Once we overcome postmodernism and progressive themes will we go back to proper gender roles and traditional values? I'm really getting bored reading about independent women and hyper-sexual gay men struggling with identity problems.

File: 482 KB, 1365x2048, 1386730599125.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 02:15:57 2014 No.4502795 [DELETED]

Once we overcome postmodernism and progressive themes will we go back to proper gender roles and traditional values?

I'm really getting bored reading about independent women and hyper-sexual gay men struggling with identity problems.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 02:16:56 2014 No.4502798 jokes on you bro the past was way more gay than now you just don't realize it because you don't know shit

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 02:16:56 2014 No.4502800 titties

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 02:17:56 2014 No.4502801 >>4502798 I mean 'traditional' in the Evolian sense

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 02:19:56 2014 No.4502803 >>4502801 conservative values are always on the trailing edge, deal with it nerd

>>	Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Sat Jan 25 02:26:56 2014 No.4502815 File: 292 KB, 1600x1082, 1390634807200.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4502795 >proper gender roles One man's "proper" is another's improper. Duh.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 02:37:57 2014 No.4502834 >>4502795 >independent women Why would anyone have a problem with women being independent? Are you that bitter?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 02:40:57 2014 No.4502842 >>4502834 yeah, i always lol at the pathetic nerds who blame feminism for not being able to get laid. it's like bro if we go back to "traditional" values that means "manly men" will be back in so you won't get laid then either. kill urself.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 02:48:56 2014 No.4502858

>>4502834

they clog up the work environment, do work poorly, have to take 1 year Maternity leave (paid), end up costing the company $$, then they hire a nanny to take care of the kid

so the kid suffers, the company suffers...all because they got brainwashed into thinking that being a wage slave is somehow better than fulfilling their Natural Purpose on earth.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 02:51:56 2014 No.4502865

In American culture, from what I've seen the last 4 years, we have 3 things going on. One is an increasingly militarized christian right that absolutely no one like except militarized christians.

We have an increasingly powerful LGBT and ethnic minority influence that have much larger weight than any other group per-capita.

And we have centrists. People who actually want to make shit happen, not take orders from their minister nor fear their paupers, trying to eek out a basic living. I don't see how the tea party or the occupy movement capture this demo. I feel kind of disenfranchised.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 03:07:56 2014 No.4502886

>>4502795
It has nothing to do with post modernism, but food and environment.

Welcome to the first generation of ppl who live entirely on fast food and doctor pills, and that is without talking about all the estrogen and polluting crap that's everywhere.

This create a lot of broken humans, angry women(I mean independent women lol), and men who will never be men. And male fish who lay eggs.

I don't think the male fish who are laying eggs are going trough a post modern phase....

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 03:09:56 2014 No.4502889 >>4502858 >fulfilling their Natural Purpose on earth. I like your use of Platonic Capitals there, my traditional friend.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 03:42:56 2014 No.4502935 >>4502858 what did anyone say about getting laid. so called "independant women" are a blight on our interdependent society. It's only faux independence, when really their being subsidized by society in general.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 03:43:56 2014 No.4502937 >>4502842' you >>4502935 see this

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 04:13:56 2014 No.4502959 >>4502935 Oy vey how could you say such sexist things?? Sex is a social construct you uneducated swine, go be a bigot misogynist somewhere else, rape culture supporter

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 04:14:56 2014 No.4502961 i doubt it since there is no such thing as a 'proper' gender role

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 04:16:56 2014 No.4502963 >>4502858 >they clog up the work environment, do work poorly ? what is this based on also progressives want paternity leave as well :)

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 04:18:56 2014 No.4502965

>>4502961
Biologically speaking, yes there is. Humans are mammals, and like all other mammals we have the instinct to reproduce and bare children. What causes male mammals to stay and raise babbies is triggered by neurochemical hormones in the brain. The proper gender role would be this, to reproduce and have healthy offspring

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 04:38:56 2014 No.4502983 >>4502965 how is that tied to gender at all? that's more like a "mammal role"

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 04:43:56 2014 No.4502989 >>4502795 It's already happening literally right now. 2012-2015 will in the future be thought of as the formative years for this decades cultural shift into traditional values.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 04:47:56 2014 No.4502992

>>4502865

LGBT is dying as of now.

Everybody's starting to finally understand that sexuality in general is a social construct and therefore that heterosexuality is really the only legitimate way of being. All other sexualities are compensations of the lack of conditional reward involved in that given person's case of heterosexuality.

The classical notion of perversion (classical because it doesn't simply signify some empty insulting connotation, but an actual significant notion of mutable disorder) is coming back into intellectual discourse. It is the synthesis to the antithesis that was the LGBT movement.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 04:50:57 2014 No.4502994

>>4502795
Not only that, but the proper gender roles will be a strict standard of living and traditional values will become more complex and structured. We will not necessarily go back to what was there before, which is impossible, but we will go forward with hardline traditionalism, and kill everyone who disagrees systematically.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 04:59:56 2014 No.4503002 >>4502994 Gope

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 05:03:56 2014 No.4503006 File: 96 KB, 500x613, cat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4502994 We will. And we must.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 05:07:20 2014 No.4503008 >>4502795 >I'm really getting bored reading about independent women and hyper-sexual gay men struggling with identity problems. Does someone force you to read these books

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 05:09:20 2014 No.4503012 >>4503008 Them being in the public is force enough. You're appealing to the same fallacy as when somebody says 'if you don't like gay marriage, don't get one'.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 05:11:20 2014 No.4503016 >>4503012 reverend calm down there is nothing wrong with faggot marriage neither.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 05:12:20 2014 No.4503017 >>4503016 Gay marriage is pretty obviously wrong even from a completely secular point of view.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 05:13:20 2014 No.4503018 >>4502992 >Everybody's starting to finally understand that sexuality in general is a social construct and therefore that heterosexuality is really the only legitimate way of being. D you have any examples? Any studies? Any evidence at all?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 05:14:20 2014 No.4503022 >>4503017 why is that so reverend why do you care if two people want to wear rings and fuck each other are you jelly they found love

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 05:14:21 2014 No.4503023

>>4502994
The exact opposite to this is actually likelier to happen.
Gender roles will get even more lost than they are now with strict standards of tolerance and liberal values becoming more dogmatic. Some will seek a way back to what was before but will either meet a sort of ironic intolerance or be at best ignored. Traditionalism will only live on in third world countries, but slowly and surely loose its hold because people get tired of being killed systematically.

>>4503008
This. These sort of books/blogs/etc are already being ignored by most of the populace, why does it bother you so much then?

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 05:27:20 2014 No.4503036

>>4503018

There is a lot of information and if you take the totality of it, it's quite clear that, first of all, the dichotomisation of sexuality between heterosexual and homosexual is patently artificial, and secondly, that homosexuality as a concept was meant to be compared with heterosexuality for the sake of description not prescription, and that it was simply a lapse of collective reason to somehow presume that the two things were at all symmetric or interchangeable.

In other words, the only reason people think homosexuality is the same essential type of 'thing' as heterosexuality, is because the two words share a suffixal root as well as an interchangeable latin prefix. In reality, the term 'heterosexuality' is prescriptive of the natural course of sexuality in general (you would be an absolute mong to try to deny that heterosexuality is itself specifically unnatural, so we don't even need to get into that argument), and the term 'homosexuality' is descriptive of an alternative instance of (hetero)sexuality, though not itself a bona fide alternative disposition/orientation.

In reality, homosexuality describes a type of perversion. The only way to get around this is to define perversion through extrinsic means, like in general, whether or not it has certain effects, or more specifically, whether the two in question cause any sort of harm, or whether they can fall in love, etc.

This extrinsic definition of perversion holds up for a limited time only, due to the fact that the idea of perversion of course is attached to many other things which are approaching the point where an intrinsic definition is becoming a necessity, socially, politically, economically, psychiatrically, philosophically, etc.

Once we come to the point where perversion must have its true, intrinsic definition for those things, the ostensible legitimacy of homosexuality will no longer enjoy social monopoly and will be pulled under into the tidal current of the progression of scientifically sound knowledge.

>inb4 wake of buttmad

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 05:29:20 2014 No.4503041 >>4503036 i-i'll just go tell my boyfriend that our relationship isn't a legitimate concept any more then

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 05:30:21 2014 No.4503042 >>4503041 First step to maturity anon. You're quite a bit behind the rest of us so don't suffer yourself anymore needless hesitation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 05:30:21 2014 No.4503043 >>4503036 why do you care so much how people love each other man

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 05:32:20 2014 No.4503045

>>4503043

I'm not convinced I really do care a lot. I mean I possess an airtight education about the issue but the point is, homosexual love is cheap love. If you support it, you support nothing more than allowing others to live second rate lives rather than doing the right thing and helping them sort through their inabilities.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 05:34:20 2014 No.4503046

>>4503036
I agree with most of your post but you still haven't convinced me that anyone but you and a very small subset of people like you believe this to be true.
And homosexuality is as "natural" as homosexuality, we have tons of recorded incidents of animals fucking the same sex.
Are you Dave Sim by any rate? I just want to be clear on this.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 05:35:20 2014 No.4503048 >>4502801 Made-up traditions, that is.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 05:36:20 2014 No.4503051

>>4503036
So, look. If scientists have witnessed bonobo chimps and dolphins carry homosexual acts for pleasure, who is to say human homosexuality is a perversion? There is no wrong way to have sex, only regulations to protect people from non-consensual sexual relations that is harmful to humanity and civilization.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 05:37:20 2014 No.4503052 >>4503036 You poor fool, you've deconstructed the notion of sexuality and you don't even know it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 05:37:20 2014 No.4503054 >>4503045 what's cheap about it? i don't see where that logic comes in

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 05:39:20 2014 No.4503056

>>4503046

No homosexuality isn't natural at all. You're appealing to the naturalistic fallacy by attempting to say that because there is records of its occurrence throughout the animal kingdom, that this somehow makes it natural.

There is chaos in nature and there is order in nature. The fact that animals engage in homosexual (actually the correct word here would be bisexual, as that describes the overwhelming majority of the 1700 documented species (of which only a baker's dozen of those have engaged in markedly bona fide homosexual relations)) activity is something which emerges from the chaos of nature, not the order of nature. It happens because of sociohierarchical pressures, or (in most cases) simple endocrinal-perceptual errors.

Heterosexuality is the only natural sexual orientation and any argument against that point necessarily has to contort some definition within that predicate (or, hell, even subject) in order for it to end up possessing some degree of meaningful truth.

And no, I've no clue who that is.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 05:40:20 2014 No.4503057 now THIS is a thread

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 05:43:20 2014 No.4503059

>>4503054

Homosexuality is what happens where heterosexuality can't. Hard proof of this exists within the fact that homosexuals possess a notably higher/statistically meaningful degree of bodily and facial asymmetry, which, if you've been following biology at all for the past 20 years, you'd be privy to the fact that this is essentially the primary deciding factor for attraction. It is literally impossible to argue against this reality. Ugly people are homosexual more often than not (which is precisely where this idea that gay people are good looking comes from; it's a completely predictable form of social compensation).

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 05:44:21 2014 No.4503061

No I don't think we did.

When we overcame English revolution we didn't go back to traditional political values.
When we overcame American revolution we didn't go back to traditional socioeconomical roles.
When we overcame French revolution we didn't go back to Ancién Regime.
When we overcame 1848 revolutions we didn't back to feudal values.
When we overcame revolutions of 1917-1922 we didn't go back to 19th century values.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 05:45:21 2014 No.4503063 >>4503056 if it occurs in humans then it occurs in nature and is natural. humans have adapted sex for more than just reproduction, even if reproduction was its initial purpose. don't be daft

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 05:46:20 2014 No.4503064

>>4503054
It's because if two men can share "love" that makes the love between a man and a woman less legitimate. The only way to safeguard the legitimacy of the love between a man and a woman is to destroy the notion of love between two men, or two women, or an adult and a child. We know that this sick perversion is just that and not real love by the fact we can cure people of it.
But this isn't all! We can cure a man and a woman of loving each other, given similar treatment. This is evidence that "love" is a corruption of a pure sexual urge which can only be shared between a man and a woman.
Now, the words "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" are poison, and make it unlikely that love as a corruption of sexual urge will ever be seriously treated. These words are poison. Anyone with any knowledge of Latin can hear these words and begin to construct a viewpoint where homosexuality is possible, and this viewpoint is only possible using love. In order to eliminate these disturbing tendencies from the populace, we will first need to control language. I doubt this is practically possible before the media and educational systems are put under strict control by a few people who share this viewpoint.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 05:46:20 2014 No.4503065 >>4503059 you are a scary human being and i don't wish to engage with you any longer because you are saying that me and my boyfriend don't love one another properly based solely on the fact that we are gay that is a silly thing to say

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 05:50:20 2014 No.4503069 >>4503064 >that makes the love between a man and a woman less legitimate legitimacy as a zero-sum game! that's rich. do you read what you type?

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 05:51:20 2014 No.4503070

I've once tried homosexual intercourse with a man and his boy-gina, and my ejaculation was identical to heterosexual ejaculation within the confines of vaginal walls. Through this proper experimentation, I've concluded that homosexual is indeed not a perversion, but a natural method of sexual gratification-- just as much as masturbating to internet pornography.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 05:51:20 2014 No.4503071

>>4503051

This is the naïve perspective.

