Controversial General Political Discussion

[RyoQ]

Again I must ask, why do YOU think it's bad?

It's fundamentally evil because it is unnatural as the relationship between direct family is that of kin, not as spouses.

This usually corresponds to the natural defects you describe, but even when it does not, it's still immoral because it's unnatural.

Symptom does not always follow the illness so to speak. You say incest is wrong because of symptoms associated with it a lot of the time (grooming, health defects etc.), I say it's wrong because of the illness itself even if such symptoms don't appear.

This is the difference between natural law ethics on sexual morals vs utilitarian one like yours. The former correctly describes what is evil, yours often gets it right but is flawed because it is short sighted and misses the fundamentals and relies on conditions or "detriment vs benefit".

 

[Monster Zoro's Tesla Supplier]

It's fundamentally evil because it is unnatural as the relationship between direct family is that of kin, not as spouses.

Correct.
And why is homosexuality immoral?

 

[RyoQ]

Correct.
And why is homosexuality immoral?

Yes, correct.

So your criteria for what is sexually licit can't be merely "as long as it's between two consenting adults and doesn't result in physical or health harms". Does that make sense?

Basically, natural law good and evil works like this. The nature or essence of a thing determines what is good for it. The nature of a dog is to have four legs, and so it being born with 3 is a defect or imperfection for it. The nature of a lion is to be carnivorous, so if it ate grass all the time, it would be unnatural and thus bad for it. The nature of an eyeball is to see, so an eyeball that can only see what is blurry is defective and not carrying out it's end well.

the nature of the human reproductive organs is to express dimorphism in a manner that generates life. in humans, this only occurs between the opposite sex, and so same-sex sexual actions are inherently sterile, and deviate from this end very strongly, and so it is not natural.

 

[Monster Zoro's Tesla Supplier]

Yes, correct.

So your criteria for what is sexually licit can't be merely "as long as it's between two consenting adults and doesn't result in physical or health harms". Does that make sense?

Basically, natural law good and evil works like this. The nature or essence of a thing determines what is good for it. The nature of a dog is to have four legs, and so it being born with 3 is a defect or imperfection for it. The nature of a lion is to be carnivorous, so if it ate grass all the time, it would be unnatural and thus bad for it. The nature of an eyeball is to see, so an eyeball that can only see what is blurry is defective and not carrying out it's end well.

the nature of the human reproductive organs is to express dimorphism in a manner that generates life. in humans, this only occurs between the opposite sex, and so same-sex sexual actions are inherently sterile, and deviate from this end very strongly, and so it is not natural.

It's not natural, but that doesn't mean it's not morally correct.
There's nothing in our genetic codes that stops us from having sex with the same gender. Sure we can get STDs if we don't prepare properly, but any gender can get that even if they have sex with the opposite gender.

 

[RyoQ]

It's not natural, but that doesn't mean it's not morally correct.
There's nothing in our genetic codes that stops us from having sex with the same gender. Sure we can get STDs if we don't prepare properly, but any gender can get that even if they have sex with the opposite gender.

But anything unnatural is not morally correct, remember our agreement on this issue about incest? Incest doesn't always have conditionally bad things happen (like grooming or health defects), but it's not natural and so it's always immoral :/

 

[Monster Zoro's Tesla Supplier]

But anything unnatural is not morally correct, remember our agreement on this issue about incest? Incest doesn't always have conditionally bad things happen (like grooming or health defects), but it's not natural and so it's always immoral :/

Is it natural to kidnap thousands of chickens and other animals, fatten them up, and then kill them simply for us to have foods we don't need such as chicken nuggets, burgers, pizza, etc?

