Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:42 amGrave_n_idle wrote:And what is the result we're supposed to anticipate?
A society with very little objectification.
A society with very little objectification.
NationStates
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
Attraction is Objectification
Page 63 of 67
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:42 amA society with very little objectification.
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:42 amStill ignoring the fact that you are a textbook definition of a homophobe...or are gays exempt from sexual attraction being evil
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:43 amOstroeuropa wrote:Still ignoring the fact that you are a textbook definition of a homophobe...or are gays exempt from sexual attraction being evil
Again, explain how exactly my ideas are homophobic. Your commentary is asinine at best.
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:43 amPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:44 amBecause gay men are sexually attracted to gay men, they are immoral.
Because gay women are sexually attracted to gay women, they are immoral.
Just because you think the same about straight people, does not mean you are not the textbook definition of a homophobe.
You are calling them immoral because of their sexual attraction
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:44 amGalloism wrote:Four-sided Triangles wrote:
Results are all that matters.
AHA!
*grabs a hammer, nails, and nails FST to the wall*
If results are all that matters, which is a better result - a happy couple, content with their lot in life, going through life in a way that seems acceptable to them,
OR
A couple who sits and meticulously quantifies everything (even the quantifying of the quantification) until they are angry, miserable, arguing, and eventually, broken up and miserable?
Are we supposed to be assuming that 'attraction' and 'objectification' are inherently bad? I'm missing what exactly I'm supposed to be identifying as the controversy.
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:44 amGrave_n_idle wrote:I don't see how you could possibly imagine that would in any way result from what you're suggesting.
How can there be sexual objectification, in any real sense, when there's little sexuality to begin with. Surely sexual objectification is a proper subset of sexual attraction.
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:45 amBut a chemical reaction isn't an utilitarian, rational objectification. Can unconscious acts - of which you have little to no control of - immoral?
Four-sided Triangles wrote:A society with very little objectification.
If by objectification you mean the outward examples that society hammers down, then yes. But you can't prevent - fully - the feeling. Like I said, it can be resisted rationally and morally, but it's still a natural reaction.
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:46 amOstroeuropa wrote:Because gay men are sexually attracted to gay men, they are immoral.
Because gay women are sexually attracted to gay women, they are immoral.
Just because you think the same about straight people, does not mean you are not the textbook definition of a homophobe.
You are calling them immoral because of their sexual attraction
That is the most idiotic thing I've ever read in my life.
Homophobia is about SPECIFIC DISCRIMINATION against homosexuals.
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:46 amAm I the only one who has figured out that Four-sided Triangles is just a really elaborate troll?
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:46 amFour-sided Triangles wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:Because gay men are sexually attracted to gay men, they are immoral.
Because gay women are sexually attracted to gay women, they are immoral.
Just because you think the same about straight people, does not mean you are not the textbook definition of a homophobe.
You are calling them immoral because of their sexual attraction
That is the most idiotic thing I've ever read in my life.
Homophobia is about SPECIFIC DISCRIMINATION against homosexuals.
No, it isn't. Nowhere does it state such, and I'd ask you to find where it does.
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:46 amFour-sided Triangles wrote:Grave_n_idle wrote:I don't see how you could possibly imagine that would in any way result from what you're suggesting.
How can there be sexual objectification, in any real sense, when there's little sexuality to begin with. Surely sexual objectification is a proper subset of sexual attraction.
Sexual objectification is a tiny subset of objectification. I hardly see why it's important enough to worry about, provided no one gets hurt, so to speak.
To answer the second part of your post - yes, sexual objectification is arguably a proper subset of sexual attraction. Once again, though, I find myself unsure as to why that's bad.
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:48 amFST, one of the things I'm noticing is that you seem to be ignoring a lot of good arguments.
i.e, Gall's
FOUR SIDED TRIANGLES. ARE YOU IGNORING THE ARGUMENTS THAT ARE BEING PUT FORWARDS BUT TO WHICH YOU HAVE NO ANSWER, OR DO YOU JUST NOT SEE THEM?
I would like this answered. I know it got your attention.
i.e, Gall's
If results are all that matters, which is a better result - a happy couple, content with their lot in life, going through life in a way that seems acceptable to them,
OR
A couple who sits and meticulously quantifies everything (even the quantifying of the quantification) until they are angry, miserable, arguing, and eventually, broken up and miserable?
FOUR SIDED TRIANGLES. ARE YOU IGNORING THE ARGUMENTS THAT ARE BEING PUT FORWARDS BUT TO WHICH YOU HAVE NO ANSWER, OR DO YOU JUST NOT SEE THEM?
I would like this answered. I know it got your attention.
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:51 amGrave_n_idle wrote:Galloism wrote:AHA!
*grabs a hammer, nails, and nails FST to the wall*
If results are all that matters, which is a better result - a happy couple, content with their lot in life, going through life in a way that seems acceptable to them,
OR
A couple who sits and meticulously quantifies everything (even the quantifying of the quantification) until they are angry, miserable, arguing, and eventually, broken up and miserable?