It's saying 'as long as no one gets hurt, it's fine'. It's relying on an extrinsic definition, that of harm, or in more general terms, of effect, which is of course the artificial definition. The intrinsic definition tells us that there is in fact a right way to have sex, and sensibly enough that it is not a certain way of engaging in sex, but rather, a certain set of people with whom to engage in sex.

The question boils down to two things which are not so visible when you do not allot the subject proper scrutiny: perniciousness and proper definitions.

When you say that the only limitations on sex should be extrinsic ones, you avoid altogether the fact that extrinsic limitations of sex could evoke pernicious outcomes, because you are fixated on the immediate present, that which is directly before you, (this is precisely why you favour extrinsic definitions over intrinsic ones; they are simply easier to understand), so you simply have concept of the long term sociocultural effects of sex which is only extrinsically limited.

tl;dr your point of view is the way it is because it is simply uninvolved. You haven't gotten to the core of the issue, and you perhaps aren't even willing to admit that a core exists, and this is precisely why you feel the way you do.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 05:52:20 2014 No.4503073

>>4503065

No no. I'm quite certain the love you feel between one another is real. That it exists. But humans can love anything. We're polymorphously perverse, as Freud would have said. There is only so many things a human can love which are actually truly meaningful to love and your personal feelings do not get to decide such a thing. Logic does.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 05:56:20 2014 No.4503075 >>4503073 so logically our relationship isn't meaningful? what's logic to decide a thing like that?

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 05:56:20 2014 No.4503076

>>4503063

If all that which occurred in nature was natural, there would be no meaning in the word unnatural. It is clear that you are mistaking the description of something for its own prescription, and the mechanics involved in that linguistic transformation. Natural ≠ that which is in nature. Natural means parsimonious, so, to illustrate the difference, a waterfall exists in nature, but the waterfall, specifically along with the chaotic fluid dynamic is NOT natural. It is chaotic. What's natural is the physical principle which maintains that the water should cascade downward under the effect of gravity. But you don't actually see this happening. What you see when you look at a waterfall is the chaos of the water, so, therefore, you mistake the chaos as itself being natural in this very way.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 05:57:20 2014 No.4503078 >>4503071 What's the core of the issue?

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 05:59:21 2014 No.4503079

>>4503075

It's not. It's a harsh truth and I'm in no way denying its harshness, nor do I in telling you of its reality particularly wish it were true in your case, but you can't escape it.

The good thing is homosexuality is nothing more than immaturity and anybody can see their way through it if they really care to. I mean look at Antoine Dodson... lol

Call me autistic or cold or whatever makes you comfortable with being confronted by reality but always keep the truth in mind. Always return to it when you can.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 05:59:21 2014 No.4503081 How are your constant appeals to the concept of nature not instances of the naturalistic fallacy?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:01:20 2014 No.4503082 >>4503079 what motivation would i have to see through it? this 'immaturity', as you call it, is what makes me happy. it would bring me no benefit at all to dump him and find a logically proper partner.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:01:20 2014 No.4503083

>>4503081

Because the naturalistic fallacy only speaks to one specific appeal to nature in which one blanketly asserts that 'because it happens in nature, it's necessarily natural'.

The naturalistic fallacy seeks to distinguish the fact of naturalness from nature and nothing more. It does not go on to say that nature can never be legitimately appealed to.

Read Moore. Principia Ethica.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:03:53 2014 No.4503086

>>4503082

You have no concept of happiness. You have a surrogate concept which is that of self gratification. Gratifying yourself is not happiness. True happiness is nothing which one feels. It's a state of righteousness. Not to say that, within this state, one wouldn't experience the richest degrees of gratification, but the matter of gratification in itself has nothing to do with happiness per se.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:06:52 2014 No.4503091 >>4503078 The core of the issue is the intrinsic definition. Under the intrinsic definition of perversion, homosexuality is therein considered. Under the intrinsic definition of sexuality, heterosexuality is therein considered. And so forth.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:06:52 2014 No.4503092 >>4503086 it sounds to me that you're basically splitting hairs over what happiness is and being presumptuous about the 'concept of happiness'.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:08:52 2014 No.4503095 >>4503092 No it's more the opposite. Instead of attempting to derive the concept of happiness through splitting analytical hairs, what's happening here is taking a step back to arrive at the concept of happiness through looking at the bigger picture.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:08:52 2014 No.4503096 >>4503079 I know some masculine homosexual men who have beards, act manly, and work great wages. Neither of these men act immaturely, but handle social events properly and maturely before getting back home and getting broke back, raw-ass fucktown.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:10:52 2014 No.4503098

you can find a bunch of reasons for why homosexuality is wrong or bad. But when you look at things with a predefined attitude, you will find a bunch of stupid things to back up your opinions.

Friendship is good right? So its okay for 2 guys to be best friends right?
Love is good, why would it suddenly be a problem if those 2 guys love each other and want to be committed to each other? Because buttsex is icky?

if those faggots wanted to make kids, they could simply insert their penis in a womans vagina until ejaculation and impregnate said lady.
Problem solved

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:10:52 2014 No.4503099 >>4503096 I mean they get shits on their dicks and suck the shit off clean before cleaning their mouths well, sleeping early, and waking to suit-up for their 9 to 5. Does that make them immature at all? No.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:12:52 2014 No.4503100

>>4503096

Yeah I'm not speaking of outward maturity/immaturity. I'm talking about internal maturity. You might say spiritual maturity but that would be going a bit too far.

Think of it this way. Serial killers can compose themselves around others, seem perfectly normal, yet their still immature enough mentally to kill people. That's the sort of maturity I'm talking about. It's like a really deep type of personal 'knowing thyself'.

Not comparing homosexuals to serial killers, as we all know homosexuals are orders of magnitudes worse, but it applies to any sort of situation in which a person acts wrongly. They do it because they don't 'know' themselves, which is I believe a pretty spot on definition of actual maturity.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:14:52 2014 No.4503103 >>4503100 But, their sex is deep and intimately internal. Their sex gets real primitive and they crush into each other into a hairy tangle and cum in their ass. I think it's inward enough.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:14:52 2014 No.4503104 >>4503100 so homosexuals only have gay sex because they don't know themselves as opposed to you know just liking gay sex

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:14:52 2014 No.4503105 >>4503076 this in no way suggests homosexuality is unnatural

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:15:52 2014 No.4503106

>>4503098

You bring up a good point which is good because it allows for itself to be defeated quite easily.

You say that love is good, so why isn't love good between two persons of the same sex, and there is a perfectly straightforward answer for this, which is that love is only ever good in its own original context (this is just how meaning works at a basic level), and that original context is between a man and a woman.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:16:52 2014 No.4503109

>>4503104

Yeah, they like it because they don't know themselves. It's of course mildly figurative language but you probably get the point, whether you'd like to admit it to yourself or not.

>>4503103

Thank you for that wonderful mental image. Stop posting anytime.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:17:53 2014 No.4503110 >>4503105 See >>4503056

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:20:52 2014 No.4503115 >>4503109 You're worried that you have no argument to this? The visual description was a textual performance to portray the true naturalness of homosexual intercourse. I'm sure you had a reaction there and isn't that natural enough?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:21:52 2014 No.4503117 >>4503115 I'll begin responding to your posts again when you don't want to be the thread clown.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:22:52 2014 No.4503118

>>4503056
The naturalistic fallacy is that the example occurring in nature somehow makes it good. The fact that you can somehow twist this phrase into meaning "just because something happens in nature doesn't make it natural" boggles the mind.
You're also guilty of contradicting yourself: you explain that homosexuality occurs only in nature when heterosexuality is impossible, and then go on to explain that homosexuals are a set of the population for whom engaging in heterosexuality is either impossible or highly unlikely. You are in effect saying that these people engaging in this act is natural. If you've got two definitions of the word, please enlighten me as toward their difference.
You exemplify yourself in this post >>4503076
You state that the water is natural, and that that the water should fall is natural, but that the waterfall is unnatural, even though the waterfall is the natural result of a force upon an object. There are two flaws in this statement: the first is that it states that that which exists on the left side of the equal sign is not equal to that which exists on right side, that the sum of the parts can somehow be less than the parts themselves. The other is that if you were to follow this mode of thought to its most logical conclusion, you would say that the water is not natural: it is the result of nucleus and the electrons interacting with each other using the electromagnetic force; you would say that the nucleus is not natural, it is the result of the protons and the neutrons interacting via the strong nuclear force; you would say that the baryon is not natural, it is the result of three quarks bonding via (again) the strong force; you would say that the electromagnetic and strong forces are not natural, they are the result of a breakdown in supersymmetry caused by low energy levels.
The only recourses to these problems of definition and boundary, the only way to make your arguments cogent and coherent to anyone capable of cutting through your hedge maze of misapplied information and unconstructed feelings you call “logic,” would be to predicate this entire argument as being a case of miscommunication and differing opinions on shared beliefs, which, surprise!, is postmodernism.

>>	kitty !kitty/EnNg Sat Jan 25 06:26:52 2014 No.4503120 >>4503118 >homosexuality occurs only in nature when heterosexuality is impossible it is not true

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:27:52 2014 No.4503122 >>4503110 how does heterosexuality emerge from the order of nature?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:27:52 2014 No.4503123 >>4503120 That's what he's arguing (or was, when I started this reply) and so that's what I'm going with.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:30:52 2014 No.4503128
File: 35 KB, 324x500, hist sex.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4503036

>In other words, the only reason people think homosexuality is the same essential type of 'thing' as heterosexuality, is because the two words share a suffixal root as well as an interchangeable latin prefix. In reality, the term 'heterosexuality' is prescriptive of the natural course of sexuality in general (you would be an absolute mong to try to deny that heterosexuality is itself specifically unnatural, so we don't even need to get into that argument), and the term 'homosexuality' is descriptive of an alternative instance of (hetero)sexuality, though not itself a bona fide alternative disposition/orientation.

Nah, it's very typical that conservatives like you resolve the argument back to the naturallistic fallacy again and again. If you had an once of desire about the formulation of perversion or the subjectification and diferentiation of sexuality you would have read "The history of Sexuality" or "Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity".

Philosphicaly the very idea of preformative sexuality is put into question and teh reason why the LGBT movement is so strong right now in academic circles is becuase of the notion of power relations. Sexuality constructs the subject and performativity formulates a thesis for social and political life, not the other way around.

>>4503056

You devolve to the naturalistic fallacy yourself, you repeat that heterosexuality is natural and homosexuality is not but for no other reason other than "Natural procreation".

And nature is not orderly my /pol/ack freind.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:33:53 2014 No.4503131

I've got a question for you folks. Do we agree that homosexuality and heterosexuality is defined by the very act of sex, and that sex can exist without language? Thus, homosexuality is not a matter of words, but of nature? Also, you're missing the hermaphrodites.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:35:52 2014 No.4503139 >>4503131 >hermaphrodites We'll burn them with the books

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:37:52 2014 No.4503142 [DELETED]

>>4503091

>The core of the issue is the intrinsic definition.

It's not at all the intrisnsic definition tahts teh issue, the notion of homosexuality has been subject to so many revisions from ancient times to modernity. Homosexuality as perversion begun only during the begginingof the reformation and with the desire of the Catholic church to cetegorise sexuality and with the christian "hygenic" notion of sexuality (forbidding anal sex etc.).

Things are even more complicated nowdays with scientists claiming there is a "gay" gene and the social and political pressures in globaly recognising the legitimacy of different sexualities.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:38:52 2014 No.4503143 >>4503122 top kek seeking reason, logic and order in nature

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:39:52 2014 No.4503145

>>4503118

>The naturalistic fallacy is that the example occurring in nature somehow makes it good.

Yes and of course you realise that, as with any fallacy, there is a flip side to this relation in which not every appeal to nature is a naturalistic fallacy. A fallacy is only a warning, something put in place to ensure that one checks the reality of something, rather than simply relying on a principle. The naturalistic fallacy is that thing which to us indicates that 'just because something is natural, it does not also follow that it is good', and so we take this as a warning, when we look to the inherent goodness of natural things, to make sure that we are talking about things which are truly natural(in this way the idea of the naturalistic fallacy is slightly misleading, because in reality all things which are truly natural are in fact also good), not simply those things which seem to be natural by merely existing within nature. The question is whether or not something is veritably natural or whether it simply exists within nature. The naturalistic fallacy functions to highlight that there is a real difference between the two cases.

cont.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:40:52 2014 No.4503147 What about hermaphrodites? What will happen to all our precious hermaphrodites? We systematically execute them by means of firesquad.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:41:52 2014 No.4503149

>>4503118

cont.

>you explain that homosexuality occurs only in nature when heterosexuality is impossible

No no no no no. I did not say homosexuality occurs /in nature only/ when heterosexuality is impossible. I never said in nature. This is my original post: >>4503059
>Homosexuality is what happens where heterosexuality can't.

>and then go on to explain that homosexuals are a set of the population for whom engaging in heterosexuality is either impossible or highly unlikely

I never said this. Please direct me to where you think I said this so I can show you how you interpreted it incorrectly.

>You state that the water is natural,

No, the point was precisely that the water itself, as with its fluid dynamic, is the chaotic part of the entity of the waterfall.

>even though the waterfall is the natural result of a force upon an object.

