[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;47798248]are you familiar with the idea of "privatized profit, socialized cost"? the intellectuals pushing this aren't in a position to be harmed directly by it (or at least they don't think so). they get to status signal and get their karma points for fighting for a disenfranchised minority, and reap the political benefits once they win. they also do direct damage to their ideological enemies thru humiliation, and indirect damage by having more weapons against them (don't like man-boy love? say goodbye to your job, BIGOT).
it's literally the most basic human motivation there is, but gentrified and housebroken from its steppe horde mould
[i]Crush your enemies. See them driven before you. Hear the lamentations of their women.[/i][/QUOTE]
that is not a basic human motivation, that is a quote from conan the barbarian starring arnold schwarzenegger
and second, you're telling me that psychologists are conspiring to make people accept and legalize child rape so that they can use the karma points they'll get for fighting for a disenfranchised minority to "crush their enemies"
like
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;47798265]and second, you're telling me that psychologists are conspiring to make people accept and legalize child rape so that they can use the karma points they'll get for fighting for a disenfranchised minority to "crush their enemies"[/QUOTE]
basically
i think it's more plausible than "kyriarchy"
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;47798248]i mean, you could have asked a couple decades ago "what possible incentive could there be for normalizing homosexuality?"..[/QUOTE]
making the world better for people who aren't doing anything wrong and just want acceptance and love like everyone else?
or karma energy which will be used to crush their foes, that is apparently also a possibility
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;47798248]are you familiar with the idea of "privatized profit, socialized cost"? the intellectuals pushing this aren't in a position to be harmed directly by it (or at least they don't think so). the vulnerable kids are mostly those of non-swpl whites. they get to status signal and get their karma points for fighting for a disenfranchised minority, and reap the political benefits once they win. they also do direct damage to their ideological enemies thru humiliation, and indirect damage by having more weapons against them (don't like man-boy love? say goodbye to your job, BIGOT).
it's literally the most basic human motivation there is, but gentrified and housebroken from its steppe horde mould
[i]Crush your enemies. See them driven before you. Hear the lamentations of their women.[/i]
there's other factors but i cba to write them out, you can probably fill in the blanks. funny you should mention sam hyde ..[/QUOTE]
of course you're not going to try and argue how exactly anyone would come to the conclusion that child rape isn't a bad thing
instead you're creating this boogeyman out of those who use intellectual arguments, declaring that they would surely be using them out of selfish gain and not because they have [I]arguments[/I], and thus would have no moral grounding
the reality is that people are saying that [I]child rape is bad[/I], and instead of burning everyone at the stake, want to know how it comes to happen and how to increase awareness to [I]actually help the problem[/I]
but you don't care because it doesn't fit your story of having the moral high ground
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;47798278]making the world better for people who aren't doing anything wrong and just want acceptance and love like everyone else?[/QUOTE]
applies to pedos with trivial modification
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;47798273]basically
i think it's more plausible than "kyriarchy"[/QUOTE]
or maybe no one is fighting to legalize child rape
that is also a distinct possibility I think we should all consider
[editline]25th May 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;47798282]applies to pedos with trivial modification[/QUOTE]
child rape : is rape
gay buttsex : isn't rape
I know this is complicated, but I hope you can see where I'm going with this
[QUOTE=bitches;47798279]of course you're not going to try and argue how exactly anyone would come to the conclusion that child rape isn't a bad thing[/quote]
we went from "killing unborn children is a heinous crime" to "a woman can abort a fetus for any reason" in less than half a century. look, even if you're okay with abortion, just fucking step back and marvel at how quickly so-called deep-seated moral judgments can be overturned.
don't tell me someone won't come up with some kind of word-jugglry to excuse pedos. hell it wouldn't even be historically unprecedented
spend 5 minutes on it, i've come up with 2 candidates already ITT
[editline]25th May 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;47798285]child rape : is rape
gay buttsex : isn't rape
I know this is complicated, but I hope you can see where I'm going with this[/QUOTE]
apply yourself
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;47798303]we went from "killing unborn children is a heinous crime" to "a woman can abort a fetus for any reason" in less than half a century. look, even if you're okay with abortion, just fucking step back and marvel at how quickly so-called deep-seated moral judgments can be overturned.