 

[RyoQ]

Is it natural to kidnap thousands of chickens and other animals, fatten them up, and then kill them simply for us to have foods we don't need such as chicken nuggets, burgers, pizza, etc?

remember, when I say "natural" I don't mean what we would do in a primitive setting out in the wild.

i meant natural as in, the essential aspects of a thing including what it's natural ends are. For example the nature of a pencil is that it's made of wood and lead, it's natural end is to write, to the degree it can do that is the degree that it's a quality pencil, a shittier pencil is one that can't do write well, etc.

this is called "teleology", everything in existance has its own teleology or "telos", this dictates what's good or bad for it

yes, it is natural for humans to do that to chickens. that is just an advanced way of fulfilling a natural human end to dominate animals for consumption

 

[Monster Zoro's Tesla Supplier]

remember, when I say "natural" I don't mean what we would do in a primitive setting out in the wild.

i meant natural as in, the essential aspects of a thing including what it's natural ends are. For example the nature of a pencil is that it's made of wood and lead, it's natural end is to write, to the degree it can do that is the degree that it's a quality pencil, a shittier pencil is one that can't do write well, etc.

this is called "teleology", everything in existance has its own teleology or "telos", this dictates what's good or bad for it

yes, it is natural for humans to do that to chickens. that is just an advanced way of fulfilling a natural human end to dominate animals for consumption

But it's not something we need, is it?
We do it purely for our own pleasure. I wouldn't consider it natural to torture animals for our own amusement (which goes beyond simply eating them, circuses "torture" animals too), yet we still do it.
If we're going to crack down on every single thing that can be considered "unnatural", we'll end up destroying a lot of things that make up our civilization. Not that I'd personally mind that, as I for one would actually like it if we never did things like fattening animals just so they can be "proper food", gambling, circuses, etc., but something tells me that despite you wanting to ban other "unnatural things" like homosexuality, you won't share that same sentiment for the things I've mentioned.

 

[Logiko]

I did. And just it was used by oppressive capitalism doesn't mean it's an illusion.

Woops, you are right, I forgot my conclusion.

The point was to explain that Homosexuality was a creation of capitalism and patriarchy as in ... the category of homosexuality

Before capitalism, Sexual relationships between similar genders were not sign of identity marker but simple sexual behaviors. It's capitalism with the help of psychiatry that pathologize and categorized the sexual behavior of same gender sex.

As such, Homosexuality is not a real category, it's an oppressive category meant to put people in box to exclude them from the economic system.

Today, LGBTQI+ have appropriated legitimately this category, but it's possible that one day, people will not see sex between same genders as some identity marker like we do now with homosexuality. Homosexuality would therefore stop being an illusion of category and the word would disappear.

1.) A doctor tells a dying patient he will be OK. It maximizes happiness to the patient, but the patient is being denied the truth that he is owed

Only if the truth is that he won't be ok.
Lying is not always necessarily a bad thing. Again, that's why ethics matters mate.

2.) Two married adults let each other have an affair. This boosts their happiness, but it violates the fidelity of their marriage and makes marriage as an institution meaningless.

No, that makes the marriage as the institution YOU picture meaningless.

Those people created their own definition of the institution of mariage that was fitting FOR THEM. They were completely consensual and open. Which means that what you are describing is A FAR STRONGER relationship and MARIAGE than just a random person stuck in a loveless mariage because they are closeted or forced by their family.

Again, context matter. You really should learn about ethics.

Because your logic is just nonsensical. It's based on baseless logic, baseless reasonning and the absolute absence of substance.

3.) A small town is restless after a crime was committed. The mayor has an innocent man executed, and the town is at peace and happy again, collective happiness is maximized but an evil act was committed

No, an unethical act was commited, it's the simple case of the innocent being killed and to understand why it's bad and why it has nothing to do with any concept of good or bad:

Check my answer to this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"Murder became bad only when humans decided it's bad"

> If you take a close system representing a normal society with normal basic behavior (rproduction, work, happyness etc.

> An experience on multiple tic

> You then add a random score from 1 to 10 to each person

> When the score is higher than a certain threashold, the person kill someone close, if not there is no kill.