Nope. The waterfall itself as a physical object is something which exists in nature and which is the CHAOTIC result of a force upon an object. The natural part is the force itself. The actual mathematical entity, not any sort of effect the force would go to exert in the physical world. Again, you're mistaking nature with that which is natural because when you look at that which is natural, all you see is nature, because that which is natural is invisible, or probably more accurately, nature visibly eclipses that which is natural.

> the first is that it states that that which exists on the left side of the equal sign is not equal to that which exists on right side

No. What you're trying to say is that which exists on the left side of the equal sign is not IDENTICAL to that which exists on the right, in which case they are not isomorphic. They are equal, but you aren't actually speaking of that weaker degree of isomorphism which is equality, you are speaking of identicalness, at least so long as you're trying to refer to my analogy.

>that the sum of the parts can somehow be less than the parts themselves

The sum of the parts can be greater than the parts. That's the expression here. Not less than, but greater than.
>you would say that the water is not natural: it is the result of nucleus and the electrons interacting with each other using the electromagnetic force;

Nope. Take the prior comment. The sum of a thing's parts is greater than the particularity of the parts. Therefore water is NOT meaningfully this molecular interaction you describe. What you're talking about is the particular interaction of the molecular interaction, which is itself not identical to the water, so your point is meaningless. You arrive at this infinite regression because you are not entertaining the fact of scope. Things lose meaning when you extend and extrapolate beyond their initial scopes, which is, funnily enough, precisely the same logic which demonstrates to us how homosexuality is wrong.

And no postmodernism here. Just good old logical positivism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:41:52 2014 No.4503150 >>4502858 >end up costing the company $$ Oh no! Surely companies having to spend money on things is reason enough to return to the medieval era?

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:42:52 2014 No.4503151

>>4503091

>The core of the issue is the intrinsic definition.

It's not at all the intrisnsic definition thats the issue, the notion of homosexuality has been subject to so many revisions from ancient times to modernity. Homosexuality as perversion begun only during the beggining of the reformation and with the desire of the Catholic church to cetegorise sexuality and with the christian "hygenic" notion of sexuality (forbidding anal sex etc.). The brilliance of philosophers like Foucault is that they recognised that the very repression of homosexuality as a sin or unatural oppened a discussion about the nature of sexuality itself.

Things are even more complicated nowdays with scientists claiming there is a "gay" gene and the social and political pressures in globaly recognising the legitimacy of different sexualities.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:43:52 2014 No.4503153 File: 14 KB, 205x246, will.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4503147 see >>4503139

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:43:52 2014 No.4503155 >>4502858 Wow, I didn't know they even had internet in Alabama. You're so ignorant it makes me sad.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:44:52 2014 No.4503158 >>4503131 It isn't defined that way

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:49:52 2014 No.4503162 I found some interesting posts about the shift in the expectations and definitions of love that are very interesting. http://dalrock.wordpress.com/?s=love

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:49:52 2014 No.4503163

>>4503122

Through necessary adaptation. The same way the universe came into existence from nothing.
>>4503123

It's not what I'm arguing.
>>4503128

I've read most of what Foucault has produced. I tend to steer clear of Butler, as I'm saving the bulk of actual post structuralist feminist for a later date, after I've exhausted the science (I want my perspective on the matter to remain as pure as possible). I will eventually get to her though.
You should however mind that what Foucault said applies in equal measure to absolutely any power relation, so the LGBT movement is by no means held in impunity from it. In other words, it in itself could be reduced to a mere power struggle, therefore this notion of power which the post structuralists subscribe to is, in principle, tautological. They seem to forget this and this is precisely what is substantial in the critiques towards their study.

And I never mentioned procreation once. Run a search query. Natural (meaning, specifically, not artificial or technological) procreation is of course the necessarily adaptive feature of heterosexuality, but it is not the reason why heterosexuality is itself, in principle, natural, (and conversely, why homosexuality is, in principle, unnatural). It's a basic category error. Procreation is an effect, it takes place in the physical world, therefore it could never in and of itself define a principle. What makes heterosexuality natural isn't procreation, but rather, that principle whereby procreation is necessary.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:50:52 2014 No.4503164

>>4503145
>to make sure that we are talking about things which are truly natural(in this way the idea of the naturalistic fallacy is slightly misleading, because in reality all things which are truly natural are in fact also good), not simply those things which seem to be natural by merely existing within nature.
As I stated above, I would like you to tell me how to judge how something is natural without looking to the example of nature. Your waterfall metaphor, in addition to the points spelled above, is self-defeating in that it seeks to prove something is unnatural by citing it as a natural result of a system.
I still have no idea what you mean by "natural" and, that being the crux of your argument, I have no idea how you're supporting all this.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:50:52 2014 No.4503165 File: 11 KB, 300x299, derrida.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >homosexuality occurs because some people are too ugly to be heterosexual >things are not natural because they occur in nature >chaos of nature and order of nature

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:51:52 2014 No.4503166

>>4503131

No we don't agree. Linguistic concepts cannot exist prior to language. If you try to make the point that homosexuality (or anything at all) is a matter of nature, but not words, you immediately and necessarily must not use language to further explicate this thought. It's self annihilative. It is in fact the very attempted thing which is the cause of (most) all philosophical paradoxes/problems.

Read Wittgenstein.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:52:52 2014 No.4503167 >>4503163 so homosexuality isn't a necessary adaptation? how are you defining 'necessary'?

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:55:52 2014 No.4503170

>>4502992
>secuality is a construct
>THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO DO IT!
Do you even know what a construct is?
>>4503012
This is bullshit, I haven't read a single book about gay rights or anything in OP's post. There are 10000000000s of books, you don't have to read about it. Their pressence would only ''force'' you to look at the cover while you're in a book store.
>>4503017
Not really, the original marriage was Roman, they could fuck anything untill they married, that would be the only one they fucked from that point (that's what they were supposed to do anyways, wether they did is something irrelevant) it doesn't matter wether this is male or female.
>>4503059
Upload a picture, lets see if you're destined to be a faggot or wether you're just really good at impersonating one on the internet.
>>4503106
original context.. I smell a christianfag.

To all of you, all you can refer to is:
>have you followed biology?
>muh traditionalism (which is inherently flawed, read John Tosh: The pursuit of history for more on traditionalism and nostalgia)
>animals do/don't do it. (we never compare ourselves to animals on any other level because humans, although ''animals'' are far more complex than anything else because of the fact that we have emotions, and that's what this whole fucking thread is about.)

Other than that, you're all talking out of your ass, every single one of you. And that is not to be mean, but you literally do not have the education to say anything usefull about this other than your opinion, which will be flawed, and therefore useless anyways.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:58:52 2014 No.4503176

>>4503151

The denouncement of homosexuality has existed throughout human history. Cultures which have granted some degree of toleration towards homosexuality have been the minority. No culture in human history has ever publicly and absolutely acquitted homosexuality of its perceived wrongness. Not the Greeks, not the Romans, none at all. It has always been found in a majority's degree of denouncement. It has always been looked down upon by the majority. People saying otherwise are attempting to contort historical reality to their own advantage.

Also the idea of a gay gene has been dead for a good 20 years now. Just a heads up. Dean Hammer (the scientist from who's work the rumour was perpetuated) himself never stated that one even actually existed.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:59:53 2014 No.4503179 >>4503170 you're talking out of your ass. And that is not to be mean, but you literally do not have the education to say anything usefull about this other than your opinion, which will be flawed, and therefore useless anyways.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 06:59:53 2014 No.4503180 >>4503164 What is natural is understood through principle.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:00:53 2014 No.4503182 >>4503167 Exactly. Homosexuality is a contingent adaptation. You can perhaps work out the definition through that contrast.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:02:01 2014 No.4503185 >>4503179 Which is why I didn't say anything about homosexuality, just about the replies in this thread.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:03:52 2014 No.4503187

I don't care about feminist, gays, lesbians, blacks, transsexuals etc.

What really bothers me in contemporary society is the fact the people are just too childish and angry. They don't read books, they don't know what a fugue is, they have never heard of Giotto, they don't even know Newton's laws. Instead, they fuck around and think it is liberating. They watch TV. They believe in astrology and in any thing they read in the news. I want to live in a society of smart people who read books.

But I also want to live in a democracy. So, if people want to just fuck around and do nothing, well, what can I do to stop them? I will just have to reluctantly accept it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:03:52 2014 No.4503188 >>4503182 so homosexuality is wrong because it depends on more variables to exist than heterosexuality? unless you think sentience or even life exists without specific circumstances that allow it

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:06:52 2014 No.4503193 >>4503187 > I want to live in a society of smart people who read books. >But I also want to live in a democracy. a smart society wouldn't accept people who want democracy tho.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:06:52 2014 No.4503195 >>4503180 You're concepts which are for you a single word and for me a sentence.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:06:53 2014 No.4503194
File: 374 KB, 695x1024, stan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4503170
I do have the education, but "sex" is the signifier for something that would exist without language. So to use the word "natural" one would have to admit there is something being discussed even beyond the language, or perhaps, before conception of language itself.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:08:52 2014 No.4503197

>>4503188

>so homosexuality is wrong because it depends on more variables to exist than heterosexuality?

More or less, yeah. Though you must include the original context of it being a sexuality. Because that context is needed to elevate it to the level of its visibility and therefore to identify its wrongness.

Otherwise you'll make the mistake which ends in the same way where if somebody says homosexuality is unnatural, and another person counter argues with 'so are crisps, skyscrapers, aeroplanes, etc.', in which they don't retain the original contexts that distinguish the case of meaningless unnaturalness (the aforementioned three) with meaningful unnaturalness (homosexuality as a sexuality).

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:08:52 2014 No.4503199

>>4503163

>You should however mind that what Foucault said applies in equal measure to absolutely any power relation, so the LGBT movement is by no means held in impunity from it. In other words, it in itself could be reduced to a mere power struggle, therefore this notion of power which the post structuralists subscribe to is, in principle, tautological. They seem to forget this and this is precisely what is substantial in the critiques towards their study.

It cannot be reduced to a mere power struggle when we have reache the point were sexual performatvity and differance are beggining to formulate human subjects.
For Foucault power is not single "substance" that permeates the world like in Nietzsche but reffers to the multiplicity of power relations within instituaions and emmanating form social relationships.
The drive of the LGBT movement towards recognition is not a mere poilitical power struggle , but more akin to Gramsci's Cultural Hegemony.

>What makes heterosexuality natural isn't procreation, but rather, that principle whereby procreation is necessary.

Don't split hairs here, we are saying the same thing, the simple reason why a postructuralist woudn't agree with you is that what you say is the possibility of the natural order of things coming out of heterosexual principle of sexuality.
You use one definition of sexuality and arbitrarily define it as "natural" by retroactively confriming it. You use a moralist term to dress up a definition which is spurious to begin with.
There is nothing "natural" in the way sexuality works or how performativity of sexual functions is done. Sexuality is more complex than you think and escapes social and psychological norms and "virtues". This is the first lesson from Freud.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:08:52 2014 No.4503200

>>4503187
There has never been a society that has read more than the current one. We're the most literate and educated people of all times. In fact, a lot of philosophy is hidden in such frivulous things as cartoons anyways.

Really though, we are actually literate. If you've read just 1 book in your life you've already read more than 90% of humanity 200 years ago.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:08:52 2014 No.4503201 >>4503185 but the implication is that you know enough about homosexuality to know that no one else does.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:09:52 2014 No.4503202

>>4503187

It has always been like this. IQ rises by 3-5 points on average in developing societies. We're getting smarter, healthier, etc. It's just that the majority is still retarded. I don't argue with that, but don't blame it on "contemporary society", it's the best we've ever had. People have been complaining about "contemporary society" for literally millenia now, playing that card is just really the easy way out.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:09:52 2014 No.4503205

Try telling the guy that works in a factory or a warehouse that gender is a social construct.

>but they're all plebs, anon!

I'd say losing yourself in meaningless intellectualism is far more plebeian than acknowledging the inherent truths that all people have before language comes along to distort it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:10:52 2014 No.4503206 >>4502961 >this is what postmodernists actually believe

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:10:52 2014 No.4503207 >>4503199 You really don't make a whole lot of sense man. Is English not your first language?

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:11:52 2014 No.4503208

>>4503180
Right, thus relative. Human nature, like the nature of everything else, is ever changing, a path our values follow.
A building is just as "natrual" as a forest since we can't escape nature; We and our deeds are just as much a part of it as the ant or a volcanic eruption. Thus, it's a meaningless term in and on itself; Whatever becomes the norm will be considered natural, thus homosexuality is viewed as a natural occurrence by the majority of the west right now, while, say, erotophonophilia isn't.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:11:52 2014 No.4503210

>>4503194
Right, but it's human nature to speak, develop emotions, form societies and fuck things. That's why you can't compare humans to animals when talking about homosexuality. It's about emotion. Which, according to contemporary belief is non existent in animals. So it has no value whatsoever. So if you want to talk of ''natural human behaviour'' than you need to consider speech and emotions.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:12:52 2014 No.4503213 >>4503205 I'll do that if you try telling a Hijra that gender is purely binary.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:12:52 2014 No.4503214

>>4503201
No, my implication is that this discussion is always being held by people who don't know what the fuck they're talking about, and that's why it's pointless. And that's why I won't make statements regarding homosexuality being wrong or right. All I have is my opinion, and in a matter like this, opinions shouldn't matter.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:13:54 2014 No.4503217 >>4503056 You've made me think on these things in a new way, thank you

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:14:54 2014 No.4503219 >>4503202 Yes, you are right. My problem is probably with humanity. I do not like human beings, specially when they are having fun by making easy jokes and fucking around. I'd like to live in a Tarkovsky or Bela Tarr movie.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:14:54 2014 No.4503220 >>4503180 What principle?

