YoungAchamian
No bio...
User ID: 680
YoungAchamian
15hr ago
basic biological fact
So are these:
- The Prostate is accessible through the male anus, and produces a better orgasm than penile stimulation. Thus receiving anal sex as a man is the biologically correct behavior for non-procreative sex.
- Hunger evolved to keep organisms alive, so eating for pleasure is defective
- The mouth, tongue, lips, lungs, and vocal tract have biological survival functions for the consumption of food. Yet humans use them for language, affection, comedy, poetry, singing, worship, debate, and lying. Obviously the latter are thus all immoral.
- Men are generally stronger, more physically aggressive, and historically performed more combat roles; therefore men are naturally suited to rule, and women are naturally suited to domestic subordination.
- Women are biologically evolved to give birth and rear children, thus it is sole purpose of women to give birth and rear children. Them doing anything else than just have sex and giving birth is morally abhorrent.
- Reproduction has an evolutionary function therefore society should enforce reproductive norms according to biological “fitness”
- “Natural” behavior includes cheating, coercion, status competition, and abandonment, these are obviously all morally ok then.
- Rape is a natural reproductive strategy and is thus moral.
Arguments deriving morality and telos from biological determinism lead to the justification of behaviors the vast majority of humans consider abhorrent. To deploy it in this one case is cherry picking an arbitrary boundary line.
YoungAchamian
15hr ago
Nature does a perfectly fine job of that
The natural argument is bad, biological determinism is not deployed in almost any other argument because it has very horrible ramifications. So using it for "this one case" is an arbitrary boundary drawing that fails to lead to a general solution.
I never said unitary telos
This is better.
pregnancy is the natural consequence of sex
There is a causality logical assumption in this that is incorrect. If A -> B it does not mean that B -> A. ie If pregnancy occurred, then sex/reproduction-related conditions occurred. Does not follow: If sex occurred, then pregnancy follows.
Pregnancy is a natural risk of sex, but not every sex absent interference results in an intended pregnancy. People have plenty of sex with the purpose of getting pregnant, and not getting pregnant even when its the intended outcome. The reverse is also true.
Ergo, pregnancy is a natural consequence of having sex
Agreed
To have sex is to accept that risk.
I do not agree. Assumption of risk is never assumed to be accepted, hence why every risky activity involving other parties generally requires you to sign papers assuming that risk onto yourself and acknowledging it. This is what I mean by "an unlimited duty to suffer every risky outcome of your actions" Most people do not believe that, but then to draw an arbitrary line around sex is in essence trying to have your cake and eat it too.
YoungAchamian
16hr ago
More than some, less than others, I don’t know
This is why I think biological determinism applied to Sex -> Pregnancy/Abortion is a poor argument. It's an arbitrary boundary drawing exercise. People start from the end and work backwards. We could justify a lot of morally abhorrent behaviors on the grounds of biological determinism, and several controversial ones. If you (royal) aren't applying and accepting it everything thing that stems from the bio-determ position, then you are trying to get special carve outs for things you care about. You are overfitting to a specific situation and unable create a general solution.
primary telos of sex
Primary might be better than sole, but I'd still add bonding and pleasure into the top 3 of the telos of sex. And I think there is ample historical and anthropological evidence to support that being the case throughout history and cultures.
I don't think you are acting in bad faith, I think you sincerely believe these things. I don't think you are waging the culture war here. This gets at something more high level, that I am probably doing a bad job at communicating it.
Right wingers and Progressives make about 90% of the same arguments on why their morality is the better one, the structure is the same, the goal is the same, the specific details are just different. Like the serial numbers are filed off. You both want to save "the innocent" particularly other people's "innocent". And it makes no difference whether those people want to be saved by y'all or not. But there is a massive blind spot, you both can't see how the same your argument is, and you both think your the right ones, both using the same exact reasoning for it too. This is a lack of cognitive empathy, the ability to take yourself out of your own mind and put yourself in someone else's, to see the world from their viewpoint. And its made more extreme by how similar your arguments are, this isn't some alien x human difference. This is tribalism, the inability to put yourself in the outgroup's shoes.
But the most galling part isn't that you are tribal, it's that you can't account for it. It doesn't compute. It's an epistemological arrogance.