don't tell me someone won't come up with some kind of word-jugglry to excuse pedos. hell it wouldn't even be historically unprecedented
spend 5 minutes on it, i've come up with 2 candidates already ITT[/QUOTE]
saying that paedophilia has a cause outside of "being a criminal" isn't saying that child rape is okay
saying that paedophiles didn't choose to be attracted to children isn't saying that child rape is okay
neither of these sayings act to excuse child rape
this seems over your head somehow
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;47798285]
child rape : is rape
gay buttsex : isn't [b]exclusively[/b] rape
I know this is complicated, but I hope you can see where I'm going with this[/QUOTE]
I decided to fix that since whatever sort of "gay buttsex" could still possibly be rape.
[QUOTE=bitches;47798312]saying that paedophilia has a cause outside of "being a criminal" isn't saying that child rape is okay
saying that paedophiles didn't choose to be attracted to children isn't saying that child rape is okay
neither of these sayings act to excuse child rape
this seems over your head somehow[/QUOTE]
neither does acceptance of homosexuality logically mean that incest is okay but WOOPS look what happened
you're arguing about the pure logic of the situation, i'm talking about how people will actually behave in the real world. denotationally you're correct but by god that hardly ever stops people from drawing the dumb conclusion
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;47798303]
apply yourself[/QUOTE]
so did you give up logic in favor of blind egotism, or was it like a slow erosion thing where you gradually forgot how to talk with anyone who doesn't believe exactly as you do
like is this tragic or are you doing it on purpose
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;47798327]so did you give up logic in favor of blind egotism, or was it like a slow erosion thing where you gradually forgot how to talk with anyone who doesn't believe exactly as you do
like is this tragic or are you doing it on purpose[/QUOTE]
i'll say it again, if murder can be turned into abortion, then rape can be turned into something more palatable too.
never underestimate what kinds of retarded moral conclusions people can come to. subjectively, we're both evidence of that to each other.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;47798325]neither does acceptance of homosexuality logically mean that incest is okay but WOOPS look what happened
you're arguing about the pure logic of the situation, i'm talking about how people will actually behave in the real world. denotationally you're correct but by god that hardly ever stops people from drawing the dumb conclusion[/QUOTE]
again you're stripping away the concept that people have [I]reasons[/I] for their beliefs so that you can say they're all just less smart and moral than you are
nobody said that "incest is okay because homosexuality is okay"
people can draw references to past arguments to draw to mind the full arguments already had that support both ideas and not be behaving irrationally
you can definitely say that incestual relationships are not ordinary
you can definitely say that incestual relationships [I]could [/I]involve abuse
you can definitely say that incestual relationships [I]can[/I] come from dysfunctional environments
you cannot logically argue that incest as a mere concept is morally wrong; incest as a concept is only defined by two people of extremely close genetics having a relationship together
that isn't saying that abuse is okay
that isn't saying that rape is okay
that isn't saying that genetic irresponsibility is okay
that IS saying, ONLY saying, that two people who are both of a reasoning age, who both are not abusing each other, and especially those who cannot have children together, should not be considered immoral for being in a relationship together
and nobody advocating incest concepts in this thread has said or suggested any differently
do you have a counter argument or more waiving bull?