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:15:52 2014 No.4503222

>>4503208

No. You're humouring the meaningless side of the definition while refusing to humour the meaningful side.

A building is only as natural as a forest when you use the meaningless definition of natural. You're becoming tripped up by the fact that there is no actual visible boundary between the meaningless definition and the meaningful one (even though a boundary does in fact exist, it is simply not marked), so you think they are the same definition and that this same definition can be interchanged freely. It can't. Stick to the meaningful side of the definition and you will natural arrive at all of these conclusions (which I've presented thus far).

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:15:52 2014 No.4503223 >>4503070 mark this post, take note of it, for it is the shape of the world to come I'd kill myself but I'm too cowardly

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:16:52 2014 No.4503224 >>4503220 Principle is noumenal. There is no single principle. Only the general fact of principle itself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:16:52 2014 No.4503226 >>4503095 Exactly. The good > personal happiness

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:16:52 2014 No.4503227 >>4503197 do you actually think it's "wrong" though, because it is unnatural?

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:16:52 2014 No.4503228

>>4503219

I was elitist too until recently, then I realised I know very little myself. Just behave normally instead of hanging yourself up on what you consider cultured and then use that to look down on anybody else. Maybe try to spread some ideas once a while, best you can do. It is what it is.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:17:52 2014 No.4503232 >>4503104 >this >tumblr >post >style Let me guess- you're the guy whining about how his love for his BF is real?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:18:52 2014 No.4503233 >>4503222 And the meaningful side of the definition is that anything which you don't like is unnatural and anything which you do, cannot be.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:20:52 2014 No.4503234

>>4503227

If you're referring to moral wrongness (i.e. badness), or (empty) emotional negativity, then I'd respond to you that that aspect of the actual objective (i.e. ethical) relation is a choice. In which case I reserve my right to be come occasionally offended by homosexuality (and therefore view it as 'wrong'), when it is appropriate to do so, but otherwise, no, I don't think it's bad for two men to be innocently and honestly in love with each other. I think it's unfortunate because there love is necessarily limited in a way which heterosexual love is specifically, but they are causing no direct harm to anybody so there's nothing 'bad' about it.

It's still however ethically /wrong/. But again, this is a purely logical (and therefore transparent) relation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:21:52 2014 No.4503236 >>4503233 No that's the convenient side. >>4503234 >(and therefore view it as 'wrong'), Should read >(and therefore view it as 'bad'), Less confusing that way.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:22:52 2014 No.4503239 >>4503234 also >their* love is necessarily.. >is specifically not*

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:23:52 2014 No.4503242

>>4503207

No it's not.

What do you not understand? I think I answered the problem you adressed.

The whole problem as I see it is that you predicate heterosexuality as natural and homosexuality as unatural by alternating the natural and the unatural. Your arguments collapse because like all conservatives when facing problems that have to do the ontology of the human being you revert to good old fashioned moralism and deontological arguments. No scientiffic proof or philosphicaly proving why ontologicaly one is more "true" than the other.

>No culture in human history has ever publicly and absolutely acquitted homosexuality of its perceived wrongness. Not the Greeks, not the Romans, none at all. It has always been found in a majority's degree of denouncement. It has always been looked down upon by the majority. People saying otherwise are attempting to contort historical reality to their own advantage.

Now you are really talking out of your ass, not only was in Ancient Greece homosexuality aproved but it was institutionalised. "Eros" as love meant also the relationship beatween a boy and a man( "Eromenos"), Spartan society also had instutionalised male rape but nowhere did it have axiological definitions as natural or unatural but was seen a cultural norm. Historical proof sides against you here. (romans,celts, and othe tribal societies point to the same norms about homosexuality.)

>Also the idea of a gay gene has been dead for a good 20 years now

What are you talking about? The idea that Biology and genes affect sexuality is adopted by all modern biologists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Biological_differences_in_gay_men_and_lesbians

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:23:52 2014 No.4503243 >>4503234 But these ethics are all intuited by you through the noumenon, as you've implied earlier. Correct?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:26:52 2014 No.4503246 File: 1.50 MB, 1440x2000, Woman_of_Babylon_by_Durer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4502795 >tfw women will never be the way you like them again What's the worst is knowing that you're living for a fiction.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:26:52 2014 No.4503248

>>4503243

Logically derived. Intuited is of course the word Kant used but nowadays that implies somewhat of a precarious basis. The point is that it would be the same for anybody if they only did the proper logical derivations. In other words it's not subjective. And I don't mean to say that to attempt to bolster my side of the argument by claiming it's objective, rather, I'm saying 'go see for yourself'.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:27:52 2014 No.4503249 >>4503234 wouldn't that also mean that you view waterfalls as ethically wrong?

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:28:52 2014 No.4503251

>>4503222
>No. You're humouring the meaningless side of the definition
= You are wrong because you disagree with what I consider natural
>while refusing to humour the meaningful side.
= I'm right because I consider certain things natural

>A building is only as natural as a forest when you use the meaningless definition of natural.
How so, when we're just as much born into this world by the same chaos that birthed the tree? Why is a car less natural than an anthill or a coconut? The term will always relate to our values born out of tradition, but our values and traditions are always shifting, always evolving. What was "natural" to the Sumerians aren't the same things as those which were "natural" to the early Christians, just as they would probably be shocked by and condemn modern Christians by their strange customs and lack of moral fiber.

>. You're becoming tripped up by the fact that there is no actual visible boundary between the meaningless definition and the meaningful one (even though a boundary does in fact exist, it is simply not marked), so you think they are the same definition and that this same definition can be interchanged freely.

See above. There's never a "set boundary". Hell, even in the most traditionalist, cult like communities you'd find two persons who hold an opposing opinion or value of some sort; Dirk things broccoli is disgusting, Alan thinks everyone should eat broccoli because it's healthy -both are biologically different experiencing the world in a different time frame from one another and therefore view the world trough a different lens with some things being more natural to one but not the other: The "traditional values" they adhere to is an ever-shifting, temporary compromise of their community and the times.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:30:52 2014 No.4503255

>>4503242
>"Eros" as love

Eros was a particular kind of love, the dominant form of today, yes, but it is not the traditional definition of love. Here is eros, from wiki:

In the classical world, erotic love was generally referred to as a kind of madness or theia mania (“madness from the gods”).[2] This love passion was described through an elaborate metaphoric and mythological schema involving “love’s arrows” or “love darts”, the source of which was often the personified figure of Eros (or his Latin counterpart, Cupid),[3] or another deity (such as Rumor[4]). At times the source of the arrows was said to be the image of the beautiful love object itself. If these arrows were to arrive at the lover’s eyes, they would then travel to and ‘pierce’ or ‘wound’ his or her heart and overwhelm him/her with desire and longing (love sickness). The image of the “arrow’s wound” was sometimes used to create oxymorons and rhetorical antithesis concerning its pleasure and pain.

…passionate love often had disastrous results according to the classical authors.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:31:12 2014 No.4503257 >>4503248 >anyone can do it but I won't tell you how, go do it for yourself

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:32:11 2014 No.4503260 >>4503246 >tfw you realise they never were ''the way you like them'' and that the problem lies with nobody but yourself. I don't know that feel, but I'm sure you will after you've studied a little history.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:32:11 2014 No.4503261 >>4503248 Good! We're getting somewhere. Could you lead us through these logical derivations?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:33:11 2014 No.4503262 File: 342 KB, 960x480, what the fuck I'm reading.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4503248 >Ethics >Logically derived >same for anybody >proper logical derivations

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:35:11 2014 No.4503264

>>4503242

Yes it is quite involved with deontological arguments. Now explain precisely what you mean by how one would be more or less ontologically truer than another? I don't quite see to what you're referring with that one.

>Now you are really talking out of your ass,

No, I was responding in fact to what you've said just here. Ancient Grecian pederasty was the thing which was mocked and looked down upon by the majority. Sure it existed. That's not what I'm denying. I'm denying that it was ever a completely public and accepted part of their culture. Liberal academia has exaggerated upon its existence in order to make a case for it.

For instance, take the relation between Alcibiades and Socrates in Plato. Nowhere was it explicated that this was a sexual relationship. Nowhere was it explicated that Socrates was himself meant to be portrayed as homosexual. These extrapolations come to us when we see that Socrates prefers the company of younger boys, even when it is made clear and joked upon in the Symposium that he would take these adolescents and bore them with philosophy above all else. Also in the Symposium when it was said that the love which exists between two males is of the highest order. What's to say that this is not referring to mere fraternity, rather than homosexuality? The former seems to be the more likely case. We simply live in a culture/society which has a different outlook on basic human relations and therefore registers these archaic relations as 'gay' when they were simply more intimate than the ones we experience nowadays.
And yes, biology certainly predisposes homosexuality. No argument there. The point is that it does not dispose it. No single gay gene, or schemata of gay genes exist which make homosexuality a necessity in any individual. Only ever a possibility.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:35:11 2014 No.4503265 [DELETED]

>>4503260
>>tfw you realise they never were ''the way you like them'' and that the problem lies with nobody but yourself.

>It's all your fault, anon! Man up! If women defy you and choose to act like spoiled little whores it's your fault for not manning up and becoming something they can respect! Just keep cowering and following the moving goalposts!

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:38:11 2014 No.4503272

>>4503255

Eros was the only dominant definition of love between two human beings throught the ancient world. Wether it was sexual love or Platonic love it reffered to only to passion and desire but also to desire for truth in the other.
Plato included homosexuality to this kind of "truth loving eros" (see scala amoris)

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:39:11 2014 No.4503273

>>4503264
>love which exists between two males is of the highest order

I would guess that this would be the case because a man could not give another man what he needs i.e. a child. True love is willing the good of the other with no regard for your own self -- a stark contrast to the notion of eros that is peddled today, romantic love, the idea that love only comes when the other fulfills your every whim.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:39:11 2014 No.4503274 >>4503264 >Only ever a possibility. isn't this the case for heterosexuality? especially if you are being careful to not include procreation in your argument

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:44:11 2014 No.4503278

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love

It's hilarious that the wiki for love has it's main picture of Romeo and Juliet and calls them the "archetypal lovers" considering the play was a warning against the childish nature of their love.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:45:11 2014 No.4503280

>>4503249

Funny.

>You are wrong..
>I'm right..

If you're going to be intellectually immature and cling to the possibility of argumentative convenience then we simply cannot proceed with this discussion. You need to humour what I say, as I humour what you say, in order for this exchange to not asphyxiate itself.

>when we're just as much born into this world by the same chaos that birthed the tree? Why is a car less natural than an anthill or a coconut?

Non sequitur. We're born chaotically just as much as the tree in effect and we exist orderly just as much as the tree in principle. A care is less natural than an anthill precisely because it was generated into existence directly by way of consciousness and deliberation. That is precisely what makes it unnatural, the degree of consciousness involved. The anthill is itself less natural than the waterfall, and so forth.

>always evolving

Only in effect. Never in principle.

> What was "natural" to the Sumerians

Again, you're simply mistaking 'that which exists in nature' with 'that which is natural'. They are different, and the former will be mistaken as the latter, so that opens up the possibility for that which is natural to be called differently at different times. This is all due to a miscalculation of language.

>See above...

The example you give in this paragraph has nothing to do with something which is necessarily natural. Only things which contingently can be called natural. Preference has nothing to do in itself with that which is natural. A better analogy would be one person thinking it is okay to eat non nutritional substances, as the context of food must be maintained in that which is nutritious or conducive to nutrition, just as the concept of sexuality must be maintained within what is procreative, or conducive to procreation (and therefore the arguments against infertile/sterile people or oral/anal sex (so long as it's heterosexual) no longer work).

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:46:11 2014 No.4503281

>>4503265
>choose to act like spoiled little whores
I'm sorry that you'd have to speak of your mother like that.
Also, go out, mate. Go out. Stop reading 4chan and checking /r/cringepics and find out that the world is not like the extremities posted on here.
You're hating on extreme ends of TV culture, but it's only television.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:47:11 2014 No.4503282 >>4503257 It's nothing so easily done, to be completely honest with you. >>4503261 Exhaust the western cannon of philosophy proper and logic and then return back to me for the next step. >>4503262 >Nietzsche Tough being in high school, huh anon?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:47:11 2014 No.4503283 >>4503278 >Romeo and Juliet >a warning against the childish nature of their love look at this dipshit

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:50:11 2014 No.4503286 Is it not true that conservativism loses social battles by its own definition?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:50:11 2014 No.4503287 >>4503274 No, because heterosexuality is properly speaking an absence of something. It is a free, unbounded course, and that is precisely what is responsible for its inherent reproduction.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:51:11 2014 No.4503288

>>4503264

>Yes it is quite involved with deontological arguments.

