Value of virginity and slut-shaming

[Libertarian California]

I don't know where this inferiority thing is coming from, honestly.

...

That doesn't help at all.

You believe that I think women who aren't virgins are inferior.

I do not believe that.

[Condunum]

I'm unsure if libertarians know what shame is.

Being libertarians and all.

Why talk about shame? Morality isn't objective.

...

*twitches*

[Libertarian California]

Even if that's true, they have little bearing on how I treat women. I'd have no way of knowing if a woman is a virgin or not unless I ask her or her friends, which would be an intrusion of privacy.

Which is a good thing.

However, this is something you're really going to need to deal with if you want to make any sort of lasting relationships.

Good to know.

[Libertarian California]

Why talk about shame? Morality isn't objective.

...

*twitches*

I'm not an Objectivist if that's what you're thinking.

[Condunum]

...

That doesn't help at all.

You believe that I think women who aren't virgins are inferior.

I do not believe that.

You disagree with their life choices. That's a judgement on their character. The simple fact that you make a negative judgement on their character means you're lowering their standard in your eyes, whether you recognize it or not.

Good rule: Do not judge anyone for their actions unless it directly affects others in some way. Do not view anyone negatively if their actions do not negatively affect others in some way. If said actions are justifiable, refrain from judgement.

[The Rich Port]

I'm unsure if libertarians know what shame is.

Being libertarians and all.

Why talk about shame? Morality isn't objective.

It is objective when everyone agrees to it.

Everyone in this thread agrees slut-shaming is bad, and that women are human beings who have flaws and strengths like their male counterparts.

I'm sure most American would agree once they come to their senses and think about it.

[Condunum]

...

*twitches*

I'm not an Objectivist if that's what you're thinking.

I don't care what you are. I hate the 'Morality isn't objective' line, because while true, it doesn't negate the fact that objective facts are not all that matter.

[Transhuman Proteus]

Well, your beliefs aren't helpful in the slighted, either. Why, exactly, do you believe that a woman who has been with someone else would view you as inferior?

I don't know where this inferiority thing is coming from, honestly.

I believe it is being drawn from this part of your response:

"If she's been with other men, then how could I know if what I did with her was all that meaningful if Joe Schmoe probably gave her the time of her life. I'd feel like I was worth less than her previous lovers, as if I was just another guy for her to fuck. It would cheapen the whole thing."

[Condunum]

Why talk about shame? Morality isn't objective.

It is objective when everyone agrees to it.

Everyone in this thread agrees slut-shaming is bad, and that women are human beings who have flaws and strengths like their male counterparts.

Well no, it's not. A universal belief does not make an objective belief, it just makes a universal belief.

Pain is (nearly) universally a bad thing. It is a subjective fact that pain is bad, not an objective one. Something that is dependant upon one's own reasoning, rationality and reaction is by definition subjective. That does not bar it from being fact, however.

[The Rich Port]

It is objective when everyone agrees to it.

Everyone in this thread agrees slut-shaming is bad, and that women are human beings who have flaws and strengths like their male counterparts.

Well no, it's not. A universal belief does not make an objective belief, it just makes a universal belief.

Pain is (nearly) universally a bad thing. It is a subjective fact that pain is bad, not an objective one. Something that is dependant upon one's own reasoning, rationality and reaction is by definition subjective. That does not bar it from being fact, however.

Yes, that is the distinction I was making...

[Condunum]

Well no, it's not. A universal belief does not make an objective belief, it just makes a universal belief.

Pain is (nearly) universally a bad thing. It is a subjective fact that pain is bad, not an objective one. Something that is dependant upon one's own reasoning, rationality and reaction is by definition subjective. That does not bar it from being fact, however.

Yes, that is the distinction I was making...

Well... The issue was you calling it objective, when it's not.

[The Rich Port]

Yes, that is the distinction I was making...

Well... The issue was you calling it objective, when it's not.

That's for another thread.

We can all agree LC should be ashamed for being prejudicial despite the fact he knows he's being prejudicial.

[Condunum]

Well... The issue was you calling it objective, when it's not.

That's for another thread.

We can all agree LC should be ashamed for being prejudicial despite the fact he knows he's being prejudicial.

Yes, we can.

I'd like him to realize that his prejudice does affect his judgement, as it's damn near impossible to remove one's prejudice from one's actions.

[Libertarian California]

You believe that I think women who aren't virgins are inferior.

I do not believe that.

You disagree with their life choices. That's a judgement on their character.

Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

The simple fact that you make a negative judgement on their character means you're lowering their standard in your eyes, whether you recognize it or not.

Considering A to be above average is not the same as considering B to be below average.

Good rule: Do not judge anyone for their actions unless it directly affects others in some way. Do not view anyone negatively if their actions do not negatively affect others in some way. If said actions are justifiable, refrain from judgement.

