777

>>3330771
Apart from your argument, that there exists a magical moral system independent of humanity.

>> No.3330789

>>3329775
If the slave in question isn't okay with being a slave, then yes, it is wrong.

If they're okay and you don't kill them in the process, and they're still happy, then no, it isn't wrong.

>> No.3330794

>>3330777

This.

You should have just walked away. You had the opportunity.

also

>implying my jimmies are even slightly rustled

relax friend, there is no need to get upset.

>> No.3330801

>>3330789

is it OBJECTIVELY wrong though, or do you just personally believe it to be wrong?

>> No.3330802

>>3330794

>jimmies are even slightly rustled
>no need to get upset.

Quick pair of questions: how new are you to /lit/, and did you come from reddit or /b/?