RWDT XX: The System Is Kapp Putsch

[Cekoviu]

when you explicitly state that whether consent is present is irrelevant, yes that's a reasonable interpretation jfc

you added some qualifiers about consent to try to portray me as saying raping people is cool, which is why I refuse to be signal-checked by you and add a list of insane moon-distance length "progressive" qualifiers to my statement

read: you care more about not looking woke than creating any sort of clarity or stating reasonable positions

[Cekoviu]

there are virtually no problems about putting young men and women together in social spaces with drugs and alcohol etc.

this is what young people do. no society on earth is able to prevent young men and women "touching each other in unchristian ways" as diop would say. they want to do it, its normal and natural, alcohol and charlie breaks down the inhibitions. it has been this way since always.

the problem is when they never settle down when they get older and produce children.

I agree. Young people are going to act young. The state should not involve itself in such trivial things.

we can advocate for cultural shifts without requiring state intervention

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

you added some qualifiers about consent to try to portray me as saying raping people is cool, which is why I refuse to be signal-checked by you and add a list of insane moon-distance length "progressive" qualifiers to my statement

read: you care more about not looking woke than creating any sort of clarity or stating reasonable positions

once again only an insane person could believe "men and women having sex is normal" is not a reasonable position

i state(d) my positions very very clearly, it's only that you try to disrupt or subvert them that makes them unclear.

what part of "it is normal for men and women to have sex" implies that the writer thinks rape is OK? what part of that necessitates asking a person whether they want to qualify it "with consent?"

[Cisairse]

Sex outside of committed relationships is morally wrong, because it dehumanises the partner by reducing them to a mere object from which one can gain sexual pleasure.

Casual sex should therefore be societally discouraged, though not legally restricted per se, though I agree with UMN that a couple being formally married is not actually essential for them to have sex within the boundaries of true Christian morality.

I don't see how someone being an object for sexual pleasure is dehumanizing.

The entire point of sex is that it's with a human. If you want a dehumanized sexual partner, what's the point in seeking out an actual human?

[South Odreria 2]

there are virtually no problems about putting young men and women together in social spaces with drugs and alcohol etc.

What a ridiculous and absurd claim

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

there are virtually no problems about putting young men and women together in social spaces with drugs and alcohol etc.

What a ridiculous and absurd claim

lmao

[The Archbishopric of York]

Sex outside of committed relationships is morally wrong, because it dehumanises the partner by reducing them to a mere object from which one can gain sexual pleasure.

Casual sex should therefore be societally discouraged, though not legally restricted per se, though I agree with UMN that a couple being formally married is not actually essential for them to have sex within the boundaries of true Christian morality.

I don't see how someone being an object for sexual pleasure is dehumanizing.

The entire point of sex is that it's with a human. If you want a dehumanized sexual partner, what's the point in seeking out an actual human?

The clue is in the word "object." As opposed to "person."

[South Odreria 2]

Sex outside of committed relationships is morally wrong, because it dehumanises the partner by reducing them to a mere object from which one can gain sexual pleasure.

Casual sex should therefore be societally discouraged, though not legally restricted per se, though I agree with UMN that a couple being formally married is not actually essential for them to have sex within the boundaries of true Christian morality.

I don't see how someone being an object for sexual pleasure is dehumanizing.

The entire point of sex is that it's with a human. If you want a dehumanized sexual partner, what's the point in seeking out an actual human?

Because they don’t want a human, they want a homo sapien. Therefore it’s dehumanizing.

[Fahran]

The clue is in the word "object." As opposed to "person."

^ This. Hook-up culture in particular encourages the devaluation of human beings and their reduction to masturbatory objects rather than actualized subjects. That said, even sexual relations where consent is present and where the relationship is subjective and romantic instead of transactional, hedonistic, and objectifying can be morally wrong - such as extramarital affairs, cheating, etc.

[Cisairse]

I don't see how someone being an object for sexual pleasure is dehumanizing.

The entire point of sex is that it's with a human. If you want a dehumanized sexual partner, what's the point in seeking out an actual human?

The clue is in the word "object." As opposed to "person."

I don't see how that actually changes anything I just said. What is your point, here?