[QUOTE=smurfy;47797176]This thread is going to be great[/QUOTE]
you were right before you made the post
also your avatar fits perfectly
[QUOTE=bitches;47798358]again you're stripping away the concept that people have [I]reasons[/I] for their beliefs so that you can say they're all just less smart and moral than you are
nobody said that "incest is okay because homosexuality is okay"
people can draw references to past arguments to draw to mind the full arguments already had that support both ideas and not be behaving irrationally
you can definitely say that incestual relationships are not ordinary
you can definitely say that incestual relationships [I]could [/I]involve abuse
you can definitely say that incestual relationships [I]can[/I] come from dysfunctional environments
you cannot logically argue that incest as a mere concept is morally wrong; incest as a concept is only defined by two people of extremely close genetics having a relationship together
that isn't saying that abuse is okay
that isn't saying that rape is okay
that isn't saying that genetic irresponsibility is okay
that IS saying, ONLY saying, that two people who are both of a reasoning age, who both are not abusing each other, and especially those who cannot have children together, should not be considered immoral for being in a relationship together
and nobody advocating incest concepts in this thread has said or suggested any differently
do you have a counter argument or more waiving bull?[/QUOTE]
there's 2 different discussions here .. 1 is "is incest okay", 2 is "regardless of 1, will society accept incest as okay"
most ppl don't arrive at their beliefs through anything resembling rational thought (and that's not even always a bad thing! we have intuition for a reason). and oftentimes the reasons they give for their beliefs is different to the reasons they actually had, if they even know the real reasons in the first place.
if people thought it was a high-status thing to do they'd say the sky was green. nazis convinced themselves it was a swell idea to shove jews into the oven, massachussets colonists saw no trouble in burning witches .. all cause of peer pressure, wishful thinking, and a dozen other ways that beliefs spread independent of their actual veracity.
basically im saying that incest being right or wrong doesn't have much bearing on the probability that it'll catch on, or at least, it's hard to know in advance. the people that actually try to live their lives according to a strict deductive code are weirdos and either shut themselves in monasteries or [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_R._Price]die on the streets[/url] - exceptions that prove the rule
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;47798337]i'll say it again, if murder can be turned into abortion, then rape can be turned into something more palatable too.
never underestimate what kinds of retarded moral conclusions people can come to. subjectively, we're both evidence of that to each other.[/QUOTE]
if mass genocide can be called masturbation, then child rape could easily be legalized
this is literally your argument. Your slope could not be slipperier.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;47798377]if mass genocide can be called masturbation, then child rape could easily be legalized
this is literally your argument. Your slope could not be slipperier.[/QUOTE]
maybe i'll try again tomorrow ..
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;47798386]maybe i'll try again tomorrow ..[/QUOTE]
Don't ever try again.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;47798337]i'll say it again, if murder can be turned into abortion, then rape can be turned into something more palatable too.
never underestimate what kinds of retarded moral conclusions people can come to. subjectively, we're both evidence of that to each other.[/QUOTE]
I don't really see that happening any time soon. Rape seems to be taken very seriously right now, and when you see people downplaying or sugarcoating rape they're usually older.
Of course you must never underestimate the range of mindsets people will adopt, but also you mustn't overestimate their popularity, especially given that the internet makes it so much easier to be exposed to all sorts of guff. People have downplayed rape, they do now, and will do in the future. But there will also be posts, as there are now, of people saying any heterosexual intercourse is rape because of the man's male privilege. It doesn't always represent popular opinion.
[QUOTE=DrTaxi;47797278]Yes, yes I did.
Incest is an abnormal sexual attraction - most people aren't into incest. So is homosexuality - most people are straight.
It's also incompatible with the traditional family - the husband may also be the brother etc. So is homosexuality - there's no wife.
It also doesn't serve the growth of the human population - the children of incestuous couples, if they decide to have children, have an increased risk of being born with diseases. Homosexual couples don't bear children.
It also doesn't, by itself, hurt anybody involved. Incest couples aren't [I]by definition[/I] dysfunctional, or unhappy - neither are homosexuals despite how homophobic messages tend to present them. And they don't necessarily have children - any distaste towards incest couples in general because of the portion of them that do is thus pure prejudice.
You could say incest couples "hurt people" by making them feel disgust towards them, but if you were gonna make that argument, you'd have to say the same about homosexuals, because homophobes also exist in quite large amounts. But you don't do that, because that would be awful, right?
So what's the meaningful difference that makes this comparison unfair?
