Value of virginity and slut-shaming

[Fabachor]

But The Muslims of Saudi Arabia (or at lest the good one that have even the most basic since of their religion) know that women mustn't be oppressed they are honoured.

... They're honoured by hiding them away behind veils and walls and keeping them away from cars?

Next thing you're going to tell is that the cuffs African slaves wore were a fashion statement.

Yes

[Desperate Measures]

You have no idea...

What did I just walk into?

I think I'm slut shaming myself.

[Libertarian California]

The thought of me having sex with men is icky. Does that mean I think people should be prevented from doing so? No.

The fact of the matter is you are calling non-virgin women tainted, whether or not you try to be coy about it.
Eww there was a penis there 2gross I couldn't ever be with you ;n;
The only way you could more blatantly say that you think non-virgin women are tainted is by literally saying just that. You're saying that you can't have meaningful relationships with them. Hence, you're saying they have less value as a human being.

If you missed it earlier, I said that I'd have no way of knowing whether or not a girl is a virgin unless I ask her or her friends. And I'd refrain from doing so because it would be an intrusion of privacy.

This is why I said it shouldn't matter because I'd be powerless to change the situation anyways.

I prefer blonds over brunettes. Does that mean I can't have a relationship with a brunette?

[Libertarian California]

1. Good thing I'm not shaming anyone.



2. Good thing I don't create social attitudes.



3. Good thing I've never talked about this with anybody outside of NSG, and therefore have influenced almost nobody.

1. But, you are, by contributing to the negative social attitudes.

2. But, whether or not you realize it, desire to, or even acknowledge it, whenever you express an opinion, you contribute to social attitudes, whether positive or negative (and the particular attitude you're contributing to is most decidedly negative).

3. And that's actually worse than saying it in real life, because total strangers lurk these threads, including many social conservatives. Who then go on to share those types of insights with others, thus contributing to the chain reaction.

1. How? This is the first time I've ever shared these opinions, and everyone who saw them hated them.
2. See above
3. The number of people looking at my posts specifically and then subsequently re-posting them is extremely low.

[Desperate Measures]

The fact of the matter is you are calling non-virgin women tainted, whether or not you try to be coy about it.
Eww there was a penis there 2gross I couldn't ever be with you ;n;
The only way you could more blatantly say that you think non-virgin women are tainted is by literally saying just that. You're saying that you can't have meaningful relationships with them. Hence, you're saying they have less value as a human being.

If you missed it earlier, I said that I'd have no way of knowing whether or not a girl is a virgin unless I ask her or her friends. And I'd refrain from doing so because it would be an intrusion of privacy.

This is why I said it shouldn't matter because I'd be powerless to change the situation anyways.

I prefer blonds over brunettes. Does that mean I can't have a relationship with a brunette?

The hair analogy would work if you wouldn't date a brunette that dyed her hair blond that one time before you met her. I think that would work better. I don't know how much thought I want to devote to this.

[The Rich Port]

... They're honoured by hiding them away behind veils and walls and keeping them away from cars?

Next thing you're going to tell is that the cuffs African slaves wore were a fashion statement.

Yes

So, you either suck at humor or you suck at NSG in general.

HAOU

[Soldati Senza Confini]

One thing or two:

1 - The personal ethical values of a person doesn't mean a general ethical conduct is pretty standard. Shit, there's like, 1000 arguments for different ethical codes: from objectivism all the way to Christian Virtue Ethics. Ethics are pretty subjective too, so no, you don't get to claim "ethics" as objective, because they are not.

2 - Influencing others = Slippery Slope argument. Also, a bit of human nature: 99% of people in general are idiots. Individually, you can say most people are smart and they have a great potential. Collectively? We are retarded, sorry, but it is the truth. Individual thought trumps over collective, it's just the way it is.

3 - Virginity has no relevance in a woman's personality, like, at all. However a woman's personality has much to do with her sexual practices. Yes, while a woman being a virgin or not is irrelevant, a woman's personality has more to do if said person will virgin-shame you, use you sexually, or even cheat on you, same as virgins being virgins is not bad in and of itself, but virgins who have very disagreeable personalities can, in fact, be assholes. Is this a hard concept for people to grasp?