I can recognize that you and I have different beliefs, I can empathize with why you have those beliefs(at a high level, I don't personally know you), and I can still view you as a human-agent. Do I think my beliefs would be better for you, of course, who doesn't think that. Do I feel the need to save you from your poor beliefs? Your children from the poor beliefs of their parents? Absolutely not, you are your own person, your own community, and I respect the freedom and human dignity for y'all to chart your own course. I can also recognize that my beliefs might not be the truly correct ones, and thus the existence of other communities with other beliefs is a net good.
So then why do you feel you should force your beliefs on others? To save them, when they don't want you to, when they don't see it as saving them. Leave them alone. You might believe that homosexuality is bad for the individual, and negative for the commons. Then leave, form your own commons, create your own community, and if it truly is so, then your community will flourish and the Progs will wither until eventually there is one left. Tend to your own flock and let prog's tend to theirs.
The failure to do so, is that tribal instinct. The primal, childish drive to have your own way, because your way is the only way. It is the vice of lesser men. And I pity the fool who would boast of winning their small battle while damning our species to hell.
Are you a Consequentialist or a Deontologist? Christians are almost always required to be the latter so stop trying to use the arguments of the former. If I showed you the reduction in mental illness and increase in happiness flowed from prog values you would not change your beliefs, so stop trying to use that as your argument. It's disingenuous.
I stand by this, and you avoided answering it.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
it's the regular natural outcome and the prime evolutionary purpose of its existence
I mean would you extend a biological and evolutionary determinism to everything else humans do?
Maybe some people really are just better?
No argument, but it might shock you, that I consider Christian Activists and Progs Activists to be Untermensch of the same caliber. Y'all are barely more evolved than apes. That sweet seductive vice of tribal conflict is just too much for you to resist. Like children in candy shop, you lot can't control yourselves.
Also your saying it’s ok to torture kids
Progs think you are torturing your kids. Who's to say they aren't right and that you are? What evidence do you have?
The rise of mental illness and reported happiness surveys
Are you a Consequentialist or a Deontologist? Christians are almost always required to be the latter so stop trying to use the arguments of the former. If I showed you the reduction in mental illness and increase in happiness flowed from prog values you would not change your beliefs, so stop trying to use that as your argument. It's disingenuous.
I don’t believe gay people were ever banned from jobs or banks. I don’t believe their speech was restricted back then.
This comment expresses differently. link
Additional evidence:
- Teacher fired for out of wedlock pregnancy
- Hiring discrimination of the grounds of out of wedlock pregnancy
- Fired for being Gay
- Fired for swinging
- Fired and clearance revoked for Homosexuality
- Fired from NASA for being Gay
- Satanic panic around D&D and Board Games
- Book Banning from Conservative Parents
also have not once said anything about being bitter.
This forum is full of conservatives complaining about having to keep quiet and call a man in a dress a woman. It's been a common complaint for years at this point. You might not be bitter, congratulations, but it is so incredibly common that to dismiss it, would be laughable.
But the difference between the 1980’s and today is I don’t believe the 1980’s tried to take offer communication systems so that debate ends. I don’t think they banned the POTUS from mass media. Or put him in jail. Etc.
Of a shock to no one, escalation begets not equal response but an increasing one. I think WhiningCoil said roughly: When the younger child pokes and prods the elder, and the elder hits the younger, sometimes its best to turn a blind eye because the younger clearly was equally involved and its an important lesson that escalating has a response.
crowd hates Christians
Well, I don't. Nor do I hate dealing with the consequences of my own actions. What I do hate is hypocrites and unfairness. So if all you pro-lifers want to commit to an unlimited duty to suffer every risky outcome of your actions, I'm willing to accept every risky outcome of my own. Until that happens, this has nothing to do with the straw effigy you've created in your head. From my vantage, you want your cake and to eat it too.
And Christians want everyone to use their frame of the universe while not even considering any others, again, hypocrisy.
entirely possible to come to the conclusion that pregnancy is a result of sex from a secular perspective.