That's why the agrument is moot, you cannot dentologycaly argue an ontological problem (the nature of sexuality) by simply ascribing what is "good", "true" and "natural". Logic does not work that way and you have proven form what you said that you ulterior "logical" argument is about the "good" sexuality, spuriosly equating it with nature (how you do this and you consider it true afterwards by not seeing it as a fallacy is not clear even to me).

>What's to say that this is not referring to mere fraternity, rather than homosexuality?

To the ancient greeks mind the two were equated as one and that the one lead to another.

>We simply live in a culture/society which has a different outlook on basic human relations and therefore registers these archaic relations as 'gay' when they were simply more intimate than the ones we experience nowadays.

The reverse can be argued about homosexual relations in ancient times. This doesn't prove anything.

>Nowhere was it explicated that this was a sexual relationship

>'I think,' I replied, 'that of all the lovers whom I have ever had you are the only one who is worthy of me, and you appear to be too modest to speak. Now I feel that I should be a fool to refuse you this or any other favour, and therefore I come to lay at your feet all that I have and all that my friends have, in the hope that you will assist me in the way of virtue, which I desire above all things, and in which I believe that you can help me better than any one else. And I should certainly have more reason to be ashamed of what wise men would say if I were to refuse a favour to such as you, than of what the world, who are mostly fools, would say of me if I granted it.'

and

>"This again, Socrates, will not be denied by you. And yet, notwithstanding all, he was so superior to my solicitations, so contemptuous and derisive and disdainful of my beauty—which really, as I fancied, had some attractions—hear, O judges; for judges you shall be of the haughty virtue of Socrates—nothing more happened, but in the morning when I awoke (let all the gods and goddesses be my witnesses) I arose as from the couch of a father or an elder brother."

Socrates rejects Alcibiades because he didn't understand that love also means passions and love for wisdom and not just carnal love which Alcianiades sought in order to learn form Socrates wisdom.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:51:11 2014 No.4503289 >>4503280 Oops meant to quote >>4503251 after 'Funny'.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:52:11 2014 No.4503290

>>4503283

I'm not going to hold your hand whilst you reread it, but just to spur you on a little:

The play arguably equates love and sex with death. Throughout the story, both Romeo and Juliet, along with the other characters, fantasise about it as a dark being, often equating it with a lover. Capulet, for example, when he first discovers Juliet's (faked) death, describes it as having deflowered his daughter.[34] Juliet later erotically compares Romeo and death. Right before her suicide she grabs Romeo's dagger, saying "O happy dagger! This is thy sheath. There rust, and let me die."

--wiki

Doomed love is the primary theme.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:54:11 2014 No.4503292

>>4503187
>"don't even know Newton's laws."

Taking a BSc in Physics at the best university in the country and we have a particle physicist there teaching us about particle and quantum mechanics ( worked on the Higgs Boson ) and a student asks a questions if we can't explain it with Newtons third law. He sighs a but and ask "which one is the third law again".

Hope you get a new perspective.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:56:12 2014 No.4503294

>>4503280
>Funny.

well what ethics are you speaking of? existence in harmony with the order of nature?

>>4503287
>heterosexuality is properly speaking an absence of something. It is a free, unbounded course, and that is precisely what is responsible for its inherent reproduction.

is there an unintentional error in this sentence? it doesn't make sense

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:57:12 2014 No.4503295

>>4503288

>To the ancient greeks mind the two were equated as one and that the one lead to another.

This is my point though. Like I said before. I don't deny that pederasty didn't occur, but it wasn't an accepted sort of thing.

In other words, appealing to the commonly accepted academic revelation that no notion of 'homosexual' existed in Ancient Greece. So that rather than the homosexuality occurring in their society being at all relatable to that which occurs in the modern age, it was simply a byproduct of fraternity. Sort of like how sometimes you jokingly (but seriously) kiss a candy bar because you're so happy to eat it.

Also I would highly admonish against English versions of Attic Grecian texts. The language is in reality nigh untranslatable. No translator has ever produced a non awkward, particularly faithful presentation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 07:59:11 2014 No.4503297 >>4503294 >is there an unintentional error in this sentence? No error. Read it until you get it I guess.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:03:11 2014 No.4503303 >>4503297 how is heterosexuality an absence? from heterosexuality came the big bang? on the first day god created heterosexuality?

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:04:14 2014 No.4503304

>>4503303

I described it. Heterosexuality is an absence in that it's a disposition which is essentially a 'free' disposition, and this is precisely what induces reproduction from it. The very same way that nothingness is inherently stable and how the universe came into existence from it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:07:13 2014 No.4503311 >>4503304 so the universe is unnatural? ethically wrong?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:08:13 2014 No.4503313 >>4503155 >makes a generalization about people from Alabama >calls other ignorant top lel

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:08:13 2014 No.4503314 >>4503304 >>4503311 and heterosexuality is in fact a physical/mathematical property that precedes any sort of animate being? heterosexuality is nature itself?

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:10:12 2014 No.4503317

>>4503311

I said heterosexuality, not homosexuality. So the universe would be precisely natural. Just like how it's heterosexuality which is natural, not homosexuality.

And as for wrongness, something can't be wrong unless it's in a certain context, or relation with something else. The universe for one has no other possible relation, therefore no question of ethicality could ever even begin to be speculated upon concerning its existence (I know that you're kidding btw, just making a point).

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:10:12 2014 No.4503318 File: 345 KB, 750x467, 1390655458632.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4503282

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:11:12 2014 No.4503319

>>4503314

Heterosexuality is a logical property, yes. This is precisely why it's heterosexuality which is reproductive and not anything else. Heterosexuality is the 'correct' or 'real' form/instance of 'sexuality'. Hence it works (i.e. its necessarily (and not simply contingently) adaptive).

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:12:12 2014 No.4503320 >>4503318 Mild lel. Canon*

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:13:24 2014 No.4503321 >>4503313 >what's a joke If you make a comment as rediculously moronic as that, there is no need to elaborate on anything, there is no point/

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:13:24 2014 No.4503322 >>4503317 you're saying homosexuality came from heterosexuality (absence) much like how the universe came from nothing (absence). how do you suppose an endless, free reproduction of heterosexuality/order creates chaos?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:14:24 2014 No.4503324 >>4503322 No I'm not saying that.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:15:12 2014 No.4503326

>>4503317
your argument is less that homosexuality is wrong and more that it is not a sexuality. it seems that acknowledging homosexuality as a sexuality is ethically wrong rather than engaging in the sexual practice that has come to be known as homosexuality. you're assuming that terms and their histories are mathematically precise, are you not?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:16:12 2014 No.4503328 lel, i was just joking, i swear! it's you who is actually the moron, not me!

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:16:12 2014 No.4503329

>>4503317

>So the universe would be precisely natural. Just like how it's heterosexuality which is natural, not homosexuality.

>therefore no question of ethicality could ever even begin to be speculated upon concerning its existence

You are contradicting yourself too much, either this null point zero from were nature springs up is ethicaly irrelevant or you place your own "wrong" and "right" principles from it's inception. you cannot have both.
The Zero( the universe without life) has nothing natural about it but the potentiality of nature, nature by extention in it's infinite extension of attributes and elements has contains within it no ethical categories.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:16:12 2014 No.4503330

>>4503322

What I had said was that reproduction and therefore all of society comes from heterosexuality because heterosexuality is a type of 'unbound' disposition, and these dispositions produce something from nothing (heterosexuality being an absence, properly speaking) in the same way that the universe itself arose from nothing; because nothingness is inherently unstable.

Either you have trouble with reading comprehension or you're in full panic mode right now and resorting to bargain bin low blows.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:17:12 2014 No.4503331 >>4503324 but you are saying that heterosexuality reproduces. so how is it that there is chaos at all?

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:21:13 2014 No.4503335

>>4503326

>your argument is less that homosexuality is wrong and more that it is not a sexuality.

Yeah, and hence that it's wrong because it isn't a sexuality, but it's suppose to be. That's the very essence of its wrongness. Original context, remember? That's the only way wrongness can ever objectively exist, if it's calculated in a context like this one.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:23:12 2014 No.4503338

>>4503330
are you assuming that asexual reproduction is somehow heterosexual? how is it that reproduction of heterosexuality can produce homosexuality?

>Either you have trouble with reading comprehension or you're in full panic mode right now and resorting to bargain bin low blows.

don't waste my time with this nonsense

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:23:12 2014 No.4503340 >>4503329 Principle is something which exists a priori of nature, not literally 'before it'. I don't really see your point either way.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:25:12 2014 No.4503342 >>4503331 How would that imply that chaos shouldn't exist? It seems like you're trying to say that chaos can never come from order, in which case, perhaps not directly, but indirectly is another thing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:25:12 2014 No.4503343 >>4503335 ok so the term isn't precise. it hardly makes the sexual practice ethically wrong if you were trying to argue that at all

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:26:12 2014 No.4503346

>>4503280

>A better analogy would be one person thinking it is okay to eat non nutritional substances, as the context of food must be maintained in that which is nutritious or conducive to nutrition, just as the concept of sexuality must be maintained within what is procreative, or conducive to procreation (and therefore the arguments against infertile/sterile people or oral/anal sex (so long as it's heterosexual) no longer work).

Anal and oral sex are not conductive to procreation, but anyway you are contradicting yourself again.

>Again, you're simply mistaking 'that which exists in nature' with 'that which is natural'. They are different, and the former will be mistaken as the latter, so that opens up the possibility for that which is natural to be called differently at different times. This is all due to a miscalculation of language.

Phenomenologicaly the "natural" and "nature" are the same . Only ontologicaly they are different (nature inherently exists outside man) Sex, food, sleep pertain to what can be found and be obtained in nature and other human beings.It is not a confusion in language as you cannot have something "unatural" within nature itself. The man that willingly starves himself is following the "natural"course of decomposition. You are anthropomorphizing nature too much and this is why you confuse philosophical arguments about sexuality as ethical deontological arguments. there is nothing natural about the way human sexuality and it's formulation works by studying psychology and cultural patterns not by looking Bonobos have sex with each other.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:26:12 2014 No.4503347

>>4503338

Yes, fundamentally speaking, asexuality (in the sense of asexual reproduction) and heterosexuality are more similar than asexuality and homosexuality. They both are successful in reproduction. Homosexuality is not. Sexuality is defined inherently by reproduction, therefore it is the proper crux of the question in context.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:27:12 2014 No.4503348 >>4503342 >It seems like you're trying to say that chaos can never come from order i'm saying that if order reproduces itself then it can only produce order, not chaos. if you disagree, then you disagree with your own argument

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:28:12 2014 No.4503350 >>4503347 >Sexuality is defined inherently by reproduction it is not

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:30:12 2014 No.4503351

>>4503343

I actually don't argue that. At least not in and of itself. In other words. While the sexual act per se is neither particularly wrong nor generally right, the sexual act exists in a certain state of gravity (imposed upon it by the natural way society works) in which it will always inevitably lead to the advocation (of homosexuality). So from there this system of belief would tacitly denounce the sex act itself (though only ever peripherally (in other words, there actually does exist some room in this system of thought for the ever socially comfortable 'live and let live' or 'two adults can do whatever they'd like to with each other behind closed doors, in their own privacy' (so long as the idea of privacy (as opposed to publicity) is an operative term here))).

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:32:15 2014 No.4503353

>>4503340

>Principle is something which exists a priori of nature, not literally 'before it.

There is no way this is philosophicaly justifiable without reverting to Kantian metaphysics of the noumenon and impossible to prove within science itself. I could accept such a position if you were arguing an epistemological issue but arguing that nature has such "ethical" principles that can be logicaly derived from itself, makes zero sense and cannot be proven either way.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:36:14 2014 No.4503358 The fedora scientismofism ITT is strong. Behold how one trying to rationalize the one best way for ALL humans, and laugh at the fool.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:36:14 2014 No.4503360 >>4502992 I didn't know there were still intelligent people on 4chan... I meant to tap paranormal for whatever reason. Staying here awhile.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:38:14 2014 No.4503363

>>4503351
...assuming that the purpose of human sexuality is for reproduction, which of course it partly is but has since been adapted into other roles. it seems that your argument is drifting more and more steadily towards "if everyone were gay then we would all die out so it's wrong"

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:40:15 2014 No.4503367 >>4503330 Define "nothing".

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:40:15 2014 No.4503368

>>4503346

>Anal and oral sex are not conductive to procreation, but anyway you are contradicting yourself again.

They are conducive to procreation. That's why they exist in the first place. They have been evolutionarily adapted because they are generative of a greater degree of intimacy in heterosexual couples, which is itself conducive to procreation.

>Phenomenologicaly the "natural" and "nature" are the same

Well this is pure tautology. They're the same because nature (chaos) is the phenomenology of that which is natural (order). In fact, for anybody who's confused by this thread and the distinction between nature and that which is natural, and who's also read Kant, that's a perfect way of distinguishing the two concepts.
>It is not a confusion in language as you cannot have something "unatural" within nature itself

This is itself a confusion of language. You only think you can't have something 'unnatural' within nature because the words (the literal words, nothing else, but the actual words) '(un)natural' and 'nature' seem to coincide. THAT'S the confusion of language. Because in reality, they denote and signify two completely different things. There only similarity is a sheerly linguistic one (literally, it's that the words are spelled similarly). What's not possible is having unnaturalness within naturalness (at least absolutely speaking), but that's not the issue here because we're talking about unnaturalness in NATURE, not unnaturalness in NATURALNESS. This is the real confusion of language, that you mistakenly assume nature and naturalness have anything to do with each other just because the words are coincidentally similar, and because you've not actually worked out the logic which underlies the reality of either word to see that they are in fact two different things.