[Fabachor]

Yes

So, you either suck at humor or you suck at NSG in general.

HAOU

I suck at NSG in general.

[Grenartia]

1. But, you are, by contributing to the negative social attitudes.

2. But, whether or not you realize it, desire to, or even acknowledge it, whenever you express an opinion, you contribute to social attitudes, whether positive or negative (and the particular attitude you're contributing to is most decidedly negative).

3. And that's actually worse than saying it in real life, because total strangers lurk these threads, including many social conservatives. Who then go on to share those types of insights with others, thus contributing to the chain reaction.

1. How? This is the first time I've ever shared these opinions, and everyone who saw them hated them.
2. See above
3. The number of people looking at my posts specifically and then subsequently re-posting them is extremely low.

1. By the very fact that you're sharing them.

2. I'm not seeing a refutation of my logic.

3. Doesn't matter. You've never heard of 6 degrees of separation, have you?

[Libertarian California]

1. How? This is the first time I've ever shared these opinions, and everyone who saw them hated them.
2. See above
3. The number of people looking at my posts specifically and then subsequently re-posting them is extremely low.

1. By the very fact that you're sharing them.

2. I'm not seeing a refutation of my logic.

3. Doesn't matter. You've never heard of 6 degrees of separation, have you?

Come talk to me when I'm actually quoted off of NSG.

You really think someone is going to come on here and go

"Gee, I wonder what LC thinks? Hey, I'll go find out, and then take his ideas and put them on my blog".

[Grenartia]

:palm:

One thing or two:

1 - The personal ethical values of a person doesn't mean a general ethical conduct is pretty standard. Shit, there's like, 1000 arguments for different ethical codes: from objectivism all the way to Christian Virtue Ethics. Ethics are pretty subjective too, so no, you don't get to claim "ethics" as objective, because they are not.

2 - Influencing others = Slippery Slope argument. Also, a bit of human nature: 99% of people in general are idiots. Individually, you can say most people are smart and they have a great potential. Collectively? We are retarded, sorry, but it is the truth. Individual thought trumps over collective, it's just the way it is.

3 - Virginity has no relevance in a woman's personality, like, at all. However a woman's personality has much to do with her sexual practices. Yes, while a woman being a virgin or not is irrelevant, a woman's personality has more to do if said person will virgin-shame you, use you sexually, or even cheat on you, same as virgins being virgins is not bad in and of itself, but virgins who have very disagreeable personalities can, in fact, be assholes. Is this a hard concept for people to grasp?

1. Except, ethics are pretty much objective. People know that murder IS VERY WRONG. As is theft. As is rape. I could go on.

2. Ah, but when you improve the individual thoughts of EVERYBODY, you improve the collective thoughts. That's how progress happens. There's a reason why almost nobody in mainstream American society is pro-slavery. Because several generations ago, individual thoughts were improved to the degree that collectively, everybody saw the inherent evil in the act of owning a person, and spread that to their kids (who in turn, spread it to their kids, and so on). Collective thoughts were improved, by improving individual thoughts.

[Imsogone]

Just putting this out there - I do not understand this fascination with other people's sex lives or lack thereof. As long as they're happy and aren't spreading diseases, having children that they refuse to care for or otherwise not harming anyone, why should anyone care.

Is it perhaps a perceived lack in the fascinated party's own life that is being avoided?

[Condunum]

:palm:

One thing or two:

1 - The personal ethical values of a person doesn't mean a general ethical conduct is pretty standard. Shit, there's like, 1000 arguments for different ethical codes: from objectivism all the way to Christian Virtue Ethics. Ethics are pretty subjective too, so no, you don't get to claim "ethics" as objective, because they are not.

2 - Influencing others = Slippery Slope argument. Also, a bit of human nature: 99% of people in general are idiots. Individually, you can say most people are smart and they have a great potential. Collectively? We are retarded, sorry, but it is the truth. Individual thought trumps over collective, it's just the way it is.