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

"HOOKIN UP CULTURE" isnt just 2 people meeting in a back alley and exchanging a verbal agreement to having 2 minutes 30 seconds of unsatisfying sex.

it encompasses a huge range of relations which fall short of "im committed to this person indefinitely or permanently." characterising it as "a better form of masturbating" is lame and eliminates all the nuance from human sexual relations, which is much more deep than religious conservatives ever want to admit

[Nakena]

"HOOKIN UP CULTURE" isnt just 2 people meeting in a back alley and exchanging a verbal agreement to having 2 minutes 30 seconds of unsatisfying sex.

it encompasses a huge range of relations which fall short of "im committed to this person indefinitely or permanently." characterising it as "a better form of masturbating" is lame and eliminates all the nuance from human sexual relations, which is much more deep than religious conservatives ever want to admit

One may wonder if such takes stem do more often than not from a lack of personal experiences in those matters.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

"HOOKIN UP CULTURE" isnt just 2 people meeting in a back alley and exchanging a verbal agreement to having 2 minutes 30 seconds of unsatisfying sex.

it encompasses a huge range of relations which fall short of "im committed to this person indefinitely or permanently." characterising it as "a better form of masturbating" is lame and eliminates all the nuance from human sexual relations, which is much more deep than religious conservatives ever want to admit

One may wonder if such takes stem do more often than not from a lack of personal experiences in those matters.

we must be careful not to accidentally cause offence

[Cekoviu]

"HOOKIN UP CULTURE" isnt just 2 people meeting in a back alley and exchanging a verbal agreement to having 2 minutes 30 seconds of unsatisfying sex.

it encompasses a huge range of relations which fall short of "im committed to this person indefinitely or permanently." characterising it as "a better form of masturbating" is lame and eliminates all the nuance from human sexual relations, which is much more deep than religious conservatives ever want to admit

>criticizes eliminating the nuance from human sexual relations
>entire position on sex is MAN FUCK WOMAN GOOD

[Cisairse]

"HOOKIN UP CULTURE" isnt just 2 people meeting in a back alley and exchanging a verbal agreement to having 2 minutes 30 seconds of unsatisfying sex.

it encompasses a huge range of relations which fall short of "im committed to this person indefinitely or permanently." characterising it as "a better form of masturbating" is lame and eliminates all the nuance from human sexual relations, which is much more deep than religious conservatives ever want to admit

>criticizes eliminating the nuance from human sexual relations
>entire position on sex is MAN FUCK WOMAN GOOD

Did you just not read the 2nd paragraph

[The Archbishopric of York]

only if they are in a committed relationship and both consent to it
or are you going to go full roosh v on us?

Yes, exactly. And what about same-sex relationships?

I think that there are three potential ways for a Christian culture to approach homosexuality:

1) The common pre-20th century European approach of illegalising homosexuality or, at the very least, stigmatising it so heavily that homosexuals are forced underground, so that they have a choice between a life of psychologically damaging repression and self-loathing or sinning with many different people in secret, spreading venereal diseases and probably still living with self-loathing;
2) The half-way approach where we destigmatise homosexuality to the point where people are able to be openly gay or bisexual but are still not accepted by mainstream society or given full legal equality with heterosexual relationships, which is how you get the emergence of an "LGBT subculture" that is de facto segregated from the rest of society and becomes a breeding ground for radical sentiments, including advocates for genuinely dangerous sexual deviancy such as the NAMBLA crowd, and where people continue to sin with many different people in secret, spreading venereal diseases and probably still living with self-loathing because they can't face the loss of social standing that would come from openly identifying with their sexuality; or
3) You actually normalise homosexuality within the same general set of moral expectations that you extend to straight couples, encouraging same-sex pairs to marry and seek to assimilate them into mainstream society, eliminating the feelings of difference and alienation that give rise to the subversive subculture and making it less likely that homosexual or bisexual people will feel driven to fulfil their needs in potentially unsafe situations.

My preference is for the third option.

The clue is in the word "object." As opposed to "person."

I don't see how that actually changes anything I just said. What is your point, here?

Treating a person as an object rather than a person is inherently dehumanising. Human beings are not objects, they are persons.

[No walls]

Why does it matter what other consenting adults do behind closed doors

[Cekoviu]

Why does it matter what other consenting adults do behind closed doors

because it can affect the wider society

[The Reformed American Republic]

Why does it matter what other consenting adults do behind closed doors

Because some want their religion to control people's every move.

[Cisairse]

Treating a person as an object rather than a person is inherently dehumanising. Human beings are not objects, they are persons.

Right, but in this scenario the person being treated as an object is in a completely arbitrary and abstract sense that you just defined. There is nothing inherent about any idea that you just make up, and using such arbitrary terms to then try and justify a moral imposition based on some perceived higher truth deriving from the definition of the word you completely arbitrarily decided to apply to the situation is really, really dumb.

