What are the limits of "Slut shaming?"

[The Flood]

Certainly not.

*Sigh* I'll hate myself later for doing this, but; Why is casual sex degrading?

Because it is an unloving abuse of the human person.

[The Flood]

It most certainly is not subjective.

The simple fact that other people have a moral code that differs from your own proves morality is subjective.

Just like how YEC prove that reality is subjective, amiright?

No. People with differing moral codes are just wrong.

But since you do seem to believe morality is subjective, then why are you calling me wrong, or arguing with me?

[Grenartia]

*Sigh* I'll hate myself later for doing this, but; Why is casual sex degrading?

Because it is an unloving abuse of the human person.

The simple fact that other people have a moral code that differs from your own proves morality is subjective.

Just like how YEC prove that reality is subjective, amiright?

No. People with differing moral codes are just wrong.

But since you do seem to believe morality is subjective, then why are you calling me wrong, or arguing with me?

Got any proof for all of that bullshit?

[Camelza]

*Sigh* I'll hate myself later for doing this, but; Why is casual sex degrading?

Because it is an unloving abuse of the human person.

How so?

[The Flood]

Because it is an unloving abuse of the human person.

How so?

Because you are selfishly using another person for personal gratification, in an unloving fashion.

[Camelza]

How so?

Because you are selfishly using another person for personal gratification, in an unloving fashion.

The other person is doing the same.

[Cupola]

How so?

Because you are selfishly using another person for personal gratification, in an unloving fashion.

So is the other party and not only that, both of them are doing it consensually.

[The Flood]

Because you are selfishly using another person for personal gratification, in an unloving fashion.

The other person is doing the same.

Yes, that is why it is mutually immoral, for both participants. Both are selfishly dehumanizing another human being for their sexual gratification.

[ALMF]

I don't think you are worse than Nazis, but that you believe in a being worse than the one Nazis follow.

If God was omnipotent and omniscient then he created us with the prior knowledge of what we would do. He designed us with the mental structure to perform acts he already knew we would perform when he created us. There is no way around this fact if God truly exists and is truly omniscient. Where is the free will in that? If he exists, then he made Jeffrey Dahmer with the mind of a psychopath. Again, where is the free will in that? People do not freely choose their actions. Free will is incompatible with both science and theology. If God exists, then he is a monster. Thankfully, he doesn't exist. Unfortunately, you are still advocating treating others with cruelty for actions that harm no one because of your unfortunate belief in a nonexistent entity.

You said that 1 we're worse than nazis,2 we follow a book that is worse than the ones that nazis follow, there is no getting around it.

He pointed out correctly that 1 is falce and two is not

[Dyakovo]

The other person is doing the same.

Yes, that is why it is mutually immoral, for both participants. Both are selfishly dehumanizing another human being for their sexual gratification.

My fucking someone has never reduced their humanity.

[Grenartia]

How so?

Because you are selfishly using another person for personal gratification, in an unloving fashion.

Not inherently. Not at all. You've never had sex, have you? If you had, you'd probably know better than to say that.

[Camelza]

The other person is doing the same.

Yes, that is why it is mutually immoral, for both participants. Both are selfishly dehumanizing another human being for their sexual gratification.

So? Their both making each other happy willingly, what is bad about it? And who made you the guardian of morality?

[The Flood]

Because you are selfishly using another person for personal gratification, in an unloving fashion.

Not inherently. Not at all. You've never had sex, have you? If you had, you'd probably know better than to say that.

Of course not, I am not married.

[Camelza]

Yes, that is why it is mutually immoral, for both participants. Both are selfishly dehumanizing another human being for their sexual gratification.

My fucking someone has never reduced their humanity.

^Also this. For god's sake.

[The Flood]

Yes, that is why it is mutually immoral, for both participants. Both are selfishly dehumanizing another human being for their sexual gratification.

So? Their both making each other happy willingly, what is bad about it? And who made you the guardian of morality?