3 - Virginity has no relevance in a woman's personality, like, at all. However a woman's personality has much to do with her sexual practices. Yes, while a woman being a virgin or not is irrelevant, a woman's personality has more to do if said person will virgin-shame you, use you sexually, or even cheat on you, same as virgins being virgins is not bad in and of itself, but virgins who have very disagreeable personalities can, in fact, be assholes. Is this a hard concept for people to grasp?

1. Except, ethics are pretty much objective. People know that murder IS VERY WRONG. As is theft. As is rape. I could go on.

If it influenced by our thoughts and decisions, it cannot be objective. Ethics are subjective.

[Grenartia]

1. By the very fact that you're sharing them.

2. I'm not seeing a refutation of my logic.

3. Doesn't matter. You've never heard of 6 degrees of separation, have you?

1. Come talk to me when I'm actually quoted off of NSG.

2. You really think someone is going to come on here and go

"Gee, I wonder what LC thinks? Hey, I'll go find out, and then take his ideas and put them on my blog".

1. Do you not get that nobody will directly quote you? People will only see your posts, and, if they agree, use your line of reasoning to their own, and express their opinion. The process will then repeat itself.

2. Nobody will say that, but lurkers who read through the posts will see yours, and use that to contribute to their opinions, via the process mentioned above. I'm almost certain nobody says "Oh hey, let's see what Gren posted, and I'll use it in my opinions." However, people who read through my posts, and agree with my logic will inevitably use at least some bits and pieces of my logic in their opinions.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

1. Except, ethics are pretty much objective. People know that murder IS VERY WRONG. As is theft. As is rape. I could go on.

2. Ah, but when you improve the individual thoughts of EVERYBODY, you improve the collective thoughts. That's how progress happens. There's a reason why almost nobody in mainstream American society is pro-slavery. Because several generations ago, individual thoughts were improved to the degree that collectively, everybody saw the inherent evil in the act of owning a person, and spread that to their kids (who in turn, spread it to their kids, and so on). Collective thoughts were improved, by improving individual thoughts.

Except, ethics are pretty much subjective. Murder is WRONG (except in certain cases, so no, murder is not an absolute wrong). Theft is wrong (unless on specific situations), rape is wrong (depending on social context) and so on, so mind telling me how they are really absolute moral standards?

And no, you may improve the collective thoughts, but still people are morons collectively. You can change the entire population for a short period of time but always we are retarded collectively. And progress is not always a good thing, just saying. Just because individual thoughts are improved, it doesn't mean they are necessarily good thoughts the ones that are improved or that there are no unintended consequences out of it.

[Condunum]

1. Come talk to me when I'm actually quoted off of NSG.

2. You really think someone is going to come on here and go

"Gee, I wonder what LC thinks? Hey, I'll go find out, and then take his ideas and put them on my blog".

1. Do you not get that nobody will directly quote you? People will only see your posts, and, if they agree, use your line of reasoning to their own, and express their opinion. The process will then repeat itself.

You do realize this is a slippery slope fallacy, right?

[Grenartia]

1. Except, ethics are pretty much objective. People know that murder IS VERY WRONG. As is theft. As is rape. I could go on.

If it influenced by our thoughts and decisions, it cannot be objective. Ethics are subjective.

I see your point. However, effectively, they are objective.

1. Except, ethics are pretty much objective. People know that murder IS VERY WRONG. As is theft. As is rape. I could go on.

2. Ah, but when you improve the individual thoughts of EVERYBODY, you improve the collective thoughts. That's how progress happens. There's a reason why almost nobody in mainstream American society is pro-slavery. Because several generations ago, individual thoughts were improved to the degree that collectively, everybody saw the inherent evil in the act of owning a person, and spread that to their kids (who in turn, spread it to their kids, and so on). Collective thoughts were improved, by improving individual thoughts.

Except, ethics are pretty much subjective. 1. Murder is WRONG (except in certain cases, so no, murder is not an absolute wrong). Theft is wrong (unless on specific situations), 2. rape is wrong (depending on social context) and so on, 3. so mind telling me how they are really absolute moral standards?

4. And no, you may improve the collective thoughts, but still people are morons collectively. 5. You can change the entire population for a short period of time but always we are retarded collectively. 6. And progress is not always a good thing, just saying. 7. Just because individual thoughts are improved, it doesn't mean they are necessarily good thoughts the ones that are improved.