And the anthropomorphisation (you mean personification) of nature is precisely what ethics is. You say that's a fallacy but you forget that human existence is itself in the very same sense also a fallacy. So the fallaciousness cancels out.

Nothing escapes deontological arguments. The entire world can be reduced deontologically. It's because it's just the truth. I know you've learned from people who don't actually understand deontology so you don't want to accept that objective and absolute truth can in fact exist, but what can you do in the face of it? Nothing.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:41:15 2014 No.4503370

>>4502795

I am confused. Do people really believe this, or has trolling reach such a high level?I personally, went through a long time of loneliness and even a phase of objectivist edginess, but, never to this level...

Can I psychoanalyze you? Can you talk about your life and relationship with woman in general ?I am not sure if you have serious relationship problems that are making you feel this way or is it just your abstract intellectualization of the state of the world.I need to understand you, I don't want to just dismiss your claims so off-handedly .

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:43:14 2014 No.4503373

>>4503350

Yes it is. That's how (hetero)sexuality comes into existence in the first place. Therefore that is it's inherent definition. Stop resisting the truth when it's so obvious and before you. All that will do is lead you down the path of acquiring the thought disease where you disassociate the psychological experience of truth from truth itself, which is postmodernism.

>>4503348

Order reproduces itself but this does not somehow entail that order can only ever reproduce order. It can reproduce itself as well as produce chaos. This isn't me disagreeing with my own argument, this IS my argument. It's also you being wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:43:15 2014 No.4503372 >>4503363 Erroneously assuming that tolerating homosexuality, a more "natural" being for a minority of people = Wanting to be a homosexual. Also assuming that birth within a traditional gender role relationship = something that's always desirable.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:44:14 2014 No.4503374 >>4502858 Fuck this guy is the perfect late capitalist drone, signed, sealed, drunk the kool aid. Next he'll start telling us what's good for the economy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:44:14 2014 No.4503375 >>4503368 This is the most stupid shit I have read all day? Do you claim to know the "will" of nature and that nature has a "will" you are on very thin ice here. Can I float in free air, by no technology, if decide that floating is human nature?

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:46:14 2014 No.4503377

>>4503353

> reverting to Kantian metaphysics of the noumenon
> and impossible to prove within science itself

Are you somehow implying that Kantian metaphysics don't exist above the realm and proper scope of science?

It cannot be evinced, precisely because its evidence is exactly everything, but it most definitely can be logically proven. None have ever produced such a logical proof but it is doubtless perfectly possible to do so.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:47:14 2014 No.4503380 >>4503367 Logic.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:47:14 2014 No.4503382 >>4503373 >Yes it is. If that were so we wouldn't have any other words to define alternative sexuality because they wouldn't exist. Hell, you wouldn't have your argument to begin with.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:48:14 2014 No.4503383

>>4503363

What don't you understand about the fact that all of these adaptations (you necessarily use this word figuratively, by the way, if you'll pay attention) of sexuality are contingent and have nothing to do with its actual definition?

And that is not a drift. That's called a categorical imperative and it's the only way to objectively determine whether or not something is wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:50:14 2014 No.4503389 >>4503383 >objectively What if everyone wasn't homosexual only a small minority was? How about that maxim?

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:55:15 2014 No.4503395

>>4503373
>That's how (hetero)sexuality comes into existence in the first place

that doesn't mean "is defined by". sexuality is more than just reproduction

>Stop resisting the truth when it's so obvious and before you.

again, don't waste my time with this. i'm not interested in seeing any attempts at closing out an argument other than through discussion of the subject at hand

>It can reproduce itself as well as produce chaos.

again, how? producing something other than what is doing the producing is not REproduction

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:57:14 2014 No.4503398

>>4503389

You're not quite grasping the purpose of the categorical imperative.

It works upon a basis of taking something to its logical conclusion, in which case the argument of 'what if only a small minority was homosexual' is utterly irrelevant. The point is to take the case, and extend it out to its extreme to 'see it for what it truly is', or take it to its logical conclusion. When you do that with homosexuality you derive the logical value of self-annihilation (which is not whether or not WE all get wiped out, but even further, whether or not the concept itself (so you see it's completely recursive) can begin to exist, in which case it cannot (hence self-annihilative)) and under a categorical imperative (mind you, the only calculus which exists for determining matters of ethicality objectively), homosexuality is therefore wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:57:14 2014 No.4503400 >>4503383 >its actual definition? the 'actual' definition is the current definition. again, terms are not mathematically precise.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:58:14 2014 No.4503402 >>4502795 >proper gender roles and traditional values? those always exist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 08:58:14 2014 No.4503403 >>4503383 >objectively determine whether or not something is wrong. by arguing about precise definitions?

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:02:14 2014 No.4503413

Won't things eventually come back full circle anyway? Dialectic cycles and all that? Eventually there's going to rise some sort of artistic expression again social justice - I don't know what form it will take, probably some sort of romanticism combined with mystic nationalism, like what happened after the 1848 revolutions - but eventually that anti-thesis is going to clash with the current thesis.

I kind of agree with the OP in one regard - the current artistic movement seems stale and immoble, even though it presents itself as dynamic purely because it is describing liberalism and sexual freedom. It constantly tries to reinvigorate itself by going further and further in it's descriptions, moving from female sexual freedom in the late 20th century to homosexuality today, to who knows what tomorrow. Merely moving forward in descriptions doesn't give life to the work though, if anything it merely gives impetus to the anti-thesis.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:02:14 2014 No.4503414 >>4503398 You could do that for murder, theft, rape and fraud, but why is consensual relationships between adults as destructive just because they can't have kids of their own? You are making sophistry to fit your little agenda.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:03:14 2014 No.4503419

>>4503395

>that doesn't mean "is defined by". sexuality is more than just reproduction

Again. Sexuality IS more than just reproduction. A things definition does NOT contain its entirety. It just gives the logical core of that thing. The generative value. The logical core, generative value, or definition of sexuality is in fact reproduction. There's no argument to be had there. It's a completely indisputable historical, evolutionary, empirical, and plainly logical fact.

>again, how? producing something other than what is doing the producing is not REproduction

So, by your logic, all offspring are identical copies of their parents? Look at it this way, chaos could never be a single thing to begin with. It's more an illusion of things. Like for instance. How children can be born with genetic defects. The phenomenology of the genetic defect is itself not a single thing, but an appearance (people with down syndrome look a certain way, etc.). Chaos has no single phenomenology. If it did it probably wouldn't be chaos to begin with. Therefore order can produce chaos because chaos is really just a certain degree of a lack of order, and thus it gives the illusion of being chaos, by contrast.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:04:14 2014 No.4503420 >>4503400 The current definition is precisely the contingent definition which is precisely not the actual definition. When I say actual I mean logical, not common. That should have been clear enough.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:07:14 2014 No.4503423

>>4503414

Its NOT destructive. This is the beginner's mistake. Ethics has NOTHING to do with effect. Or more particularly things like harm. It exists a priori of that and that's the only way it can be objective in the first place.

I have no agenda. Or whatever my 'agenda' happens to be is derived directly from principle. I have principle, and agenda therefrom, not vice versa.

Proof of this is that I used to hold the opposite opinion. Then I received a 12 year philosophical/logical eduction.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:07:14 2014 No.4503424

>>4503414
Hell, he could make the argument that heterosexuality is even more destructive than homosexuality using the same fallible logic while taking overpopulation in account, the effect our species has on the environment, the fact that without any assistance, childbirth is just as likely to result in death as in a new life, etc.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:09:14 2014 No.4503430

>>4503424

Overpopulation has nothing to do with reproduction per se and therefore heterosexuality needn't account for us. Overpopulation is the result of an arbitrary geophysical limitation (UNLESS somebody proves conclusively that the precise size of our Earth is in fact a necessity for the emergence of both life and consciousness. Let's see that happen first before we continue with that argument though).

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:10:14 2014 No.4503431 >>4503430 for it*

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:10:14 2014 No.4503432

>>4503368

>They are conducive to procreation. That's why they exist in the first place. They have been evolutionarily adapted because they are generative of a greater degree of intimacy in heterosexual couples,

The exact same claim can be made that they have been evolutionary have been adopted by homosexuality and that build greater kinship beatween group members.

>which is itself conducive to procreation.

opinions

>Well this is pure tautology. They're the same because nature (chaos) is the phenomenology of that which is natural (order).

Nature is not phenomenologicaly perceived as order (the natural). Nature is hostile and it's unknownness inflicts the primeval terror of we see in myth and language. The "natural" in this case, is an ethical category which YOU impose on the chaos of nature and assume humanity is a priori in accordance with it.
But mankind (with it's striving towards death and anihilation) and it's culturaly diverse societies point to anything but a "natural order" of things.

>This is itself a confusion of language. You only think you can't have something 'unnatural' within nature because the words (the literal words, nothing else, but the actual words) '(un)natural' and 'nature' seem to coincide. THAT'S the confusion of language.

One epistemicaly derives from the other, there is no linguistic confusion in as much that the natural order of things has to derive from somewhere (nature). However you take one definition of naturalness and you spin it around to fit it to your moral purposes, which is philosophicaly faulty. When we are talking about harmony and ballance nature and naturalness are not exclusive to each other but one follows from the other. (Language also mimics this with onomatopoeia) In the end one can only conclude that "naturalness" is a human invention (cultural,mythical, linguistic take your pick) and nothing points otherwise to this.

>And the anthropomorphisation (you mean personification) of nature is precisely what ethics is. You say that's a fallacy but you forget that human existence is itself in the very same sense also a fallacy. So the fallaciousness cancels out.

For once we agree, this is one of the reasons why the possibility of "objective ethics" is impossible.

>Nothing escapes deontological arguments. The entire world can be reduced deontologically. It's because it's just the truth.

Linguistic confusion of concepts does not amount to any "Objective truth" much less one involving ethics. Truth will always escape arguments that justify ethics that justify themselves through extrinsic causes (Something is right because it is by itself right and not because a "natural" drive leads me to do it)

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:10:14 2014 No.4503433 >>4503423 >12 year philosophical/logical eduction. Going by your tendency to appeal to authority I seriously doubt you did. If I'm wrong, god help you.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:13:14 2014 No.4503437

>>4503423
>Then I received a 12 year philosophical/logical eduction.

Appeal to authority

Your education really fucked you up. You completely disregard consequentialism while kantian maxims IS his way of dealing with the missing consequence in his categorical imperative.

So basement dwellers who never has kids, barren childless couples, cat women, disabled people who no one wants to have sex with.

All these are not naturally occurrences now? And should be put in jail for not procreating? Did you really get that brain damaged by studying?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:15:14 2014 No.4503439 >>4503398 if reproduction produces instances of wrongness, can't one argue that reproduction is wrong and unsustainable?

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:16:14 2014 No.4503441

>>4503424
>while taking overpopulation in account
There is no such thing. The carrying capacity of the Earth for human agricultural populations is tremendous, we're nowhere near it. South East Asia, the most densely populated region on Earth, could easily take another billion humans.

Overpopulation is a myth put forward by neo-Malthusians who scream too much about Mother Earth.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:18:14 2014 No.4503444

>>4503430
Homosexuality has nothing to do with reproduction per se and therefore heterosexuality needn't account for it. Homosexuality is the result of an arbitrary gender definition (UNLESS somebody proves conclusively that the precise adherence to traditional gender policies is in fact a necessity for the emergence of both life and consciousness. Let's see that happen first before we continue with that argument though).

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:21:47 2014 No.4503449

>>4503441
My point wasn't that overpopulation is a serious issue, it's a moot point really. My point was arguing that homosexuality is wrong because traditional relationships enable birth is as retarded as arguing that childbirth is wrong because it can potentially enables suffering.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:22:46 2014 No.4503451 >>4503449 >it can *it

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:26:17 2014 No.4503455

>>4503432

>The exact same claim can be made that they have been evolutionary have been adopted by homosexuality and that build greater kinship beatween group members.

No. A relatively similar claim can in fact be made, but it is not the same as the other because the one involving anal/oral sex between two heterosexual partners is more compact, more locally parsimonious as it does not need to extend outside of the couple in order to be in effect.

>opinions

Opinions which are also facts, as attested by the fact that oral and anal sex do exist across cultures and this is hard evidence that they are in fact adaptational behaviours.

>Nature is not phenomenologicaly perceived as order (the natural). Nature is hostile and it's unknownness inflicts the primeval terror of we see in myth and language.

Lol that's what I said! I said the phenomenology of nature is chaos.

>The "natural" in this case, is an ethical category which YOU impose on the chaos of nature and assume humanity is a priori in accordance with it.

Yes, and my imposition of it is of course entirely necessary being as how it is an ethical category which exists a priori of nature. It needs a mundane, Earthly, humanly arm to derive it from its ethereality. You're looking at me pulling it down and saying 'no you brought it up with you, you always had it in your hand, it was never up there in the first place, you brought it up with, you're fooling us', which is obviously a cop out.