I'm all ears, please share a non-culturally-Christian argument on the unitary telos of sex:pregnancy.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
What you've shown me is Authoritarians wearing the skinsuit of the latest crisis to pass increasingly draconian laws. The article makes it clear that the local community, the victims father, and the governor of Wyoming were all committed to not trampling on the rights of others for the failure of personal choices.
The Authoritarians saw an opportunity to gain more power, and neither side decided to stop them. Liberalism dies in the dark. It is not a fundamental fact, an universal law, and the sweet seductive whisper of hurting your outgroup is such strong primal vice of humanity. Liberalism requires active support.
Liberalism is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
Liberalism will return, it is the currently known best possible solution to a multi-polar society. The foreseeable future will require us to re-learn that bloody lesson.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
And obviously the children are effected.
Other people's children. Those people don't need you to come in and save their children. Just like you don't need the progressives to come in and save your children. This entire problem is because both sides want to "save" other people's kids. Stay in your own community and stop sticking your nose or your opinions in places that don't affect you.
They actually did believe creating a moral society was good for the gays.
Yes I'm sure Gays were so absolutely grateful that they definitely didn't protest soooo hard to stop it, and definitely aren't existing in a multi-generational state of trauma, forcing the rest of us to deal with that gratitude... I'd say the observed outcome of people's actions is that the 1980s culture was not better for the gays. Of course right-wingers are very biased in their opinion about this, because they need to see themselves as the hero, not the villain. Have some epistemological humility, the arrogance is staggering.
loving wife
You mean a bitter wife who knows he's cheating on her with men but can't say anything about it, can't divorce him, being forced to hide who he is because otherwise his community will shame and ostracize him?
What I really don't get about you right-wingers is the amount of complaining you do about having to hide who you are around progressives because otherwise you will be socially shamed and ostracized. And then you turn around and say that other people should suffer that fate and call it the better outcome. Here you are getting a taste of your own medicine and it is bitter, but rather than learning, having empathy, understanding the other side's feelings, you cling to the delusions that when you do it, it is ok, it is moral.
We truly are fucked.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
Private Christian Schools are a dime a dozen. You know the kind that selects for parents who want to send their children to a Christian school in the first place? If you don't like Christian practices, then you can easily remove your child from the private school. If you like the other benefits then you can weigh your distaste against them.
In practice we kinda do know what progressive schools look like, and its not 24/7 Groomers, pedos, and gender transitions. Just because you have a personal distaste for one over the other doesn't mean there isn't symmetry. In my eyes, you are standing in a glass house and trying to justify why you should be allowed to throw stones. Every argument you make against progressive schools can just be flipped and applied to Christian schools. In part because progressivism is just derived from Christianity and holds similar memetic characteristics, but also because its a totalizing belief system than for some reason requires you to force it on others who don't want it.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
Yeah no... Sex is not the pregnant making thing. Sex is just Sex. It can be done for any number of reasons. Pregnancy is merely a risk of Sex. Provide an actual argument that the sole telos of sex is procreation or leave your Christian-derived beliefs in your own life.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
I think giving Anglo's the credit/blame for inventing the idea of conquest to be a bit nonsensical. And I'd say classical liberalism and democracy are two separate things. I'd go further and argue that democracy actually exacerbates that weakness/failure of classical liberalism. The crowd is always dumb, and there is nothing dumb people like more than dopamine triggering behaviors. The failure of democracy is that it provides a means to allow such easy thrills to be indulged, provided by the state. And what thrill is more primal, more intrinsic to human nature, and more destructive to communities than intra-tribal warfare.
Universal Suffrage has pretty much fucked us.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
I think this is an interesting thought. Like a trace that economic need/prosperity requires cooperation among a larger subsection of the populace, but once a threshold is achieved, the luxury beliefs of intra-tribal warfare resurges until at which point all the economic surplus is consumed starting the cycle over again.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
Damn why does this sound so much like revolutionary Marxism... Yes! Comrade the subversive illiberals must be rooted out before they poison the discourse! Vigilance must be maintainted!
YoungAchamian
1d ago
Naturally, for those who believe in that, especially for those who draw a salary from that belief, it's just Common Decency.
This is the biggest issue, both sides feel that they are just right and need to save others from poor behavior or bad decisions when its not asked for. The can't recognize that their beliefs are not the one-true reality.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
Don’t be gay. It’s bad for you. Just find a nice wife.