1. It all depends on how its defined. Justifiable killing, for instance, could be termed self-defense, instead of murder.

2. When, in the ever loving FUCK is rape NOT wrong?

3. Because they all infringe on other people's rights without informed consent. Which is a rather simple extension of the Golden Rule from oneself, to others.

4. How many people have you heard literally advocating for slavery lately?

5. If that were true, then when do you expect we as a society, to re-institute slavery?

6. That's a rather oxymoronic statement. Progress is inherently a good thing.

7. Again, rather oxymoronic. If the "improved" thoughts are not inherently good, they cannot really be considered to be "improved".

[Grenartia]

1. Do you not get that nobody will directly quote you? People will only see your posts, and, if they agree, use your line of reasoning to their own, and express their opinion. The process will then repeat itself.

You do realize this is a slippery slope fallacy, right?

I fail to see how.

Except, ethics are pretty much subjective. Murder is WRONG (except in certain cases, so no, murder is not an absolute wrong). Theft is wrong (unless on specific situations), rape is wrong (depending on social context) and so on, so mind telling me how they are really absolute moral standards?

Who in their right mind is going to argue that rape is a good thing?

An idiot.

[New haven america]

Just putting this out there - I do not understand this fascination with other people's sex lives or lack thereof. As long as they're happy and aren't spreading diseases, having children that they refuse to care for or otherwise not harming anyone, why should anyone care.

Is it perhaps a perceived lack in the fascinated party's own life that is being avoided?

Some people don't have lives.

[Condunum]

You do realize this is a slippery slope fallacy, right?

I fail to see how.

You don't see how a proposed chain of events leading to X happening isn't a slippery slope fallacy?

[Grenartia]

I fail to see how.

You don't see how a proposed chain of events leading to X happening isn't a slippery slope fallacy?

Yeah, I see it, though as I recall, slippery slope is not always a fallacy.

[Condunum]

You don't see how a proposed chain of events leading to X happening isn't a slippery slope fallacy?

Yeah, I see it, though as I recall, slippery slope is not always a fallacy.

Well then show how said chain of events actually happens? Because that's the only way to make it not a fallacy.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

1. It all depends on how its defined. Justifiable killing, for instance, could be termed self-defense, instead of murder.

2. When, in the ever loving FUCK is rape NOT wrong?

3. Because they all infringe on other people's rights without informed consent. Which is a rather simple extension of the Golden Rule from oneself, to others.

4. How many people have you heard literally advocating for slavery lately?

5. If that were true, then when do you expect we as a society, to re-institute slavery?

6. That's a rather oxymoronic statement. Progress is inherently a good thing.

7. Again, rather oxymoronic. If the "improved" thoughts are not inherently good, they cannot really be considered to be "improved".

1 - Great, so redefining something is your way to weasel out of it? "Oh he's not dead, he's just sleeping" doesn't cut it. Murder is murder. If murder is an absolute wrong then that means killing in self defense is also wrong, don't try to bullshit your way out of it.

2 - It was not wrong many years back. In certain cultures, the man is/was very much free to do as he pleases with his wife. Just because the social context in which we are in promotes nurturing rather than forceful sex doesn't mean it doesn't happen somewhere around the world or it did not happen in past or certain modern societies and that it was wrong to do so. In fact, for some time, it was quite right to take your wife by force if she did not want to have sex with you, so no, it isn't a moral absolute. It is wrong for us, but it isn't a moral absolute. By this, I am not advocating rape or being a rape apologist, however, the truth is, the notion of rape or being raped did not surface until modern times, so by that token it means rape isn't a moral absolute, but rather a relative moral standard of it being wrong.

3 - The "Golden Rule" is a fairly modern concept in the history of humanity, so you know, no, that doesn't mean the "Golden Rule" is an absolute either. It is a good rule to follow, but by no means this is or has been an absolute moral in the history of humanity.

4 - Slavery = irrelevant for this discussion. But okay, I'll bite. No, slavery is not condoned anymore, but that is simply because we as a society have changed our paradigm. Does that mean our paradigm won't change back to slaving others? No, there is no guarantee slavery as an institution is gone.