I disagree. I'm going to judge smokers and drug addicts. Their actions may not affect anybody, but I can still think to myself that they are making bad decisions. Am I going to confront them about it? Obviously not. But my thoughts are basically my own personal kingdom where I can think whatever I want about people. 99% of the time, this does not translate into action.

[Libertarian California]

I don't know where this inferiority thing is coming from, honestly.

I believe it is being drawn from this part of your response:

"If she's been with other men, then how could I know if what I did with her was all that meaningful if Joe Schmoe probably gave her the time of her life. I'd feel like I was worth less than her previous lovers, as if I was just another guy for her to fuck. It would cheapen the whole thing."

Yeah, I'd be the inferior. Not the woman.

[Napkiraly]

I believe it is being drawn from this part of your response:

"If she's been with other men, then how could I know if what I did with her was all that meaningful if Joe Schmoe probably gave her the time of her life. I'd feel like I was worth less than her previous lovers, as if I was just another guy for her to fuck. It would cheapen the whole thing."

Yeah, I'd be the inferior. Not the woman.

How would you be inferior?

[Libertarian California]

Why talk about shame? Morality isn't objective.

It is objective when everyone agrees to it.

Everyone in this thread agrees slut-shaming is bad, and that women are human beings who have flaws and strengths like their male counterparts.

I'm sure most American would agree once they come to their senses and think about it.

Everyone in Saudi Arabia agrees with the oppression of women, therefore it is an objective truth.

This isn't a tyranny by majority.

And I'm not shaming any "sluts". All I really stated was that I prefer virgins more.

[The Silence of Night]

I believe it is being drawn from this part of your response:

"If she's been with other men, then how could I know if what I did with her was all that meaningful if Joe Schmoe probably gave her the time of her life. I'd feel like I was worth less than her previous lovers, as if I was just another guy for her to fuck. It would cheapen the whole thing."

Yeah, I'd be the inferior. Not the woman.

Sometimes though, you need to just fuck. Some men will find a random girl at the bar and end up taking her home, and fucking to make himself feel better, and sometimes women do the same thing. It relieves stress.

[Transhuman Proteus]

I believe it is being drawn from this part of your response:

"If she's been with other men, then how could I know if what I did with her was all that meaningful if Joe Schmoe probably gave her the time of her life. I'd feel like I was worth less than her previous lovers, as if I was just another guy for her to fuck. It would cheapen the whole thing."

Yeah, I'd be the inferior. Not the woman.

Which is what Condunum was asking.

"Why, exactly, do you believe that a woman who has been with someone else would view you as inferior?"

So that's where it came from.

[Libertarian California]

Yeah, I'd be the inferior. Not the woman.

How would you be inferior?

You're a little late.

I'd feel like I was worth less than her previous lovers, as if I was just another guy for her to fuck.

[Condunum]

You disagree with their life choices. That's a judgement on their character.

Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Actually, it is. See: Rule I gave you.

The simple fact that you make a negative judgement on their character means you're lowering their standard in your eyes, whether you recognize it or not.

Considering A to be above average is not the same as considering B to be below average.

Yes it does. That you view some people better than others based on completely inconsequential things means you're imposing passive negative views on those people.

Good rule: Do not judge anyone for their actions unless it directly affects others in some way. Do not view anyone negatively if their actions do not negatively affect others in some way. If said actions are justifiable, refrain from judgement.

I disagree. I'm going to judge smokers and drug addicts. Their actions may not affect anybody, but I can still think to myself that they are making bad decisions. Am I going to confront them about it? Obviously not. But my thoughts are basically my own personal kingdom where I can think whatever I want about people. 99% of the time, this does not translate into action.

Poor example. Smokers and drug addicts are harming themselves. We generally don't care if you think what we do is wrong, though. What we care about is when your belief makes you consider yourself better than us.

[Fabachor]

And if I do happen to think that, what are you gonna do, whine about it? It's not like it affects you in any way, shape, or form.

Yes. Sexism affects no one. Especially not women.

But with the technical definition of sexism, couldn't sexism effect men to.

For the record this is a woman saying this.

[Libertarian California]

Yeah, I'd be the inferior. Not the woman.

Which is what Condunum was asking.

"Why, exactly, do you believe that a woman who has been with someone else would view you as inferior?"

So that's where it came from.

Oh...

I thought he was stating that I thought women were inferior...

[Napkiraly]

How would you be inferior?

You're a little late.

I'd feel like I was worth less than her previous lovers, as if I was just another guy for her to fuck.

And? For a lot of guys she'd be another girl for him to fuck. Doesn't make either party inferior.

[Dyakovo]

Yeah, the vagina is a lady part, and if anyone touches it, it makes the woman gross and dirty and used and eeeewwwww.

And if I do happen to think that, what are you gonna do, whine about it? It's not like it affects you in any way, shape, or form.

We'll mock you for being a disgusting misogynistic ass.