Attraction is Objectification

[Seibertron]

And utilitarianism would favor sex, being that sex promulgates the human race and is pleasurable, ergo, it is benefiting the greater good.

[E-lands]

I really could care less. If Humans did not look at each other sexually, there would be no sex. If there is no sex, there is no reproduction, and Humans go extinct, which would defy the point of life which is to survive. Therefore, if Humans stop looking at each other sexually, we just screwed ourselves.

[Norstal]

You can call whatever you like 'Logic' but that does not make it so. Emotions and logic are entirely different things, Empathy has nothing to do with logic. Indeed, it can lead to you endangering your own life and other such dire concenquences. Hardly logical!

Nope, logic isn't about your own survival. Logic can be biased by emotions, but it doesn't mean that altruism or empathy not logical. Let's use FST as an example. Note that this is what I derived from his arguments. These are not mine.

1. I am useless in this world.
2. My offspring will be useless too.
Conclusion: do not make offspring.

It's empathetic is it not? You don't want your offspring to exist because you know they'll be useless and you don't want them to feel what they feel. And you don't want the world to be mucked up by your genes. It's logical. I don't see how it's not. You're drawing a false dichotomy here.

I can honestly say I try to follow my rules to the letter. As I may have mentioned, sometimes I fail. I am human after all, I have been known to be selfish on occasion. As for it being due to empty and suffering guilt as a result of doing something to someone, that's hardly true. I'm quite intelligent enough to manipulate people and abuse them for my own ends without them realising what I am doing. Most people are if they put their mind to it.

But in the instances where you do fail, why do you think you fail? Is it not because you think it's irrational to follow your morals in the cases when you do fail? Being human is being rational.

And no I didn't say you don't do it because of guilt. You don't do it because of two logical things: your ethics and that you don't want the same thing happen to you. If you don't kill other people for instance, the chances of you being killed is reduced. Likewise for any other petty crimes.

If it does me no harm, and they don't realise it, then where is the logic in not doing it? There is none, aside from the fact I know, ethically it is wrong.

Yes, but where is the foundation of those ethics?

You realize what I'm doing here right? We're trying to find out why FST is wrong. If we say that there are morals then his morals would be correct and that there is no counter-arguments that can be made against him.

[Holy Paradise]

If we take the definitions of rationality and reasonableness from John Rawls, FST is certainly rational, but he is not being reasonable, I argue.

[Gravonia]

Women are conditioned by society to put up with the embarrassment of being viewed sexually. Men are conditioned to think being viewed sexually is "awesome" because society tells us that we are ready for sex 24/7.

Or maybe women are conditioned by society to feel embarrassment when being viewed sexually?

You seem not to hit on women because you don't want to put them through the embarrassment. Maybe instead of campaigning for men not to hit on women you should campaign for women not to feel embarrassment when they do. That way you achieve your goal of women not being embarrassed and you get to have sex.

It's win all round.

[Holy Paradise]

Women are conditioned by society to put up with the embarrassment of being viewed sexually. Men are conditioned to think being viewed sexually is "awesome" because society tells us that we are ready for sex 24/7.

Or maybe women are conditioned by society to feel embarrassment when being viewed sexually?

You seem not to hit on women because you don't want to put them through the embarrassment. Maybe instead of campaigning for men not to hit on women you should campaign for women not to feel embarrassment when they do. That way you achieve your goal of women not being embarrassed and you get to have sex.

It's win all round.

I find that problematic too. I think the argument that men should respect women is great, but the problem is FST takes it to an extreme.

[Norstal]

If we take the definitions of rationality and reasonableness from John Rawls, FST is certainly rational, but he is not being reasonable, I argue.

Yes you can put it that way. Well, I'm not sure if it matches with what John Rawls says, but what I am saying is that his morals aren't morals at all. It is simply flawed logic.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

[all of the above was sarcasm, btw. Take it at face value at your peril. If you laughed at it or at least shook your head, congratulations. In all seriousness, though, it is indicative of how either feminism, or at least some of its adherants, has gone WAY wrong, or some people have gone WAY off track in interpreting what feminism's actually supposed to be about.]

I did giggle. A lot. And yes, it is ridiculous how far the wrong way some people have gone to supposedly try to right some of the wrongs that exist, for all the wrong reasons to boot.