5 - Society will reinstate things, usually, when it is pragmatically effective to do so. Slavery will come back only when it is pragmatically good for a society to return to slavery. Right now we are at a point when we do not need of it, and we have thought of it as useless, then morphed that into inhumane, but that doesn't mean slavery = bad, depending on social attitudes towards it. It is bad for us, and I find it wrong, but that's only because of the way our society is made up right now, it does not mean that the worldview on slavery cannot change.

6 - Sometimes it isn't. Sometimes progress cannot be said it is "good". Because sometimes the side effects are shitty.

7 - Tell that to Nazi Europe, who, under the leadership of Hitler, thought they were making "progress".

[The Grey Wolf]

What did I just walk into?

I think I'm slut shaming myself.

Who gave the monkey the keypad?

[Grenartia]

Yeah, I see it, though as I recall, slippery slope is not always a fallacy.

Well then show how said chain of events actually happens? Because that's the only way to make it not a fallacy.

I've done it. And I've seen others do it. Admittedly, yes that is only anecdotal evidence, but its pretty damned hard for me to get any better evidence.

1. It all depends on how its defined. Justifiable killing, for instance, could be termed self-defense, instead of murder.

2. When, in the ever loving FUCK is rape NOT wrong?

3. Because they all infringe on other people's rights without informed consent. Which is a rather simple extension of the Golden Rule from oneself, to others.

4. How many people have you heard literally advocating for slavery lately?

5. If that were true, then when do you expect we as a society, to re-institute slavery?

6. That's a rather oxymoronic statement. Progress is inherently a good thing.

7. Again, rather oxymoronic. If the "improved" thoughts are not inherently good, they cannot really be considered to be "improved".

1 - Great, so redefining something is your way to weasel out of it? "Oh he's not dead, he's just sleeping" doesn't cut it. Murder is murder. If murder is an absolute wrong then that means killing in self defense is also wrong, don't try to bullshit your way out of it.

2 - It was not wrong many years back. In certain cultures, the man is/was very much free to do as he pleases with his wife. Just because the social context in which we are in promotes nurturing rather than forceful sex doesn't mean it doesn't happen somewhere around the world or it did not happen in past or certain modern societies and that it was wrong to do so. In fact, for some time, it was quite right to take your wife by force if she did not want to have sex with you, so no, it isn't a moral absolute. It is wrong for us, but it isn't a moral absolute. By this, I am not advocating rape or being a rape apologist, however, the truth is, the notion of rape or being raped did not surface until modern times, so by that token it means rape isn't a moral absolute, but rather a relative moral standard of it being wrong.

3 - The "Golden Rule" is a fairly modern concept in the history of humanity, so you know, no, that doesn't mean the "Golden Rule" is an absolute either. It is a good rule to follow, but by no means this is or has been an absolute moral in the history of humanity.

4 - Slavery = irrelevant for this discussion. But okay, I'll bite. No, slavery is not condoned anymore, but that is simply because we as a society have changed our paradigm. Does that mean our paradigm won't change back to slaving others? No, there is no guarantee slavery as an institution is gone.

5 - Society will reinstate things, usually, when it is pragmatically effective to do so. Slavery will come back only when it is pragmatically good for a society to return to slavery. Right now we are at a point when we do not need of it, and we have thought of it as useless, then morphed that into inhumane, but that doesn't mean slavery = bad, depending on social attitudes towards it. It is bad for us, and I find it wrong, but that's only because of the way our society is made up right now, it does not mean that the worldview on slavery cannot change.

6 - Sometimes it isn't. Sometimes progress cannot be said it is "good". Because sometimes the side effects are shitty.

7 - Tell that to Nazi Europe, who, under the leadership of Hitler, thought they were making "progress".

1. Its not redefining, so much as an alternate definition.

2. Just because something is or was the standard doesn't mean it should be.

3. It should be.

4. Yes. Society HAS changed its paradigm. Via the method I outlined.

5. No. Even back when it was legal, many people considered it inhumane.

6. If the side-effects are shitty, then I wouldn't exactly call it progress.

7. Again, it wasn't progress. Progress is change that effects the most good.