Attraction is Objectification

by **The Black Forrest** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:44 am

Four-sided Triangles wrote:
The Black Forrest wrote:Biology still shows you to be wrong. Objectification is not a crime.

Biology can do no such thing. There is no moral philosophy implicit in biology. None.

Biology does when it shows a human construct it wrong.

Objectification is a part of sex and reproduction.

by **Kandorith** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:45 am

Four-sided Triangles wrote:
Holy Paradise wrote:Still don't see how attraction is a bad thing, being that it is necessary to promulgate the human race.

Any outward manifestation of male attraction toward females appears to cause them psychological harm.

BWahahahahahahaha :rofl:

That is all.

And

Four-sided Triangles wrote:
The Black Forrest wrote:And the non-sequitor award goes to......

If you object to murder, you must have some moral system. It might be poorly thought out and primitive, but it's still there. The second you find anything wrong or objectionable, that automatically induces a morality.

Morality is primitive now, wait what?

by **Four-sided Triangles** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:46 am

The Black Forrest wrote:Objectification is a part of sex and reproduction.

Yes, and therefore sexual intercourse is morally wrong. Why is this so hard to get?

by **Kandorith** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:46 am

Four-sided Triangles wrote:
The Black Forrest wrote:Objectification is a part of sex and reproduction.

Yes, and therefore sexual intercourse is morally wrong. Why is this so hard to get?

So we should stop reproducing, because that's wrong?

by **Four-sided Triangles** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:47 am

Kandorith wrote:So we should stop reproducing, because that's wrong?

Artificial reproduction. In 30 years, we might not even need sperm, eggs, or uteri to do it.

by **Cromarty** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:48 am

Four-sided Triangles wrote:
The Black Forrest wrote:Objectification is a part of sex and reproduction.

Yes, and therefore sexual intercourse is morally wrong. Why is this so hard to get?

And upon what are you basing your twisted morality on?

by **Straughn** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:48 am

Four-sided Triangles wrote:
The Black Forrest wrote:Objectification is a part of sex and reproduction.

Yes, and therefore sexual intercourse is morally wrong. Why is this so hard to get?

Slugs are clearly morally superior .... got it.

All hail our New Slug Pope and USian republican candidate!
:bow:

by **Odins Scandinavia** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:48 am

Kandorith wrote:
Four-sided Triangles wrote:
Yes, and therefore sexual intercourse is morally wrong. Why is this so hard to get?

So we should stop reproducing, because that's wrong?

no, we should divert time and resources from productive ventures to figure out how to make fake cum and eggs.

because artificial insemination is still objectification, OBVIOUSLY
:roll:

Straughn wrote:
Four-sided Triangles wrote:
Yes, and therefore sexual intercourse is morally wrong. Why is this so hard to get?

Slugs are clearly morally superior .... got it.

All hail our New Slug Pope and USian republican candidate!

Newt Gingrich?
i have always maintained he is a secret Slug.

by **The Black Forrest** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:49 am

Four-sided Triangles wrote:
The Black Forrest wrote:Objectification is a part of sex and reproduction.

Yes, and therefore sexual intercourse is morally wrong. Why is this so hard to get?

The beauty of morality is that it is malleable to the situation at hand.

Your conclusion of objectification is still wrong.

by **Four-sided Triangles** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:49 am

Cromarty wrote:And upon what are you basing your twisted morality on?

The only one I've used so far is the idea that objectification is wrong.

by **Straughn** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:50 am

Wait ... for genetic integrity, slugs still fling mucous at each other in a twisted banana tango just to maintain genetic integrity.
That's gotta be immoral.

by **The Cookish States** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:50 am

Straughn wrote:Wait ... for genetic integrity, slugs still fling mucous at each other in a twisted banana tango just to maintain genetic integrity.
That's gotta be immoral.

I am sigging that

by **Four-sided Triangles** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:51 am

The Black Forrest wrote:The beauty of morality is that it is malleable to the situation at hand.

Morality that you can simply modify whenever it's convenient is effectively useless. It amounts to nothing more than a way to rationalize any action you take.

by **The Black Forrest** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:51 am

Four-sided Triangles wrote:
Kandorith wrote:So we should stop reproducing, because that's wrong?

Artificial reproduction. In 30 years, we might not even need sperm, eggs, or uteri to do it.