Their purpose is not to make the other person happy, but to make themselves happy. And even if they are doing it for the other person, which is unlikely, they are still providing someone with an illicit pleasure.

Not to mention the many risks of casual sex, such as spreading STDs, accidental pregnancy, or creating emotional harm, all contribute to the inherent immorality of promiscuity.

[Grenartia]

Not inherently. Not at all. You've never had sex, have you? If you had, you'd probably know better than to say that.

Of course not, I am not married.

Then you admit that have no clue what you're talking about.

[Dyakovo]

Not inherently. Not at all. You've never had sex, have you? If you had, you'd probably know better than to say that.

Of course not, I am not married.

"Being married" isn't a requirement for "having sex".

[Libertarian California]

When she tells you to not do it in public.

[Grenartia]

So? Their both making each other happy willingly, what is bad about it? And who made you the guardian of morality?

1. Their purpose is not to make the other person happy, but to make themselves happy. And even if they are doing it for the other person, which is unlikely, 2. they are still providing someone with an illicit pleasure.

3. Not to mention the many risks of casual sex, such as spreading STDs, accidental pregnancy, or creating emotional harm, all contribute to the inherent immorality of promiscuity.

1. I call blatant bullshit.

2. Define "illicit".

3. None of which are inherent.

[Camelza]

So? Their both making each other happy willingly, what is bad about it? And who made you the guardian of morality?

Their purpose is not to make the other person happy, but to make themselves happy. And even if they are doing it for the other person, which is unlikely, they are still providing someone with an illicit pleasure.

This doesn't contradict my post. Also, you enjoy sex more if your partner enjoys it too...
Oh god ....illicit pleasure, that's golden.

Not to mention the many risks of casual sex, such as spreading STDs, accidental pregnancy, or creating emotional harm, all contribute to the inherent immorality of promiscuity.

Ok, whatever you say ...after that Illicit pleasure thing I just can't take this conversation seriously. Sorry.
But you know, condoms are a thing.

[Liriena]

I think slut-shaming tells a lot more about the person doing it than their victim. Namely, it tells me that they are sex-negative and pathetically insecure as fuck about it.

Don't slut-shame.

[Libertarian California]

I think slut-shaming tells a lot more about the person doing it than their victim. Namely, it tells me that they are sex-negative and pathetically insecure as fuck about it.

Don't slut-shame.

My rule: Stop slut shaming once she utters the safety word.

[Liriena]

Their purpose is not to make the other person happy, but to make themselves happy. And even if they are doing it for the other person, which is unlikely, they are still providing someone with an illicit pleasure.

This doesn't contradict my post.
Oh god ....illicit pleasure, that's golden.

Not to mention the many risks of casual sex, such as spreading STDs, accidental pregnancy, or creating emotional harm, all contribute to the inherent immorality of promiscuity.

Ok, whatever you say ...after that Illicit pleasure thing I just can't take this conversation seriously. Sorry.
But you know, condoms are a thing.

Condoms, pills, IUD, and then there's the more permantent stuff.

[Cupola]

So? Their both making each other happy willingly, what is bad about it? And who made you the guardian of morality?

Their purpose is not to make the other person happy, but to make themselves happy. And even if they are doing it for the other person, which is unlikely, they are still providing someone with an illicit pleasure.

Not to mention the many risks of casual sex, such as spreading STDs, accidental pregnancy, or creating emotional harm, all contribute to the inherent immorality of promiscuity.

Who are you to call some pleasures illicit and some not? Who are you to define the purpose of people?

All those problems have been solved.

[Liriena]

I think slut-shaming tells a lot more about the person doing it than their victim. Namely, it tells me that they are sex-negative and pathetically insecure as fuck about it.

Don't slut-shame.

My rule: Stop slut shaming once she utters the safety word.

Oh, I wasn't aware you were into that sort of smutty shenanigans.