Grave_n_idle wrote:And what is the result we're supposed to anticipate?
A society with very little objectification.
Advertisement
by Four-sided Triangles » Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:42 am
Grave_n_idle wrote:And what is the result we're supposed to anticipate?
by Ostroeuropa » Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:42 am
by Four-sided Triangles » Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:43 am
Ostroeuropa wrote:Still ignoring the fact that you are a textbook definition of a homophobe...or are gays exempt from sexual attraction being evil
by Grave_n_idle » Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:43 am
by Ostroeuropa » Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:44 am
by Grave_n_idle » Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:44 am
Galloism 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?
by Four-sided Triangles » Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:44 am
Grave_n_idle wrote:I don't see how you could possibly imagine that would in any way result from what you're suggesting.
by Samuraikoku » Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:45 am
Four-sided Triangles wrote:A society with very little objectification.
by Four-sided Triangles » Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:46 am
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
by The Anti-Cosmic Gods » Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:46 am
by Ostroeuropa » Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:46 am
Four-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.
by Grave_n_idle » Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:46 am
Four-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.
by New Hayesalia » Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:48 am
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?
by Galloism » Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:51 am
Grave_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.
by Gauthier » Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:54 am
Galloism 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.
by Four-sided Triangles » Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:55 am
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?
by New Hayesalia » Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:56 am
Four-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.
by Galloism » Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:56 am
Four-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.
by Lauchlin » Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:56 am
Four-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.
by Samuraikoku » Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:57 am
Four-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.
by Grave_n_idle » Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:58 am
Four-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.
by Gauthier » Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:59 am
by New Hayesalia » Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:59 am
by Samuraikoku » Sat Dec 31, 2011 11:03 am
Gauthier wrote:A smug moral superiority complex.
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.
by The Anti-Cosmic Gods » Sat Dec 31, 2011 11:05 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: 0rganization, Choson Minjujuui, Google [Bot], Hurdergaryp, Ifreann, Lycom, Ukraine-0, Umeria
Advertisement