You don't need to save me or anyone else, we don't want you to. Just live your own life. Other people being gay does not affect you.
I can imagine to an actual gay person hearing comments like that feels a lot like your fellow Americans hating you.
YoungAchamian
1d ago
I mean the internet didn't exist in the 70s and 80s. Considering the Moral Majority engaged in cancel culture at a similar levels as the Woke/SJW, I imagine, if it did exist the Moral Majority would have wasted no time in cancelling you on the internet. The Moral Majority did try to take away your job...
YoungAchamian
1d ago
I wonder if its incapability or if has just created such a psychological scar that they perpetually view themselves as the underdog. A lot of ink has been spilled on the weird prog belief, that even as they control much of the establishment, they still genuinely see themselves as the underdog fighting the system. Part of that is undoubtedly the revolutionary marxism, but I wonder how much of it is scarring from the moral majority?
Yeah I predict Gen Z having experienced a decade+ of Leftwing Authoritarianism will swing rightward in the cultural direction while also being leftwing/populist in the economic direction as a direct consequence of their upbringing.
YoungAchamian
2d ago
Moral Majority. I'd go so far as to say a lot of the anti-conservative/anti-religious reaction today by the progressives is due to generational trauma inflicted by overzealous authoritarianism by the moral majority. Notice how most of it is not economic leftism but cultural leftism, the moral majority was authoritarian cultural rightism.
YoungAchamian
2d ago
To be clear you are clearly biasing the framing towards your viewpoint.
To me you asked me:
- Would you rather your kids be forced to give a little Sig Heil in the morning and have the school teach them why being gay, crippled, jewish, romani, black, not white and straight is evil and should be killed for the betterment of the community
Or
- Would you rather your kids be forced to recite the communist manifesto and have the school teach them why being a dirty selfish capitalist is the root of all evil in the world, and if they don't share everything or report on people, including their parents, to the state then they are anti-revolutionary and thus evil.
long politely with the Our Father once per day
Yes a polite Sig Heil is not a big ask.
'the school can arbitrarily change my child's gender' is.
Have you tried not oppressively forcing your child to adhere to evil capitalist notions that people are not all inherently created equally?
Your conception of the prayer vs gender pronouns is hysterically biased. It's never just a polite "oh father" just like its never just a polite "please use they/them". Give an inch and everyone takes a mile.
YoungAchamian
2d ago
I view them as equal levels of bullshit. The fact that you think one is worse than the other is the point. You think the Red's way is the lesser of two evils.
YoungAchamian
2d ago
Sure, but is not history evidence that WEIRD Anglo's enforced a classical liberalism morality that strongly emphasized a "fuck you stop bothering me" morality. Seems to me that it won so hard that people are like fish: they aren't even aware they have it until its gone. People are slowly waking up to that fact, and currently are re-inventing all the sectarian conflicts that lead to that morality even emerging.
Maybe people should stop being barely evolved apes and actually just grow up.
YoungAchamian
2d ago
See I am increasingly cynical that this is not a Red vs Blue split but an Elites vs Proles split. While a case could be made on the sanctity of freedom of speech, to me this looks like the Red Elites not punishing the Blue Elites so that they won't be punished in return. The common man still gets fucked by the laws. The common gay/lesbian was still barred from marriage, Abortion was still banned, Porn is still trying to be banned, DnD was still shunned as devil worship. The rich/elites didn't have to worry about any of these "laws" because they were rich/elite. Evidence of them being exempt is about as convincing as rich blues being exempt from DEI and woke-shit.
YoungAchamian
2d ago
I wish I had the time, I do love esoteric knowledge. I am unfortunately already consumed by the practical mundanities of life and the constrains they force upon you. I small outlet is technically//professionally relevant ML/AI esoterism around information utilization and learning knowledge.
I mean from a purely eugenic argument, the vast majority of people who get abortions are poor, short sighted, high-time preference individuals who are a net negative on the society that hosts them. A civilization that is full of them is already endangered. It is civilization-destroying to let the stupid outbreed the intelligent. Abortions combined with your lack of public welfare would greatly reduce that amount of people in the bottom rung of society.
More options
Context Copy link