Like I said, if some people want to go around being miserable and dysfunctional, that's their business. Leave me out of it. I don't have a problem with men, women, and the relationships that can exist on several levels between them. I don't intend to force people who don't want to be intimately involved to do so, nor do I care for anyone suggesting I should have any guilt, hangups, or inherent dislike for such activities myself.

Given the OP's continued 'I am so broken, but hey, you should all be broken like me too' posts, other than attention-whoring, I'm unsure where he's going with it all. It's like he lives in a little glass cage of his own creation that can shatter at the slightest misstep or ill-timed jostle, while at the same time, mainly showcasing just how ridiculous he's being, for all to see. He's just going to dismiss or ignore my comments anyway, as usual. Clearly, I can't think or reason for myself, so why should he accept anything I have to say on the matter.

I must say though, these threads seem to bring up one of my fave songs to mind, every time I see them.

I don't know your fucking name, so what, let's fuck. All day I dream about sex ... all day I dream about fucking ... (Yay Korn. And I refuse to feel bad about any of it, so nyah.)

[Sulfar]

It's me or FST almost never bothered to reply to the women who posted in this thread?
Might have skipped something in the 40-or-so pages, though.

You seem not to hit on women because you don't want to put them through the embarrassment. Maybe instead of campaigning for men not to hit on women you should campaign for women not to feel embarrassment when they do. That way you achieve your goal of women not being embarrassed and you get to have sex.

It's win all round.

That doesn't solve his "sex = objectification" problem, I guess. Even if women wouldn't be embarassed, men would still view them, according to him, as sexual objects.

[Norstal]

I don't know your fucking name, so what, let's fuck. All day I dream about sex ... all day I dream about fucking ... (Yay Korn. And I refuse to feel bad about any of it, so nyah.)

Remember when I said you're not as cool in NSG as you are in real life?

Well, you're cool in NSG now. *nods*

[Steel and Fire]

Any thought of any person ever finding me sexually attractive is humiliating, degrading, and overwhelmingly unbearable. Thinking about the possibility that someone could view me as attractive or as something to have sex with causes me extraordinary mental anguish. And this is just from imagining what it would be like to be viewed sexually. Actually being viewed sexually must be far worse.

Who am I to put any other human through this?

FST, unless you live in the middle of a desert or a cave away from human civilization, or in some kind of commune for asexuals, I can guarantee you that you HAVE been viewed sexually thousands of times in your life. It doesn't matter how unattractive you think you are - there is a segment of the population which could be complete strangers who will look at you and get horny. Some because they are horny regardless and going to find attraction to the first mature human in sight, and some because you are ACTUALLY attractive to them. You haven't imagined anything.

I dunno, I suppose there are some people so non-sexy that no one will ever view them sexually. We know the opposite extreme exists (people so attractive even those of incompatible sexual orientations would be willing to sleep with them) after all, and law of averages etc.

Most men, and most women ENJOY being viewed as sexually appealing. Some might view it as a confidence booster. Most people do not think being attractive equals being treated as an object.

To be fair, one needs a minimum level of self-confidence to accept being viewed as attractive. A person with low self-esteem will assume that everyone who claims to find them attractive is lying or deluded.

[The Halseyist Faction]

You can call whatever you like 'Logic' but that does not make it so. Emotions and logic are entirely different things, Empathy has nothing to do with logic. Indeed, it can lead to you endangering your own life and other such dire concenquences. Hardly logical!

Nope, logic isn't about your own survival. Logic can be biased by emotions, but it doesn't mean that altruism or empathy not logical. Let's use FST as an example. Note that this is what I derived from his arguments. These are not mine.

1. I am useless in this world.
2. My offspring will be useless too.
Conclusion: do not make offspring.

It's empathetic is it not? You don't want your offspring to exist because you know they'll be useless and you don't want them to feel what they feel. And you don't want the world to be mucked up by your genes. It's logical. I don't see how it's not. You're drawing a false dichotomy here.

I can honestly say I try to follow my rules to the letter. As I may have mentioned, sometimes I fail. I am human after all, I have been known to be selfish on occasion. As for it being due to empty and suffering guilt as a result of doing something to someone, that's hardly true. I'm quite intelligent enough to manipulate people and abuse them for my own ends without them realising what I am doing. Most people are if they put their mind to it.

But in the instances where you do fail, why do you think you fail? Is it not because you think it's irrational to follow your morals in the cases when you do fail? Being human is being rational.