Wow deja-vu

This thread will be locked soon.....

by **Straughn** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:52 am

Odins Scandinavia wrote:Newt Gingrich?
i have always maintained he is a secret Slug.

Secret? I think that's what Manning was whistling "Telephone" about, really.

Privileged, no longer secret, thanx intrawebz!

by **Kandorith** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:52 am

Four-sided Triangles wrote:
Cromarty wrote:And upon what are you basing your twisted morality on?

The only one I've used so far is the idea that objectification is wrong.

Well I guess my entire culture is "immoral" then, because we see reproduction to preserve bloodlines as culture.

Ooh noes...

and wait 30 years? ROFL

I am laughing so hard right now, you can't even imagine.

by **Odins Scandinavia** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:52 am

Straughn wrote:Wait ... for genetic integrity, slugs still fling mucous at each other in a twisted banana tango just to maintain genetic integrity.
That's gotta be immoral.

win?

yeah. win.

:bow:

by **The Black Forrest** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:52 am

Four-sided Triangles wrote:
The Black Forrest wrote:The beauty of morality is that it is malleable to the situation at hand.

Morality that you can simply modify whenever it's convenient is effectively useless. It amounts to nothing more than a way to rationalize any action you take.

You are starting to understand.

by **Desperate Measures** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:53 am

Four-sided Triangles wrote:
The Black Forrest wrote:Objectification is a part of sex and reproduction.

Yes, and therefore sexual intercourse is morally wrong. Why is this so hard to get?

Because it is not morally wrong. It's hard to "get" that something is morally wrong when it is, in fact, not morally wrong. It's like saying driving is wrong because you treat everybody with a car as if they are driving drunk.

by **Odins Scandinavia** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:53 am

The Black Forrest wrote:
Four-sided Triangles wrote:
Artificial reproduction. In 30 years, we might not even need sperm, eggs, or uteri to do it.

Wow deja-vu

This thread will be locked soon.....

its run its course. it is time that it goes to the area where all threads go when they die.

Desperate Measures wrote:
Four-sided Triangles wrote:
Yes, and therefore sexual intercourse is morally wrong. Why is this so hard to get?

Because it is not morally wrong. It's hard to "get" that something is morally wrong when it is, in fact, not morally wrong. It's like saying driving is wrong because you treat everybody with a car as if they are driving drunk.

or for worrying that your mother is poisoning you for failing her.

by **Four-sided Triangles** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:54 am

The Black Forrest wrote:You are starting to understand.

So you have no sense of right and wrong and just do whatever you want with no regard for principle or for other people. Then, once you've done it, you twist around some pseudo moral logic to rationalize it.

Is that what I'm getting?

by **Kandorith** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:54 am

Desperate Measures wrote:
Four-sided Triangles wrote:
Yes, and therefore sexual intercourse is morally wrong. Why is this so hard to get?

Because it is not morally wrong. It's hard to "get" that something is morally wrong when it is, in fact, not morally wrong. It's like saying driving is wrong because you treat everybody with a car as if they are driving drunk.

I like your way of thinking, but when reading this I can't help but think that he's just mad because he can't get any....

by **Natapoc** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:55 am

The Black Forrest wrote:
Four-sided Triangles wrote:
Anyone who's not okay with theft, rape, murder, genocide, etc..

And the non-sequitor award goes to......

Non-Sequitor? It seems to follow quite well well to me. Although he did not bother to write the assumptions and show the method by which his assumptions followed to a conclusion it's pretty simple to see them.

He was asked "Who gives a shit about morality?" and replied with "Anyone who's not okay with theft, rape, murder, genocide, etc"

He's making the implication that everyone who is not okay with theft, rape, murder, and genocide is not okay with them for moral reasons.

You could argue that there exists at least one person who is not okay with, theft for example, but has some convoluted way of thinking about it in a non moral way.

But his reply is mostly true. Obvious even as a reply to the question posed.

by **Fusion Corp** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:56 am

This guy is a troll. Or at least he's joined this website for some god forsaken reason to just post this stuff on the forums.
I just looked at his nation.

by **Four-sided Triangles** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:56 am

Odins Scandinavia wrote:its run its course. it is time that it goes to the area where all threads go when they die.

Usenet?

Attraction is Objectification

Who is online