The Immortal Goon wrote:
Oh, and I suppose you get to regulate where I put my cock because you know the, "correct forms of relationship?"
Fucking try it.
Well if the state tries it, what will you do?
If you don't believe in objective rights and wrongs that come from a higher power than mere mortals, then your rights only come from the state - so your "right" to put your cock where you want will be meaningless if the state decides to imprison you for it.
Scheherazade wrote:That's pretty self-depreciating.
It's also, actually, probably the most traditional form of Western relationship still practiced. This is not an endorsement, but you're actually probably the one actually changing the norms.
[/quote]
If the norms are abnormal themselves, then they need to be changed and made into normal ones as far as I'm concerned.
Scheherazade wrote:Not at all, it's just logical.
You have yet to provide any logical explanation why you should tell me what to do with my cock because you know the, "correct forms of relationship."
[/quote]
Why shouldn't I? Might makes right, does it not?
I could decide I wanted homosexuals thrown in jail, and you couldn't say there's anything "wrong" with it if the state agrees with me.
Nor did you even define what, "the correct form of relationship," is. Nor did you go through why your feelings provide, "the best forms of relationship."
Relationships which are aberrant according to natural and philosophical law, or which have potentially bad economic effects on others or the individuals involved should be actively discouraged.
Scheherazade wrote:The idea that "variance" can simply mean whatever one wants is anti-intellectual nonsense, regardless of individual variances, there are still universal principles upon which they are founded, and should be measured.
Please explain the "universal principles" involved in the relationships and marriage taboos of the Minangkabau, the Ancient Egyptian, the Mosuo, the Victorians, and the Aztec.
Thank you.
Plenty of universal norms and cultural universals, such as notions of responsibility in relationships, and even cultures which practiced polyamory, simply using people as sex objects, or 'hook up culture' was rightfully viewed as irresponsible.
In reality all cultures have more in common than they do differently, as all come from the same source, and all cultures are slight deviations from the universal norm which, in a perfect society, would mean everyone would conform to one single correct culture.
Some like the Aztecs who practiced human sacrifice were of course more aberrant than other cultures, which is why them being destroyed by the Conquistadors wasn't entirely a bad thing for that matter, even other native tribes feared them so much they sided with Cortes and the Spaniards.
Scheherazade wrote:People who are just scared to take a stand on anything, or may even have a guilty conscience just use this as an easy cop-out.
Most people, actually, take a stand on something they can explain—besides pontificating how their feelings are "universal principles" that should dictate "correct forms of relationship."
[/quote]
Unlike you, I can and will attempt to explain, rather than hide behind a weak argument from ignorance.
Plenty of fields, whether philosophical, or scientific (e.x. evo-pscyh) make good attempts at explaining human and cultural universal ism.
Scheherazade wrote:Sorry, but the truth is it's the collective business of society, at least to an extent, since individuals and what they do in their bedrooms do indirectly effect the rest of the ecosystem, then it's in the collective duty of others to insure they conform to the uninversal norms which best benefit the whole, as well as the individuals.
...Even if the state or society grands individuals the "freedom" to be wrong, they don't have the ability to just dwell in a self-referential echo chamber and "decide" what right and wrong are, it's decided for them by universal natural laws whether they choose to accept this reality or not.
Then you'd agree that we should return to a more traditional Western standard where the men have sex with prostitutes without birth control all the time
No, that's an aberrant of natural law - simply "they did it" doesn't mean it wasn't aberrant, deviants have always existed, and murder is as old as Cain.
, and the wife isn't allowed to derive pleasure from sexuality.
Sexual pleasure is perfectly fine, reducing people to sexual objects or commodity is not.
Surely not agreeing to this is destroying, "the collective business of society, at least to an extent."
No it just means the collective in question was aberrant, and needs to be rectified to conform to normality.
Normality isn't defined by the behavior of masses, but by universal principles - much like in mathematics, a line can be objectify straight (normal), or objectively crooked (abnormal), and this isn't up to individual opinion.
Your decision, presuming you don't agree with the above, to not practice traditional Western sexuality is literally destroying Western civilization.
If Western civilization deviates from natural law, as it has today, then I pray for it's destruction wholeheartedly, as well as those who call normalcy freakery, and freakery normal.
In truth anyway, West has historically been more degenerate on the whole than the East anyway. Many Westerners especially today are materialistic and anti-spiritual unlike people from the East.