And no I didn't say you don't do it because of guilt. You don't do it because of two logical things: your ethics and that you don't want the same thing happen to you. If you don't kill other people for instance, the chances of you being killed is reduced. Likewise for any other petty crimes.

If it does me no harm, and they don't realise it, then where is the logic in not doing it? There is none, aside from the fact I know, ethically it is wrong.

Yes, but where is the foundation of those ethics?

You realize what I'm doing here right? We're trying to find out why FST is wrong. If we say that there are morals then his morals would be correct and that there is no counter-arguments that can be made against him.

I am amused. But while I appreciate that you are trying to undermine the existence of morals to prove a poster on the internet wrong, you can't use flawed irrational logic against someone who only uses logic. If I can stubbornly argue against you and believe you are talking nonsense (I am still entirely convinced you are, most of your last post doesn't make sense) then he will as well, and you'll achieve nothing.

Back to the point, it certainly has nothing to do with me not wanting the same thing to happen to me. I wouldn't notice if someone was expertly manipulating me for their own benifit, so why would I care? Only the world I can perceive is the world I live in. (Although if I -knew- they were doing it, that would be different.)

And I fail because I want to. Because I have no logical reason for my morals. Because I don't understand the universe, I don't know the secret to life, havn't a clue if there is life eternal or re-incarnation. I fail because for all I know this slightly crappy utterly short transitory meaningless existence is all I have and if I can't enjoy that because of illlogical nonsensical self imposed rules then, well... You see my point? But most of the time, I do try. Apparently I am told this makes me a 'Good person', but personally I think thats poppycock.

Your first paragraph only makes my head hurt. I am only trying to refute your previous statement, that there are no morals and that no-one has them. I certainly do. For all I know, I am the only one. (Unlikely, I think.) But morals are not logical, and some individuals do possess them.

[Steel and Fire]

I really could care less. If Humans did not look at each other sexually, there would be no sex. If there is no sex, there is no reproduction, and Humans go extinct, which would defy the point of life which is to survive. Therefore, if Humans stop looking at each other sexually, we just screwed ourselves.

Presumably you mean "we just didn't screw ourselves" ;)

[Holy Paradise]

I really could care less. If Humans did not look at each other sexually, there would be no sex. If there is no sex, there is no reproduction, and Humans go extinct, which would defy the point of life which is to survive. Therefore, if Humans stop looking at each other sexually, we just screwed ourselves.

Presumably you mean "we just didn't screw ourselves"

Hey-oh

[Nazis in Space]

I must say though, these threads seem to bring up one of my fave songs to mind, every time I see them.

I don't know your fucking name, so what, let's fuck. All day I dream about sex ... all day I dream about fucking ... (Yay Korn. And I refuse to feel bad about any of it, so nyah.)

Also relevant.

[Samuraikoku]

I find that problematic too. I think the argument that men should respect women is great, but the problem is FST takes it to an extreme.

I think it's a misinterpretation of reading Kant. In the other thread about "I shouldn't love my relatives more than other good people", it was exactly the same case.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

I must say though, these threads seem to bring up one of my fave songs to mind, every time I see them.

I don't know your fucking name, so what, let's fuck. All day I dream about sex ... all day I dream about fucking ... (Yay Korn. And I refuse to feel bad about any of it, so nyah.)

Also relevant.

Oddly enough, I do have that on my playlist. I'm sure we could call up a whole list of appropriate (or inappropriate as the case may be) examples. Save a horse, ride a cowboy ...

[The Black Forrest]

Women are conditioned by society to put up with the embarrassment of being viewed sexually. Men are conditioned to think being viewed sexually is "awesome" because society tells us that we are ready for sex 24/7.

Or maybe women are conditioned by society to feel embarrassment when being viewed sexually?

You seem not to hit on women because you don't want to put them through the embarrassment. Maybe instead of campaigning for men not to hit on women you should campaign for women not to feel embarrassment when they do. That way you achieve your goal of women not being embarrassed and you get to have sex.

It's win all round.

Indeed. It's the "moral" systems which taught women to be ashamed and embarrassed.

[E-lands]

I really could care less. If Humans did not look at each other sexually, there would be no sex. If there is no sex, there is no reproduction, and Humans go extinct, which would defy the point of life which is to survive. Therefore, if Humans stop looking at each other sexually, we just screwed ourselves.