>But mankind (with it's striving towards death and anihilation) and it's culturaly diverse societies point to anything but a "natural order" of things.

The existence of a natural order does not imply an accordance with that natural order. The last thing mankind would do is submit to a natural order. This is because we're mainly products of chaos (though primarily products of order). The fact that we resist submission to our own freedom does not in any way prove that our freedom doesn't exist. It only again demonstrates that we are tragically stupid.

> in as much that the natural order of things has to derive from somewhere (nature).

The natural order of things does not derive from nature, but more specifically, from itself. Just as the universe came into existence from nothing at all.

>However you take one definition of naturalness and you spin it around to fit it to your moral purposes, which is philosophicaly faulty.

I'm speaking in terms of logical definitions. It's not possible for them to be mistaken. This much can be verified (although this is admittedly beyond the scope of this single thread).

cont.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:27:16 2014 No.4503457

>>4503432

cont.

>When we are talking about harmony and ballance

Okay well that's not what I'm talking about. I'm not defining naturalness in terms of either.

>in the end one can only conclude that "naturalness" is a human invention (cultural,mythical, linguistic take your pick) and nothing points otherwise to this.

The proper word would be 'convention', and yes, it is a philosophical convention, as is all of philosophy or mathematics (though not (first order) logic)). All of the a priori sciences are conventions. Doesn't detract at all from their reality/truth.

>this is one of the reasons why the possibility of "objective ethics" is impossible.

Prove it.

>that justify themselves through extrinsic causes

You mean to say intrinsic, no?

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:27:16 2014 No.4503459

>>4503419
>The logical core, generative value, or definition of sexuality is in fact reproduction

and where does asexual reproduction sit?

>So, by your logic, all offspring are identical copies of their parents?

i'm referring to the 'actual' logical definition of reproduction, not the common one.

>chaos is really just a certain degree of a lack of order

chaos is a lack of absence?

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:27:16 2014 No.4503460

>>4503449
>My point was arguing that homosexuality is wrong because traditional relationships enable birth is as retarded as arguing that childbirth is wrong because it can potentially enables suffering.

That is a retarded point, and I don't even care about what people do with each other. I just came in here to correct you on overpopulation.

You are arguing that the argument that heterosexuality is superior to homosexuality because it enables life is negated purely because one could argue that birth leads to misery? You realise that not having people giving birth leads to the absence of life entirely? You're opening yourself up here, and easily painting a huge fucking target on yourself.

Fucking homos and anti-homos, your 'discussions' are on part with monekys throwing shit at each other.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:29:16 2014 No.4503463
File: 34 KB, 620x269, GTFO.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4502795
There ain't no turning back. The future is here and there's more to come.

Technology will erase gender, family, and all other values and notions that heavily rest upon our biology.

It can be unnerving to see cherished doctrines becoming obsolete as a new paradigm slowly rolls in; however, now, more than ever, people must be adaptable and flexible, else they get lost in the shift.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:31:16 2014 No.4503467 >>4503455 >This is because we're mainly products of chaos (though primarily products of order). 7/10 stop talking out your ass you have no convincing argument you know the natural order or natures intentions. If it had any.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:36:17 2014 No.4503475

>>4503433

>Going by your tendency to appeal to authority I seriously doubt you did. If I'm wrong, god help you.

Where have I appealed to authority? Just curious. Not saying I didn't but show me the particular cases. I don't remember doing that.

>>4503437

No it's not an appeal to authority. I'm not trying to say that being educated results in this belief, only that that's what happened for me. I was more making a point by admitting that I personally only thought the way I thought before (agreed with homosexuality) because I was uneducated at that time.

And also no I don't think any of that. Heterosexuals who don't reproduce aren't ethically culpable in the same way as homosexuals. It's the difference between contingency and necessity, respectively.

And lol I don't think anybody should be put in jail. I don't even think homosexuality should itself be considered a criminal offence in any case whatsoever (even if they're like publicly advocating it). But it's still wrong, at a basic philosophical level. If people choose to not acknowledge that then that's their deal. Sucks to be them because they don't get to experience what it's like to be ethical but not my problem (at least not particularly).

>>4503439

No, that would be a fallacy of composition.

>>4503444

Yeah... no. You tried. But no.

>>4503459

>and where does asexual reproduction sit? Same exact place as heterosexuality. Asexual organisms reproduce asexually, and asexuality is defined by this reproduction.

>i'm referring to the 'actual' logical definition of reproduction, not the common one.

Well aren't you just the funniest guy.

>chaos is a lack of absence?

Okay so you just want to troll now.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:37:16 2014 No.4503478

>>4503455
Ok faggot, here's the deal, you stupid pseudo-kantian. Homosexuality is not one qualitative "act" like murder or rape. You have to specify the act that homosexuals do that's morally wrong? So, what is it? Is it that they have sex for other purposes than procreation?

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:40:16 2014 No.4503485

>>4503478

Homosexuality is a proper name for the condition of a homosexual, which carries the same semantical tense as 'murderer' or 'rapist' (mind you, not comparing them, only their semantical tenses). It isn't itself one qualitative act, but it necessarily implies a set of qualitative acts within its meaningful context.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:40:16 2014 No.4503487

>>4503460
>Dem insults
You are sliding.

>You are arguing that the argument that heterosexuality is superior to homosexuality because it enables life is negated purely because one could argue that birth leads to misery?

No, I'm saying both opinions are equally retarded.

>You realise that not having people giving birth leads to the absence of life entirely?

Yes, but what does that have to do with a minority of people being homosexual have to do with anything? Hell, a larger part of the population simply never has sex throughout their lives. Should traditional gender relations resulting in birth be compulsory? Are you pissed that society has yet to assign you a girlfriend or do you honestly believe that we're heading towards extinction by openly tolerating LGBT values?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:41:16 2014 No.4503490 >>4503478 And it's not that they 'have sex for other purposes other than procreation', but, more specifically, it's that they do have sex, which is /necessarily/ unrelated to procreation.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:43:16 2014 No.4503493

>>4503485
>Homosexuality is a proper name for the condition of a homosexual

You can be homosexual in a huge variety of ways from the wimpy faggot to the manly manly man who loves men. So no. What makes denotes murders is that even though they are all different, their denominator is the qualitative act of murder. Which is the qualitative act of homosexuals? Sex for other purposes than procreation?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:47:16 2014 No.4503497 >>4503493 > So no So, homosexuals don't possess/experience homosexuality? What? Murder is no more or less a qualitative act than is gay sex.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:48:16 2014 No.4503501 >>4503497 >Murder is no more or less a qualitative act than is gay sex. So it's their sex that's wrong, yes?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:48:17 2014 No.4503503 >>4503497 What about a gay person that doesn't engage in gay acts?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:49:17 2014 No.4503506 >>4503497 What about closet homosexuals?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:49:17 2014 No.4503507 >>>/pol/

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:52:16 2014 No.4503511

>>4502795
This thread is proof that /lit/ is full of pseudo-intellectual undergrads who have no real world experience, who's only claim to intellectual elitism is a cursory reading of classics, and have been rejected time after time by women.

Apologies to those over the age of 25 with a job and family for including you in the generalization

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:52:16 2014 No.4503513

>>4503501

See

>>4503490

>>4503503
>>4503506

I honestly wouldn't consider them gay. I think sexual orientation can only be defined by motion or will towards a desire because the idea of a desire in itself (one that isn't acted upon) is socially constructed. In reality desires in themselves (specifically ones which aren't acted on, are amorphous things which acquire their relevant objects arbitrarily, through a process of ascription/confabulation (i.e. seeing things in the clouds, etc.). It's only the actual act which can positively verify the existence of a tangible sexual orientation.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:54:16 2014 No.4503516

>>4503503
>>4503506
Tended to lead unhappy lives, were persecuted and often ended up killing themselves in the recent past.
Hence the more open tolerance we have these days; It's hard to take serious and maintain an "ethically" motivated facade when it used to mean extreme emotional suffering for friends and relatives that used to directly and indirectly cause pain to entire communities.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:54:16 2014 No.4503517 >>4503511 But what if I like debating anon? I don't care that the other guy is a pseudo-Kantian conservative, not everything need be mental masturbation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:55:16 2014 No.4503519 >>4502795 "traditional" gender roles only started in the mid 1800s anyways so I'm glad to see them go.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:55:16 2014 No.4503520 it's morally wrong to pull out when you cum

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:57:16 2014 No.4503521 File: 33 KB, 251x242, 1383475137176.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4503511 Okay faggot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:58:16 2014 No.4503522 >>4503517 This, and that pseudo-Kantian conservative might as well be a homosexual transvestite just pretending to be retarded for the amusement he derives from the sake of argument. Honestly, we have no way of knowing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 09:58:16 2014 No.4503523 >>4503513 >relevant objects Meant to say intentional objects.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 10:02:17 2014 No.4503530 honey your fave writers are all gays http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LGBT_writers straights are mad cus they can't write lmaooooooo

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 10:03:17 2014 No.4503531

>>4503516

>were persecuted

Yeah, being in the closet and all.

>when it used to mean extreme emotional suffering

No, what creates extreme emotional suffering is the acceptance of homosexuality as something natural, as this leads the individual into a constant state of dissonance because his supposedly 'natural' disposition is never actually in reality reconciled.

>but much social treatment

Homosexuals receive a certain social treatment because homosexuality is what it is. Imposing fascism in order to get everyone to play nice guy to the queer will never get rid of the underlying fact that homosexuals kill themselves because of the inherent dissonance involved with homosexuality. (as is proven by the fact that in San Francisco, and in the Netherlands, two places where homosexuality has long been accepted and culturally supported, homosexuals still suffer from statistically identical drug abuse/suicide/domestic violence rates).

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 10:03:17 2014 No.4503532

>>4503513

>I honestly wouldn't consider them gay. I think sexual orientation can only be defined by motion or will towards a desire because the idea of a desire in itself

How so? They identify themselves socialy as gay (only personaly but still)The desire is the same, the object of desire is the same so what is different?

>It's only the actual act which can positively verify the existence of a tangible sexual orientation.

Nah, it's never that simple. The act of performance and "gayness" could be for someone to jack off to a camera or to imagine situations. The act itself doesn't say anything about identity, hence the problem of bisexuality.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 10:04:16 2014 No.4503533 >>4503475 doesn't the existence of homosexuality make you question whether human sexuality actually has that much to do with reproduction?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 10:09:16 2014 No.4503541 according to kant, bisexuality is ethically permissible but homosexuality is not

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 10:09:16 2014 No.4503542

>>4503533

My whole point is that homosexuality doesn't 'exist' in this way. It's not a legitimate disposition but a mere perversion.

Humans use sexuality for things like recreation not because it's some novel or profound utilisation that only creatures with a sufficient level of consciousness can do, but because we're stupid pleasure fiending/seeking animals with just a bit more mental room to know what we're doing so that we can behave more chaotically, more efficiently.

And sure there's nothing particularly wrong with that so long as you stay within the initial context of sex, which is, to match the level of generality, simply heterosexuality, but when you go beyond that, it becomes rotten.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 10:12:16 2014 No.4503550

>>4503541

No, according to Kant, bisexuality is ethically moot. Categorical imperatives work in negatives (because it's self-annihilation, not self-population). You can't decide whether something is ethically permissible through them. Only whether it's impermissible. The fact of ethical permissibility is an extension which comes to us from the positivists, which is a whole other system.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 10:13:03 2014 No.4503552

>>4503533
>doesn't the existence of homosexuality make you question whether human sexuality actually has that much to do with reproduction?

Completely fallacious ecological argument. Nothing happens for the good of the species - patterns of behaviour influenced by genes don't 'happen' because they have any sort of benefit, it just occurs those genes were passed to the most offspring. It does not necessarily confer advantage, nor does it have any thing to do with actual function. Hence why we get stupid shit in nature like female octopuses dying after giving birth.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 10:19:03 2014 No.4503564 >>4503542 why the 'initial' context of sex? how is that relevant?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 10:20:03 2014 No.4503567 >>4503564 Because that's how meaning works at a basic level.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 10:21:05 2014 No.4503569 >>4503567 that's one way of determining meaning, sure.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 10:21:05 2014 No.4503570 >>4503569 No, it's the only way. The only way which actually ends up working.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 10:25:03 2014 No.4503581 >>4503570 not the 'current' context of sex?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 10:27:03 2014 No.4503586 >>4503581 The current context is a nothing more than an interpretation of the absolute context of sex which is subject to fallibility.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 10:29:06 2014 No.4503591

>>4503542

>Humans use sexuality for things like recreation not because it's some novel or profound utilisation that only creatures with a sufficient level of consciousness can do, but because we're stupid pleasure fiending/seeking animals with just a bit more mental room to know what we're doing so that we can behave more chaotically, more efficiently.

The same hedonistic principle can be said about heterosexuality.

>And sure there's nothing particularly wrong with that so long as you stay within the initial context of sex, which is, to match the level of generality, simply heterosexuality, but when you go beyond that, it becomes rotten.

This is a very weak position to defend, it reeks of moralism and "muh feelings".
Still you haven't been able to prove how the "the natural" is justifiable in ethical terms, it seems to me you spin the definition when it suits you to define something which isn't reduced to one "pure" quality much less a "Perversion".