> Look at the result, note the data and inscrease the threashold (for ex, you go from a 7 to a 9.99 to represent the absolute disdain of society for murder) and note the data again

You will see that the state of society completely improves with a higher threadshold (and therefore a disdain for the murder of a random person). You would probably see a raise of happyness, cooperation, survivability etc.)

Abslutely no concept of right and wrong, just basic mathematics, logic and survival. if you have the time and a programmer at disposition, try it, you will see.

Not murdering innocent is not related to something ideologically superior to us in term of good or bad, it's related to our material conditions of existence. Material conditions that automatically improve when we are not morons and do not kill random or innocent people around us.

 

[Blax Blah]

No idgaf. I'm not an economist

Well you don't have to be an economist to know the relation between the feudal lord and the peasant, right?

This is the exact same thing except the production is based on owning capital, not on owning land.

After we talk about it, you can also look to see if any economist has any answer that debunks the idea that wage labor is exploitation.

Saying wage labor is exploitation is, in a capitalist context, the same as saying a feudal lord is exploiting the peasants that live on the land he owns, in a feudalist context.

It's really simple even if the name can sound complicated.

 

[Reborn]

Day isn't far when logiko will say - "your existence is the creation of capitalism"

 

[Mathias]

Day isn't far when logiko will say - "your existence is the creation of capitalism"

Woh don't provoke him


Actually delete your post before he wakes up

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

My goodness this thread is so full of shit

 

[RyoQ]

Only if the truth is that he won't be ok.
Lying is not always necessarily a bad thing

Lying is always wrong

Those people created their own definition of the institution of mariage that was fitting FOR THEM. They were completely consensual and open.

I can see why you hate dictionaries. As marriage is defined, spouses agreeing to cheat violates it because the definition of marriage is that it is closed off, not open.

No, an unethical act was commited, it's the simple case of the innocent being killed and to understand why it's bad and why it has nothing to do with any concept of good or bad:

An innocent man being executed isn't good or bad ya'll


Holy shit you're crazy

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

They hate evolution because they don't want others to evolve beyond them.

Aren't you the guy who believes in hollow earth and ancient aliens?

 

[RyoQ]

But it's not something we need, is it?
We do it purely for our own pleasure.

farming animals to eat isn't something we need? i would argue it does and every country would starve if we didn't

wouldn't consider it natural to torture animals for our own amusement (which goes beyond simply eating them, circuses "torture" animals too), yet we still do it.

yes, you can easily argue circuses are immoral and should be banned because they are needless animal torture

If we're going to crack down on every single thing that can be considered "unnatural", we'll end up destroying a lot of things that make up our civilization. Not that I'd personally mind that, as I for one would actually like it if we never did things like fattening animals just so they can be "proper food", gambling, circuses, etc., but something tells me that despite you wanting to ban other "unnatural things" like homosexuality, you won't share that same sentiment for the things I've mentioned.

well not every vice needs to be (or is capable on the state level) of being banned. every vice should be discouraged by society, but vices that cause public scandal such as an unnatural "marriages" (if they are not natural, they aren't marriage at all) like incestuous or homosexual ones should be banned

if your argument is that other public vices like gambling and circuses should be banned going by this same logic...sure, I can agree with that

 

[HerreraIsBack]

farming animals to eat isn't something we need? i would argue it does and every country would starve if we didn't

There are many diseases that can end up lead to death of people specially babies and kids because the lack of meat/chicken/fish ingestion. I'm not so sure about grown up adults but I heard many take supplements that are made of animals and hide that fact from their audience, talking about influencers.

yes, you can easily argue circuses are immoral and should be banned because they are needless animal torture

Circus is much more than just animal torture. Ban the animal torture not circus as a whole.

well not every vice needs to be (or is capable on the state level) of being banned. every vice should be discouraged by society, but vices that cause public scandal such as an unnatural "marriages" (if they are not natural, they aren't marriage at all) like incestuous or homosexual ones should be banned

if your argument is that other public vices like gambling and circuses should be banned going by this same logic...sure, I can agree with that

People don't even understand what natural means. It means common. It is natural (common) for men to marry women. It is natural (common) for white to marry white. So by your logic we should ban interracial marriage too.

 

[Zenos7]

CLear and unbiased and uncensored information is not a priviledge, it's a fundamental right. Not just of the US constitution, but of the human kind in general.

im with you on this, and i would be interested whether that shit about "inviting reporters" is legit and legal or whether she is talking out of her ass
[automerge]1759232657[/automerge]

Trump hasn't even finished his 1st year of his 2nd term. I can't even imagine what America will be like the next year, never mind the following 2 and god knows what will happen after that.

the US is screwed big time.
[automerge]1759232775[/automerge]

clearly they don't see him as all that bad. The fact that they did proves my point that he isn't all that extreme if so many LGBT even allign with him

reasons for voting are so multifactorial that this is honestly intellectually lazy and ridiculous

 

[CoC: Color of Clowns]

Aren't you the guy who believes in hollow earth and ancient aliens?

Yeah and that's why. Billions of years of existence, and you want to tell me humans are the pinnacle of evolution.

This is why the Greeks were smarter than us.
They realized how fallible their senses were. People always make it into some big thing. And i'm like, so, if I don't believe in ancient aliens, i'm supposed to believe that humans are the most advanced species this planet has produced in billions of years of life, and that we have yet to find another species more advanced than us. Or we're too stupid to actually be able to see other species the same way we can't see bacteria that are too small for us to see, because we see what .0035% of the electromagnetic light spectrum.

The spiritual entities described in religion do exist. I stopped listening to randos on the internet and decided to listen to people who actually put the work in through history. If people had bothered to listen to the common talking points, our ancestors were bringing up we could have escaped this crap a long time ago What you believe is up to you, you've accused me of completely baseless bullshit in the past., so I really don't give a crap about your opinion when it comes to this stuff, you can talk about not believing in conspiracy theories when you believe everyone is an alt lol.

This planet is not run by us, and we are far from the smartest species on it. I've yet to see a single anthropologist describe how a bunch of cultures that were seemingly disconnected by oceans, and this amount of space all managed to come up with the exact same type of stories describing sky people invading in ships. You put way too much faith in recorded an official history, despite knowing the people that actually produce it and profit off of it.

Hollow earth is fun because flat earth Is all disinfo info for it. Cat's out of the bag now though. The recent drone flap in denmark has been interesting. They'll swear to you that ufos aren't real and then when you ask for footage of the shit that shuts down airports, they'll show you some like grainy ass footage of a few moving lights and then tell you that you're crazy for wanting an actual explanation.

A lot of it isn't really aliens, though it's just advanced species that aren't us, that also live on the planet. The solar system is way more populated than people think though, but due to a lot of bad actors in it, people have to be kind of quiet about it.

The most interesting thing is that these incidents are often tied to nuclear sites. A lot of the UFO phenomena is spiritual, and it's more or less entities that can alter reality to such an extent. I think nukes are one of the few things that could damage some of them, and they also know how damaging the planet in general.

What most people would call alien tech that we're seeing here is just reverse engineered technology from the ancient civilization that we know as atlantis. But you'll tell me I'm crazy for thinking Atlantis exists when oh wow how many historians who aren't you said it did? Isn't that interesting. The secret societies that run these countries are actually ruled by cults that survived the fall of atlantis and hoarded the tech and knowledge to try to build the world back in their image after the natural disasters that destroyed the empire. There were obviously good people that also survived and tried to spread knowledge after the younger dryas.

If people want the truth, they need an open mind, honest heart, and to connect to nature through meditation. And listen to native elders, those people know their shit.

 

[Zenos7]

Trans people do not change their gender

yeah transgenderism isnt about changing genders @RyoQ . people just are a gender. and if you see people "changing between genders" by using a different word to describe it, that really just means that the understanding of said gender changed. What transgender people are changing (if anything) are physical attributes.

at best you can maybe point to people who are just pretending to grift or whatever, but that would need some evidence.