Presumably you mean "we just didn't screw ourselves"

No pun intended

[The Congregationists]

I did giggle. A lot. And yes, it is ridiculous how far the wrong way some people have gone to supposedly try to right some of the wrongs that exist, for all the wrong reasons to boot.

Like I said, if some people want to go around being miserable and dysfunctional, that's their business. Leave me out of it. I don't have a problem with men, women, and the relationships that can exist on several levels between them. I don't intend to force people who don't want to be intimately involved to do so, nor do I care for anyone suggesting I should have any guilt, hangups, or inherent dislike for such activities myself.

Given the OP's continued 'I am so broken, but hey, you should all be broken like me too' posts, other than attention-whoring, I'm unsure where he's going with it all. It's like he lives in a little glass cage of his own creation that can shatter at the slightest misstep or ill-timed jostle, while at the same time, mainly showcasing just how ridiculous he's being, for all to see. He's just going to dismiss or ignore my comments anyway, as usual. Clearly, I can't think or reason for myself, so why should he accept anything I have to say on the matter.

I must say though, these threads seem to bring up one of my fave songs to mind, every time I see them.

My take: If I were a raging anti-feminist, I'd do exactly as FST is doing here and now. This reeks of false flag to me. The point of view he's presenting is to feminism what Christwire and/or Landover Baptist are to fundamentalist Christianity. Into what fever swamps of extremism can I push this ideology I really don't like so as to make it look bad, then sit there and laugh my ass off at everyone rushing to get all serious about it. It's Poe's Law in action.

[Norstal]

I am amused. But while I appreciate that you are trying to undermine the existence of morals to prove a poster on the internet wrong, you can't use flawed irrational logic against someone who only uses logic. If I can stubbornly argue against you and believe you are talking nonsense (I am still entirely convinced you are, most of your last post doesn't make sense) then he will as well, and you'll achieve nothing.

Your inability to understand English words is none of my concern.

It's not nonsense. Why do you think people are moral nihilist? Because there are no morals. What you perceive as morals is actually a rational rule you made from your own logic. Emotions in creating those morals are just added bias to the logic used in creating that rational rule. What is so hard about that?

Back to the point, it certainly has nothing to do with me not wanting the same thing to happen to me. I wouldn't notice if someone was expertly manipulating me for their own benifit, so why would I care? Only the world I can perceive is the world I live in. (Although if I -knew- they were doing it, that would be different.)

And I fail because I want to. Because I have no logical reason for my morals. Because I don't understand the universe, I don't know the secret to life, havn't a clue if there is life eternal or re-incarnation. I fail because for all I know this slightly crappy utterly short transitory meaningless existence is all I have and if I can't enjoy that because of illlogical nonsensical self imposed rules then, well... You see my point? But most of the time, I do try. Apparently I am told this makes me a 'Good person', but personally I think thats poppycock.

That IS being logical or at least it is logically valid. You can only make moral rules based on the evidence that you observed. I don't see how that's not logical, because if you were illogical, you would've made moral rules outside of your observation. Thus morals are actually rational rules based on your logic.

And when you fail when you want to, it's not moral anymore is it? A law without enforces is simply not a law.

Your first paragraph only makes my head hurt. I am only trying to refute your previous statement, that there are no morals and that no-one has them. I certainly do. For all I know, I am the only one. (Unlikely, I think.) But morals are not logical, and some individuals do possess them.

Morals are logical to the person who holds the morals. Which is why I said at the very beginning that they're not morals, they're just simply rational rules. The only way there exists any type of morals is when there's a universal moral.

[Samuraikoku]

I believe this is Kant taken to an extreme. For further reference - and this is not an ad hominem argumentation... Kant was supposedly celibate.

[Georgizm]

I objectify with pride

[Four-sided Triangles]

My take: If I were a raging anti-feminist, I'd do exactly as FST is doing here and now. This reeks of false flag to me. The point of view he's presenting is to feminism what Christwire and/or Landover Baptist are to fundamentalist Christianity. Into what fever swamps of extremism can I push this ideology I really don't like so as to make it look bad, then sit there and laugh my ass off at everyone rushing to get all serious about it. It's Poe's Law in action.

It's not a "false flag," because I've already acknowledged that most feminists don't agree with me.

[Newmoonrising]

Also relevant.

Oddly enough, I do have that on my playlist. I'm sure we could call up a whole list of appropriate (or inappropriate as the case may be) examples. Save a horse, ride a cowboy ...

Zing!