The Archbishopric of York wrote:Cisairse wrote:
No, I'm saying that you picking a word out of thin air and then using the etymological root of that word to justify a system of morality is very silly.
If you really think that's what I'm doing then you have utterly failed to understand anything that has been said to you.
There is a meaningful philosophical distinction between a person and an object, and this distinction forms the entire basis of my moral worldview. If you are having sex with another person purely for pleasure, rather than as part of a meaningful relationship borne of love, then you are reducing them conceptually to an object that exists for your pleasure
Why? Because you say so?
You haven't justified this at all. That was my point when I said you were using the word arbitrarily. I presented a rough rebuttal to the idea that having sex just for pleasure is objectifying, and instead of actually trying to defend your claims you just played the word game by arguing over semantics of the definition of the word "object."
The Archbishopric of York wrote:and it is for this reason that such an act is sinful. This isn't "picking a word out of thin air." If you are unable to understand arguments built on abstract philosophical concepts, then debating matters of morality is probably not for you.
If it's not "picking a word out of thin air," then justify it. Don't accuse me of being unable to understand arguments when you haven't even bothered to address the content of mine.