Are we supposed to be assuming that 'attraction' and 'objectification' are inherently bad? I'm missing what exactly I'm supposed to be identifying as the controversy.
I dunno. He seems to think that being attracted to someone is evil, or something.
He won't actually address the fact that his premise is what is under attack, and keeps talking about solutions based upon the premise "attraction is bad" without actually addressing the premise, which is, in of itself, faulty.
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:54 amGalloism wrote:Grave_n_idle wrote:
Are we supposed to be assuming that 'attraction' and 'objectification' are inherently bad? I'm missing what exactly I'm supposed to be identifying as the controversy.
I dunno. He seems to think that being attracted to someone is evil, or something.
He won't actually address the fact that his premise is what is under attack, and keeps talking about solutions based upon the premise "attraction is bad" without actually addressing the premise, which is, in of itself, faulty.
So basically he's acting like an emo attention whore praying for an Amazonian society where every male is castrated at birth.
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:55 amGalloism wrote:AHA!
*grabs a hammer, nails, and nails FST to the wall*
If results are all that matters, which is a better result - a happy couple, content with their lot in life, going through life in a way that seems acceptable to them,
OR
A couple who sits and meticulously quantifies everything (even the quantifying of the quantification) until they are angry, miserable, arguing, and eventually, broken up and miserable?
A couple which is happy but not equal is not a worthy result. It simply reinforces and justifies the existence of power asymmetries.
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:56 amFour-sided Triangles wrote:Galloism wrote:AHA!
*grabs a hammer, nails, and nails FST to the wall*
If results are all that matters, which is a better result - a happy couple, content with their lot in life, going through life in a way that seems acceptable to them,
OR
A couple who sits and meticulously quantifies everything (even the quantifying of the quantification) until they are angry, miserable, arguing, and eventually, broken up and miserable?
A couple which is happy but not equal is not a worthy result. It simply reinforces and justifies the existence of power asymmetries.
ATTENTION grabbing.
And if the woman is superior, as you would obviously like given your ideals of a woman-run government?
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:56 amFour-sided Triangles wrote:Galloism wrote:AHA!
*grabs a hammer, nails, and nails FST to the wall*
If results are all that matters, which is a better result - a happy couple, content with their lot in life, going through life in a way that seems acceptable to them,
OR
A couple who sits and meticulously quantifies everything (even the quantifying of the quantification) until they are angry, miserable, arguing, and eventually, broken up and miserable?
A couple which is happy but not equal is not a worthy result. It simply reinforces and justifies the existence of power asymmetries.
Why is that not a worthy result?
Besides, who is putting more quantifiable "service" into a relationship could vary widely by day, week, month, year... as long as they're happy, who cares?
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:56 amFour-sided Triangles wrote:Galloism wrote:AHA!
*grabs a hammer, nails, and nails FST to the wall*
If results are all that matters, which is a better result - a happy couple, content with their lot in life, going through life in a way that seems acceptable to them,
OR
A couple who sits and meticulously quantifies everything (even the quantifying of the quantification) until they are angry, miserable, arguing, and eventually, broken up and miserable?
A couple which is happy but not equal is not a worthy result. It simply reinforces and justifies the existence of power asymmetries.
Why do you think a happy couple has power asymmetries? Does it occur to you that your accounting of their relative power may be lacking?
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:57 amFour-sided Triangles wrote:A couple which is happy but not equal is not a worthy result. It simply reinforces and justifies the existence of power asymmetries.
If the morality you're going to live under leads you to lack of happiness, then why follow it?
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:58 amFour-sided Triangles wrote:Galloism wrote:AHA!
*grabs a hammer, nails, and nails FST to the wall*
If results are all that matters, which is a better result - a happy couple, content with their lot in life, going through life in a way that seems acceptable to them,
OR
A couple who sits and meticulously quantifies everything (even the quantifying of the quantification) until they are angry, miserable, arguing, and eventually, broken up and miserable?
A couple which is happy but not equal is not a worthy result. It simply reinforces and justifies the existence of power asymmetries.
So you would enforce symmetry, even where the individuals involved were happier without it?
Obviously, 'equality' and 'objectification' only even overlap tangentially. Are you being serious?
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:59 amA smug moral superiority complex.
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:59 amSo that FST won't have to live with the idea that you boned, obviously? It's really a pointless thing, to live an unhappy life to be a whiteknight 24/7.
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 11:03 amGauthier wrote:A smug moral superiority complex.
Not even stoicism or Kant philosophy endorse that lifestyle.
New Hayesalia wrote:So that FST won't have to live with the idea that you boned, obviously? It's really a pointless thing, to live an unhappy life to be a whiteknight 24/7.
I don't believe white knights actually live under that morality either... Incorruptible Pure Pureness doesn't defy the laws of nature that radically.
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 11:05 am