[The Archbishopric of York]

Why does it matter what other consenting adults do behind closed doors

Because some want their religion to control people's every move.

The religious oppress us by.... *checks notes* publicly expressing their religion's teachings and encouraging others to follow them. The scoundrels!

Treating a person as an object rather than a person is inherently dehumanising. Human beings are not objects, they are persons.

Right, but in this scenario the person being treated as an object is in a completely arbitrary and abstract sense that you just defined. There is nothing inherent about any idea that you just make up, and using such arbitrary terms to then try and justify a moral imposition based on some perceived higher truth deriving from the definition of the word you completely arbitrarily decided to apply to the situation is really, really dumb.

All moral systems are ultimately derived from philosophical concepts which, according to a strictly rationalistic perspective, are "completely arbitrary and abstract." So are you arguing that morality as a general concept is "really, really dumb?"

[Nakena]

Why does it matter what other consenting adults do behind closed doors

Because it empowers the Prince of Darkness or some stuff like that.

[Novus America]

Urban areas full of riots, crime and disease plus high cost very shitty housing? In that case the cost does not seem to outweigh the benefits. And how do you do that when urban areas are failing and people fleeing them?

There is clearly something fundamentally wrong with many of our cities, crowding more people into them will not fix that.

The cities I have lived in are not "full of riots, crime and disease." That's actually a pretty silly description. In fact there was more violent crime and opioid abuse in the almost-rural suburb I left than in the Manhattan-adjacent city I moved to.

And the housing is pretty good. Expensive, yeah, but the cost of living usually ends up being the same (you don't need a care anymore, and cars are deceptively expensive), plus income is generally higher.

The fact is that many (not all) of our urban areas are shit and not fit for human living.
People are leaving NYC in large numbers now too, even if it is not largely a third world ruin like say Detroit or Baltimore. NYC has been hit the hardest by the pandemic so full of disease is not inappropriate. Nearly half of all coronavirus deaths are in the NYC area. That is pretty damning.

Higher density makes disease spread worse.

You need a car now anyways because public transport is not good in a plague.

Also:
“Originally published in 2009, the conclusions were surprising, that of violent crime not necessarily being simplistically linked to inner city poverty. Rather, the study links residential land use as being a key factor in the promotion of crime with generally higher rates in areas of high-density residential developments and commercial property, compared to that in areas characterized by industry, parks and schools. Basically, high population density, even after controlling for overall population, was linked to more crime. Granted, the association was more pronounced in disadvantaged areas, it none the less held true across all socioeconomic strata.“
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thenew ... 04253.html

Maybe humans are not best served by being packed liked Sardines into cyberpunk hives.

Anyways sure there are exceptions, but in many cases the city is objectively worse.
I live near Baltimore City. Not in the city. Because the taxes are double, yet all public services much worse, the public transportation horrible, and you get a tiny home for a higher price often.
Medium density is better in many ways.

But the main thing comes back to this, sure some people will want to live in some cities, obviously but many cities have lost up to half their population since the late 60s, and never recovered.
Clearly there is something wrong with them such that unless you fix them, reduce crime, improve services, actually even reduce taxes (higher taxes does not always equate to better services, in many cases it is the opposite, again the city were I am has twice the taxes yet far inferior services).

But the lock downs are the real blow. At least I have a yard, and a less claustrophobic space.
Being locked down in a tiny apartment would be much worse.
And the arguments for the cities (more restaurants and social places) is obsolete in the coronavirus world.

We actually might consider de-urbanization. Higher density does not correlate to improved human outcomes.

[Cisairse]

Because some want their religion to control people's every move.

The religious oppress us by.... *checks notes* publicly expressing their religion's teachings and encouraging others to follow them. The scoundrels!

Right, but in this scenario the person being treated as an object is in a completely arbitrary and abstract sense that you just defined. There is nothing inherent about any idea that you just make up, and using such arbitrary terms to then try and justify a moral imposition based on some perceived higher truth deriving from the definition of the word you completely arbitrarily decided to apply to the situation is really, really dumb.

All moral systems are ultimately derived from philosophical concepts which, according to a strictly rationalistic perspective, are "completely arbitrary and abstract." So are you arguing that morality as a general concept is "really, really dumb?"

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.

[The Archbishopric of York]

The religious oppress us by.... *checks notes* publicly expressing their religion's teachings and encouraging others to follow them. The scoundrels!

All moral systems are ultimately derived from philosophical concepts which, according to a strictly rationalistic perspective, are "completely arbitrary and abstract." So are you arguing that morality as a general concept is "really, really dumb?"

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, 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.