Perversion in reality has nothing to do with nature but everything to do with familial and cultural norms and laws. (incest,pedophilia, bestiality). It seems to me you this is the weakest part of your arguments, that unatural perversity returns with vengeance in your face as not only a socio-historical cultural norm but as psychological reality that forms the subject.
All of these point to anything but to the "natural" and "moral" sexuality and to a more complex image tied more to psychology and anthropology rather than a Naturalistic acount of mankind that arbitrarily ties morality to natural attributes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 10:29:06 2014 No.4503592 >>4503586 that doesn't mean it can't determine meaning

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 10:32:04 2014 No.4503597 What the fuck does this have to do with postmodernism? Nothing. Some people are quite stupid.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 10:33:04 2014 No.4503602 >>4502795 can you list at least 10 books about independent women and gay men i want to read them

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 10:35:05 2014 No.4503609

>>4503513
But by your definition of wrong isn't contraception equally wrong then considering the maxim:

If heterosexual couples only had consensual sex using contraceptives all the time the species would cease to exist.

This is why I find you retarded. You seem to hold to 200 year old fallacious thinking.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 10:38:04 2014 No.4503617 >>4503550 ok bisexuality is not impermissible. how can homosexuality be impermissible when bisexuality is moot?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 10:39:04 2014 No.4503618 itt: dumb stem majors discussing if homosexuality is morally wrong and natural tfw no gf

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 10:41:04 2014 No.4503622

>>4503591

>"muh feelings"

That's precisely what doesn't exist in this argument. It may seem that way to you, for whatever reason. But the substance of this argument is analytical cross reference. It checks back to the original context of sexuality and shows how heterosexuality is the only thing which is in reality vindicated of its hedonism. And that all other types of hedonism are therefore effective hedonisms.

>Perversion in reality has nothing to do with nature but everything to do with familial and cultural norms and laws

And this is your opinion. Which is rather easy to dismantle because if perversion did not in some meaningful sense exist in nature, as a concept, then it wouldn't have ever found its way into human discourse in the first place. You can't see how the natural is justifiable in ethical terms because you simply refuse to humour it as such. It is certainly not something which could make sense before you let it make sense, as with any logic (if you refuse to acknowledge the basic principles of logic, say the Aristotelian tripartite, then you simply will never be able to move forward to see how logic ends up justifying itself)

What is unnatural about the definition of perversion is its precise application, but this is not a problem in itself recently because the problem of precise application is the exact one which the logical positivists solved, conclusively, and their solution was the idea of original context, and the analytical cross reference thereto. This is not in itself a natural thing but it is the (specifically) human/social equivalent, a (purely) /logical/ thing.

You only have this idea that perversion is some empty social construct because this was indoctrinated which has been fed to you throughout your upbringing, in our post-postmodern age. It is currently quite socially unacceptable to humour the idea of the reality of something like perversion. The western world is currently in a state of isolation/denial in which it refuses to look at itself in the mirror, as it were. The reality becomes exponentially too painful each day it is ignored. There's no turning back. Either a new social movement emerges as OP suggests or we continue in being hurled towards nonexistence.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 10:44:04 2014 No.4503628

>>4503609

Nope. The fallacy exists within injecting categories which do not fit into the equation.

Is contraception a way of being? No, it is a modification upon a way of being. It is a sheer contingency. Homosexual or heterosexual dispositions are not in themselves contingencies. You're committing a category error because you are an amateur and you throw this malfunction back onto me, which is precisely the bile of the amateur. Congratulations.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 10:45:04 2014 No.4503632 >>4503617 I thought you already knew? One isn't violable of a categorical imperative.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 10:47:04 2014 No.4503639

>>4503622
>or we continue in being hurled towards nonexistence.

the thing is that not all concepts are or even can be taken to their logical conclusions. it's literally impossible for everyone to engage in sexual acts without reproducing so it's hard to suggest that homosexuality is ethically wrong because it is self-annihilating (it hasn't annihilated itself and it won't)

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 10:48:05 2014 No.4503641 >>4503639 Do you just not understand the premiss/concept of abstraction?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 10:49:05 2014 No.4503643 >>4503641 i understand that it is completely irrelevant

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 10:52:04 2014 No.4503645 >>4503632 how is that

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 10:52:04 2014 No.4503646 >>4503643 How else do you think philosophy/logic/mathematics/theoretical physics/ethics is done?

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 10:53:04 2014 No.4503647

>>4503628
Haha, lol, define the authentic homosexual way of being that isn't just an act that all homosexuals do, you haven't done this instead you have consistently been hinting that it's the act of sex for other purposes than procreation that's ethically wrong. Categorical imperatives is about ethical 'action' not ethical being. It's only a an ethical being in the sense it presupposes an overarching true moral form that can be sensed through maxims of a particular action and ought to be acted on by duty. Homosexuals can easily abide by the universal moral law just like everyone else. Congratulations you have deluded yourself by misreading Kant.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 10:53:04 2014 No.4503648 >>4503645 Bisexuality isn't violable of a categorical imperative because it's not self annihilative. If everyone were bisexual the premiss of bisexuality would still in possibility exist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 10:54:04 2014 No.4503649 >>4503646 irrelevant -to the discussion of homosexuality-

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 10:54:04 2014 No.4503651 >>4503647 Define the authentic murderer/rapist/liar was of being. There is none. It's not my problem that you, dare I say, Kant understand Kant.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 10:56:04 2014 No.4503654 >>4503649 The discussion isn't specifically of homosexuality. It's of the ethicality of homosexuality. Which requires abstraction.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 10:57:04 2014 No.4503655 >>4503648 so homosexual practices are impermissible except when practiced by a bisexual?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 10:58:04 2014 No.4503656 >>4503655 They'd be bisexual practises.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 11:00:04 2014 No.4503659 Tradition will win the argument because of the compelling narrative. What narrative does the opposition have? Nothing that is quite so compelling to our Western Christian subconscious. It is always rejected on a fundamental level.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 11:00:04 2014 No.4503660

>>4503651
That's exactly my point. Now please say the following "homosexuality is wrong because they can't procreate, they all pertain to the common denominator that they have sex that doesn't lead to the continuation of the species and thereby violates the categorical imperative because if everyone was homosexuals the species would cease to exist" because stripped of your sophistry this is your claim.

You yourself just said that it's the action that is the being in question, not the undefinable essence of being.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 11:00:04 2014 No.4503661

>>4503654
yes we're discussing whether it is wrong to be homosexual. trying to say that it is wrong because it is self-annihilating is a really unnecessary abstraction because there is no realistic situation in which practicing homosexuality would lead to self-annihilation

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 11:05:05 2014 No.4503669

>>4503660

You need to read the thread more thoroughly. It's not simply that they can't procreate, I've said this maybe 10 times already, it's that they /necessarily/ cannot naturally procreate. It's got nothing to do with the contingency of not being able to procreate, but rather, an analytical (and therefore one might say essential) fact about homosexuality (so not about the person, but about the concept of homosexuality) which necessitates that procreation isn't possible.

The actual reason is wrong is because of the logical/modal relation, not procreation. Procreation here is just a disposable sort of means whereby the modal relations are made apparent. That's where people who lack philosophical maturity always get tripped up.

I see you're trying desperately to relegate the logic here to some petty, material case, but you're wasting your breath, so to speak. Your hitting your head against a cement wall. That's how it is with logic. Sorry.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 11:06:04 2014 No.4503672 >>4503669 reason it's*

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 11:06:04 2014 No.4503673 >>4503659 >Western Christian subconscious You might as well believe in Santa and the eastern bunny, they are also very nice and appealing traditions. Also apeal to the authority of tradition doesn't really say anything philosophicaly.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 11:07:04 2014 No.4503677 >>4503673 >you believe in God? >might as well believe in Santa Why can't I hold all these fedoras?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 11:08:04 2014 No.4503679 >>4503661 Realistic is the opposite of what we're talking about here. Ethics is above 'realistic'. It's ideal. Like mathematics.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 11:12:04 2014 No.4503689

>>4503669
So it really boils down to "it's wrong because I say so" even if you just repeated my claim. What you establish as fact was exactly my argument. The reason why you can't hold this argument is because you are a filthy sophist and you know how easy it would be for me to relate other categories like contraception and childless couples to make your logic break down on itself. You can't follow your own case to its logical conclusion and you know it. Now repent coward.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 11:14:04 2014 No.4503698

>>4503689

Things like contraception and childless couples are pretty much the evidences that homosexuality is logically distinct from heterosexuality and by extension that it's wrong, because those things don't break the logic, rather, they fortify it through not breaking it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 11:15:04 2014 No.4503699 >>4503679 so is this you saying you would personally not be homosexual, or that people in general should not be homosexual?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 11:15:04 2014 No.4503701 >>4503698 >Things like contraception and childless couples are pretty much the evidences that homosexuality is logically distinct from heterosexuality and by extension that it's wrong Demonstrate pls.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 11:16:05 2014 No.4503707

>>4503669

>It's not simply that they can't procreate, I've said this maybe 10 times already, it's that they /necessarily/ cannot naturally procreate. It's got nothing to do with the contingency of not being able to procreate, but rather, an analytical

If necesity of not being able to procreate is not tied to the inherent immorality of not procreating then there is nothing logicaly or ethicaly wrong with not procreating, the two must be ties together as which in this case you have not made suficiently clear.
On the one had you say it's not the innability to procreate thats the problem and on the other hand you say it' sthe logical impossibility. The two however are contigent by their definitions.

The actual reason is wrong is because of the logical/modal relation can be just as correct if there is no fault with the original definition and aplication of not procreating.

Therefore for you to justify homosexuality as wrong you need to identify it with non procreation in all it's forms and definitions, which even in your own made up logic makes no sense.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 11:29:23 2014 No.4503747 >>4503618 >tfw no bf

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 11:32:23 2014 No.4503759

>>4503699

The latter. Although that question itself is reconsidered from different philosophical systems which may control how you approach the subject of talking about ethics, rather than simply being ethical. But for the basic 'being ethical', it's definitely a case of generality, so the latter.

>>4503701

It's the difference between necessity and contingency, respectively. As I said already a few posts back. Contraception and childless or infertile couples are cases where the lack of procreation is merely contingent, which contrasts homosexuality in which the lack of (natural) procreation is not only necessary, but also analytical. The fact that the wrongness of homosexuality can be explained so simply, in such clear cut and historically utilised terms is evidence enough to make the case for its incidental wrongness, I mean, aside from the fact that the logic itself is there and indisputable (unless you refuse to entertain it at a basic level *ahem*). Also, another way of looking at it is that contraception, infertility, and plain abstinence from procreation (in a heterosexual relationship) are mere conditions of heterosexuality and therefore categorically disparate from something like homosexuality when they are compared as categories. So apart from the modal distinction of contingent and necessary, you've got the categorical distinction of conditional and dispositional.

>>4503707

>If necesity of not being able to procreate is not tied to the inherent immorality of not procreating then there is nothing logicaly or ethicaly wrong with not procreating, the two must be ties together as which in this case you have not made suficiently clear.

Nope. You're forgetting the fact of context. Not procreating in and of itself isn't wrong. It's when you're dealing with the context of sexuality or relationship in which naturally procreating is a necessary (and analytical) impossibility because the inherent definition of sexuality or, by extension, a relationship, does in fact involve the contingency of procreation, which is only possible in heterosexual couples, and which is necessarily (and analytically) impossible in homosexuals.

> The two however are contigent by their definitions.

No they're not. No logical impossibility is contingent. There is mutual exclusivity in there. Either it's not logical or it's not impossible if it is indeed contingent.
>The actual reason is wrong is because of the logical/modal relation can be just as correct if there is no fault with the original definition and aplication of not procreating.

Man you need to work on your English. Please clarify what you were trying to say here.

>Therefore for you...

Alright, and I explained above how you actually don't, and that you only were lead to believe this because you didn't retain the context of the lack of procreation.

Anonymous Sat Jan 25 11:56:25 2014 No.4503819

>>4503759
So it really comes down to that what makes homosexuality wrong is that it is a choice and not a necessity, that's the categorical distinction between homosexuality and other forms of infertility? Well I disagree that this can be asserted as 'fact' but I must say your logic is sound. I get your case now, thank you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 12:01:55 2014 No.4503827 >>4503819 No, it has nothing to do with choices. That's an innocent assumption but the idea of choice is subsumed into the concept of homosexuality. The tense is on the necessity.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 12:03:55 2014 No.4503830 >>4503827 So it's that it's unnecessary to be homosexual, lel.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 16:46:51 2014 No.4504851 traditional bump

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 17:00:54 2014 No.4504887 >>4503100 >Not comparing homosexuals to serial killers, as we all know homosexuals are orders of magnitudes worse, Been reading through the thread, and got to this post. Guy trolled everyone in the conversation without them even realizing it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 25 20:45:55 2014 No.4505720 >>4502961 first time on /lit/ and just like that I'm taking a 180 and getting the fuck out of here

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 26 02:48:03 2014 No.4506863 >>4504887 Yeah, I actually realized that when he started talking about the nuomenal.

Anonymous Sun Jan 26 03:03:04 2014 No.4506898

>>4506863
>>4504887

My intention was to rustle jimmies, but that doesn't mean what I was saying isn't actually to some degree completely true.

In other words I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything because anybody who's been on the internet long enough knows that's futile. All fun and games in these ruined days.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature