Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
This guy really saying the incest relationships between consenting adults and when the kid doesn't have health problems are okay
Fucked up if you ask me, I would say they're always immoral, not just if it's predatory or has health issues in the kid.
But when your moral framework is conditional or utilitarian as yours is, you are forced to morally support outliers where you know it's wrong even if all your conditions are met.
Fucked up if you ask me, I would say they're always immoral, not just if it's predatory or has health issues in the kid.
But when your moral framework is conditional or utilitarian as yours is, you are forced to morally support outliers where you know it's wrong even if all your conditions are met.
My brain is weird
What is happening is sadly the result of decades over decades of leftism invisibilization.
Democrats took the place of progressive when they were never leftists in the first place, they used fake individualized tactics for years while pushing massive imperialistic politics at the same time. This prevented the US from having a strong counter power which pushed (in my opinion) the democrates to assume both the counter power of society and the conservatism of imperialist values at the same time of fighting a rising fascist power... thus completely splitting their personnality. They are now recolting the fruits of their own contradictions and all of this helped fascists to access power..
The US needs leftists (real radical ones) to access power. This should restore a form of balance placing democrates and republican on the same side with republican on the far left (as it's currently happening in France) and current fascist, maga and their neonazi friend into oblivion. With that, the US should be able to march forward, but this is gonna be a rough ride.
This is not logic. This is religious moral. It's a fancy sentence that means nothing.
There is no good or bad in the material reality of our world, those are human and social concepts. There is only ethics. Meaning what can be seens as ethical or non ethical.
Homosexuality exist not as a good or a bad existence but as a result of the material and social reality of the world.
Just like planets simply exist as a material results of material conditions of cosmic process inside our galaxy, homosexuality is a simple result of the natural world in its social and possibly biological aspect. Just like everything else in existence. Homosexuality is not good or bad, It just is. It exist. Simple as that.
We are not special, we are not outside of the world. We and everything we are our everything we do is part of the natural process of reality and thus what you could consider "nature".
As such, searching to define "Bad" based on an unatural process is a nonsense as there is absolutely no such thing as "unatural process", our actions themselves are natural processes.
What you can do - on the other hand and on a human scale - is try to figure out what is the best way to maximize the happiness and development of our specie. This means looking at ethics and not religious morals.
And what does ethics tell us about homosexuality? >>>>> There is absolutely no ethical issue with homosexuality. It's just a different way to interprete social relationship.
-
In fact let me tell you a secret : homosexuality is an illusion.
Homosexuality, as a concept, is a result of heteronormativity, a sub domination system of patriarchy combined with and patriarchy. This concept emerged as a way to distinguish reproductives and unproductive bodies for the economy, capitalism and the heritage.
For patriarchy to function, the family unit (as an institution that is fundamental to capitalism) needed to be normalized in a set of values and situations:
- Raising children to make future workers
- The inheritance of properties and capitals
- The fundamental conservatist value that are necessary for the entire system to keep fucntionning without self questionning.
- A way to spread the wealth to normalized individuals
As such, homosexuality was the way those diverse domination system combined their "oppressive power" to CUT OFF populations that were (and still are) judged as obstacles for capitalism and patriarchy to function properly. (it's not the system on its own that created itself, it's the push of waves of human beings and waves of social change)
In other word:
If you think Homosexuality is immoral, it's not because it's bad or religiously a distortion of some good spark of spacetime...
It's because homosexuality is an obstacle for capitalism to function correctly.
And that's.. is actually a good thing
What is happening is sadly the result of decades over decades of leftism invisibilization.
Democrats took the place of progressive when they were never leftists in the first place, they used fake individualized tactics for years while pushing massive imperialistic politics at the same time. This prevented the US from having a strong counter power which pushed (in my opinion) the democrates to assume both the counter power of society and the conservatism of imperialist values at the same time of fighting a rising fascist power... thus completely splitting their personnality. They are now recolting the fruits of their own contradictions and all of this helped fascists to access power..
The US needs leftists (real radical ones) to access power. This should restore a form of balance placing democrates and republican on the same side with republican on the far left (as it's currently happening in France) and current fascist, maga and their neonazi friend into oblivion. With that, the US should be able to march forward, but this is gonna be a rough ride.
This is not logic. This is religious moral. It's a fancy sentence that means nothing.
There is no good or bad in the material reality of our world, those are human and social concepts. There is only ethics. Meaning what can be seens as ethical or non ethical.
Homosexuality exist not as a good or a bad existence but as a result of the material and social reality of the world.
Just like planets simply exist as a material results of material conditions of cosmic process inside our galaxy, homosexuality is a simple result of the natural world in its social and possibly biological aspect. Just like everything else in existence. Homosexuality is not good or bad, It just is. It exist. Simple as that.
We are not special, we are not outside of the world. We and everything we are our everything we do is part of the natural process of reality and thus what you could consider "nature".
As such, searching to define "Bad" based on an unatural process is a nonsense as there is absolutely no such thing as "unatural process", our actions themselves are natural processes.
What you can do - on the other hand and on a human scale - is try to figure out what is the best way to maximize the happiness and development of our specie. This means looking at ethics and not religious morals.
And what does ethics tell us about homosexuality? >>>>> There is absolutely no ethical issue with homosexuality. It's just a different way to interprete social relationship.
-
In fact let me tell you a secret : homosexuality is an illusion.
Homosexuality, as a concept, is a result of heteronormativity, a sub domination system of patriarchy combined with and patriarchy. This concept emerged as a way to distinguish reproductives and unproductive bodies for the economy, capitalism and the heritage.
For patriarchy to function, the family unit (as an institution that is fundamental to capitalism) needed to be normalized in a set of values and situations:
- Raising children to make future workers
- The inheritance of properties and capitals
- The fundamental conservatist value that are necessary for the entire system to keep fucntionning without self questionning.
- A way to spread the wealth to normalized individuals
As such, homosexuality was the way those diverse domination system combined their "oppressive power" to CUT OFF populations that were (and still are) judged as obstacles for capitalism and patriarchy to function properly. (it's not the system on its own that created itself, it's the push of waves of human beings and waves of social change)
In other word:
If you think Homosexuality is immoral, it's not because it's bad or religiously a distortion of some good spark of spacetime...
It's because homosexuality is an obstacle for capitalism to function correctly.
And that's.. is actually a good thing
This guy really saying the incest relationships between consenting adults and when the kid doesn't have health problems are okay
Fucked up if you ask me, I would say they're always immoral, not just if it's predatory or has health issues in the kid.
But when your moral framework is conditional or utilitarian as yours is, you are forced to morally support outliers where you know it's wrong even if all your conditions are met.
Fucked up if you ask me, I would say they're always immoral, not just if it's predatory or has health issues in the kid.
But when your moral framework is conditional or utilitarian as yours is, you are forced to morally support outliers where you know it's wrong even if all your conditions are met.
Bullshit. There are many things humans can do to maximize happiness but are immoral anyways.
Good and evil precede human concept, you materialist. Humans haven't always had a concept for describing murder, but it has always been wrong to kill an innocent person.
[automerge]1759206524[/automerge]
You're pro-incest between consenting adults that have not resulted in unhealthy children.
Good and evil precede human concept, you materialist. Humans haven't always had a concept for describing murder, but it has always been wrong to kill an innocent person.
[automerge]1759206524[/automerge]
You're pro-incest between consenting adults that have not resulted in unhealthy children.
Quote me three exemples, we will see.
Nah, good and evil do not precede human concept lol. Dinosaurs did.
They didn't need to.
Ask yourself why it's unethical to kill an innocent person and you will understand why it was accepted socially pretty much everywhere.
It has nothing to do with concept of good or evil. It's a simple question of survival.
Did you read what followed?
Nah, good and evil do not precede human concept lol. Dinosaurs did.
They didn't need to.
Ask yourself why it's unethical to kill an innocent person and you will understand why it was accepted socially pretty much everywhere.
It has nothing to do with concept of good or evil. It's a simple question of survival.
Thank you for teaching me homosexuality is an illusion my GOAT 
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
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.
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
[automerge]1759207560[/automerge]
I didn't give incest generally as an example. I gave a specific type of incest (consensual with healthy or no kids) which according to your logic, would be morally just
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.
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
[automerge]1759207560[/automerge]
I didn't give incest generally as an example. I gave a specific type of incest (consensual with healthy or no kids) which according to your logic, would be morally just