The only one I see is that society has (largely) progressed far enough to accept two men having sex, but not two brothers.[/QUOTE]
I agree. Assuming that these men can't mate and have children, there is no problem whatsoever. It has no effect on society.
It's sad that such a large majority disagree. Try to be a bit more open-minded.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;47798375]
basically im saying that incest being right or wrong doesn't have much bearing on the probability that it'll catch on, or at least, it's hard to know in advance.[/QUOTE]
societal acceptance of incest as a concept because it [I]isn't inherently wrong[/I] is an idea built on favoring reason; that doesn't mean that a society not irrationally condemning every single incestuous relationship would somehow become illogical in order to be okay with rape
saying "but nazi germany" doesn't make your argument reasonable
infact, nazi germany was built on irrationally saying that others are worth less as individuals based on illogical grounds, which is closer to condemning those in incestuous relationships than it is to somehow being okay with rape
you have to explain why exactly someone could be okay with rape because they're okay with incest, and how such a view could stand in society; you don't get to lazily use the hitler argument
all you've been doing is making a slippery slope fallacy
vote with ratings for whether you want to see x-thousand word effortpost on this topic sometime in the near future where i can explain myself better (will have 300% better punctuation)
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;47798375]the people that actually try to live their lives according to a strict deductive code are weirdos[/QUOTE]
again you waive rational arguments aside
clearly anyone who thinks rationally is a weirdo
much better to blindly follow "intuition" (which in your case means upholding the current societal view whether it is harmful or not; see the irony?)
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;47798410]vote with ratings for whether you want to see x-thousand word effortpost on this topic sometime in the near future where i can explain myself better (will have 300% better punctuation)[/QUOTE]
I think everyone got your point well enough.
"i'll say it again, if murder can be turned into abortion, then rape can be turned into something more palatable too."
like lmao
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;47798410]vote with ratings for whether you want to see x-thousand word effortpost on this topic sometime in the near future where i can explain myself better (will have 300% better punctuation)[/QUOTE]
complete with bunk citations and every form of logical fallacy, and sprinkled with disdain for rationality
[QUOTE=bitches;47798418]complete with bunk citations and every form of logical fallacy, and sprinkled with disdain for rationality[/QUOTE]
you misunderstood my point, i wasn't saying rationality was bad (and it was completely tangential to my main argument)
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;47798178]sexual deviancy goes thru 3 stages. first it's shunned as completely abnormal and perverted behavior, proscribed by law and subject to ostracism. then some intellectual with more brains than sense says it's a mental illness and it's not their fault. medicalization is a classic way to dissociate a person's moral worth from their actions, by removing their agency (this can be played both ways, cf ussr). once that's the new normal, the narrative switches again, this time that the "mental illness" label is stigmatizing and that it doesn't deserve to be called that, since it doesn't do any harm. then we're supposed to tolerate it.
we're at stage 3+ for homosexuality, stage 2 for transsexualism, stage 1 for pedo
also i use "they" just as a term of convenience, i don't think there's a shadowy cabal or anything
[highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Homophobic shit posting - be gone" - Craptasket))[/highlight][/QUOTE]
Thank u for getting banned faster than I could have ever hoped for.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;47798513]Thank u for getting banned faster than I could have ever hoped for.[/QUOTE]
Up until he made that post, I did find some of his points pretty interesting.
Wouldn't be surprised if his title was one of his actual opinions tbh
[QUOTE=Rixxz2;47798614]Up until he made that post, I did find some of his points pretty interesting.
Wouldn't be surprised if his title was one of his actual opinions tbh[/QUOTE]
it is, namely linking to this post;
[url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1242216&p=39344790&viewfull=1#post39344790[/url]
He also made this gem of a post in unpopular opinions a couple days ago
[url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?p=47783259#post47783259[/url]
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;47798623]it is, namely linking to this post;
[url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1242216&p=39344790&viewfull=1#post39344790[/url][/QUOTE]
Christ, the mass-unbannings on Garry's birthday should stop being a thing
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
