Right now they do, yes, because apparently Poem was storing all his objective morality in his cellar in containers labeled "argumental imperative." He's going to have to make do until he can go back to his god or whomever to restock, sorry not sorry #whedonverse.
They always have. They subjectively choose the criteria that they base their moral objectivity. IE: the Bible, the Quran, the Vedas, etc. And I got news for them, they almost always subjectively choose piecemeal from them. Nothing objective at all about their morality.
Staying with one's partner (particularly when children are involved) and not separating on a whim is a good thing isn't it? It's good for the kids and good for society, surely?
Wow, so many unstated assumptions here. First, separation "on a whim". If you're in a relationship based on whimsy, and your partner agrees on the whimsical nature of it, then that's fine. But if one party is whimsical and the other believes that they are serious, then that's a problem.
Second, "good for the kids". Two main sub-points here. First, who says that a relationship has to involve kids? There are plenty of happy and fulfilling child-free relationships. Having children in these days of reliable birth control, flexible inheritance, and no primogeniture is an option, not a requirement. Second, maintaining a dysfunctional relationship because of the existence of children is absolutely not good for the kids. It's bad for the kids.
Third, "good for society". Who decides what is "good for society"? You? Sorry, I do not recognise your authority in that matter. Society is what it is - it is what happens when people live in large groups. It is not a top-down structure that people are required to adhere to, it emerges organically from whatever it is that the people are doing. There's a word for people who try to impose a top-down structure on society, and that word is tyrant.
Re-establishing that having a relationship (again, particularly when there is or might be offspring) comes with responsibility is society's business and is worth pursuing. Broken families are and do have poor societal outcomes.
Which is in complete contradiction to your first statement, which is that maintaining a relationship "for the good of the children" is what is worth pursuing.
Finally, you are far from demonstrating that porn leads to broken families. Without that link, your entire chain of reasoning here is spurious.
Nihilism: belief that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. They reject established religious, moral, and social beliefs, often concluding that because nothing matters fundamentally, human existence is useless. This mindset can range from apathy to extreme cynicism, viewing all values as baseless.
I mean, how selfish would you judge our record on relationships and child-bearing to be? You don't have to look further than Darwinism to know that we are programmed to be self-centred.
Oooh, "Darwinism". Did everybody else notice that? We now know exactly what forms the basis of Poem's arguments - Christian morality. I mean, if it wasn't clear before, the casual dropping of the Creationist dogwhistle "Darwinism" is the reveal.
....But when a woman has five kids with three different baby daddies, none of whom have ever lived with her, that's not an accident. That's not an abusive partner. That's not someone pushed into a situation by financial necessity. That's a choice.
Porn normalises the kind of reckless sexual behaviour your 'three different baby daddies' scenario points to. Sex is no longer special - the essence of what constitutes a relationship, but just a product. Anyone who watches porn is tacitly accepting and encouraging this.
If you are suggesting that men and women should behave differently when it comes to raising children, then I think you might start by explaining how the meaning of sex can be salvaged from it's current status? If monogamy is good for society 'in the context of having and raising kids', then you are implying that sex does have value and meaning. If you implying that it can be both meaningful and just a throw away act, then you are blurring lines and making it easy to switch on a whim.
Wow, so many unstated assumptions here. First, separation "on a whim". If you're in a relationship based on whimsy, and your partner agrees on the whimsical nature of it, then that's fine. But if one party is whimsical and the other believes that they are serious, then that's a problem
Second, "good for the kids". Two main sub-points here. First, who says that a relationship has to involve kids? There are plenty of happy and fulfilling child-free relationships. Having children in these days of reliable birth control, flexible inheritance, and no primogeniture is an option, not a requirement. Second, maintaining a dysfunctional relationship because of the existence of children is absolutely not good for the kids. It's bad for the kids.
Third, "good for society". Who decides what is "good for society"? You? Sorry, I do not recognise your authority in that matter. Society is what it is - it is what happens when people live in large groups. It is not a top-down structure that people are required to adhere to, it emerges organically from whatever it is that the people are doing. There's a word for people who try to impose a top-down structure on society, and that word is tyrant.
Much of what you write here are strawman arguments.
I'm suggesting that relationships are generally unhealthy and society is broken. What are you saying - we should just carry on as we are and all will be well?
Which is in complete contradiction to your first statement, which is that maintaining a relationship "for the good of the children" is what is worth pursuing.
Oooh, "Darwinism". Did everybody else notice that? We now know exactly what forms the basis of Poem's arguments - Christian morality. I mean, if it wasn't clear before, the casual dropping of the Creationist dogwhistle "Darwinism" is the reveal.
About as meaningless as it was the first time around. I'll carry on using the term 'Darwinism' without implying any of what you assume I am implying.
This is what I wrote:
I mean, how selfish would you judge our record on relationships and child-bearing to be? You don't have to look further than Darwinism to know that we are programmed to be self-centred.
So, how selfish are we? Or are you suggesting that most are acting for the good of society when they start having sex?
Well, moral relativism is the notion that moral values can differ greatly between individuals without necessitating normative constraints.
For example, earlier you made light of the idea that someone might seek a divorce because their partner dyed their hair red. The thing is, it may seem silly and frivolous to you, but in your hypothetical it is a big deal to them, a divorce worthy deal. That's where moral relativism comes in. They do not need to justify their divorce to you. It is none of your business. Likewise, they do not get to insist that you should get a divorce for dying your hair red. It is none of their business either.
Extending that logic, I think you will be surprised at how much behavior from other humans remains none of your business, no matter how strong your opinions thereof.
Surprisingly, not even then. That you feel the need to make that argument, in any specific circumstance, implies that negative impact, the effect of individualism, and the necessity of it being everyone's business are all things that need further clarification. Basically, it's backwards. You're begging the question without getting everyone on board; couching it in terms of your moral framework without understanding how it affects anyone else's. They are justified in telling you to ◊◊◊◊ right off, because it's still none of your business.
Rather than saying A is bad because it leads to B, you need to find consensus that B is something to be avoided. Then you need to show that A substantively contributes to it, then you need to show that the contribution outweighs any other qualities of A. In that order. People have been telling you this for 250 pages. Grasping instead for different As and Bs and hoping to walk the conversation back to your original point in this thread, that A is bad on its own and should be outlawed, is just not going to work.
There are probably convincing cases to be made for a couple of those components of a cohesive argument that 'something ought to be done' but it seems to me that it'll stumble really hard at showing that the 'something' ought to be 'get rid of porn' because I haven't seen anything but assertion and implication used to attempt to show that removing porn from the equation would actually help.
It's like saying something ought to be done about how hard it is for the youth to get good jobs, let's ban tattoos.
Porn normalises the kind of reckless sexual behaviour your 'three different baby daddies' scenario points to. Sex is no longer special - the essence of what constitutes a relationship, but just a product. Anyone who watches porn is tacitly accepting and encouraging this.
This is the step at which you keep stumbling. It's not enough to show that porn causes harm. It certainly can. But you have to show that your proposed solution will actually improve things. And you're a long, long ways off from being able to do that. Alcohol does harm too, but Prohibition was still a mistake.
Poem's posts is one non-sequitor leap after another. No actual causal links. Just one claim after another that porn causes them.
Porn doesn’t cause promiscuity. Porn doesn’t cause unwanted pregnancies. People screw around with or without porn. And unwanted pregnancies can be reduced significantly simply by teaching sex education and making birth control inexpensive and available.
Poem's posts is one non-sequitor leap after another. No actual causal links. Just one claim after another that porn causes them.
Porn doesn’t cause promiscuity. Porn doesn’t cause unwanted pregnancies. People screw around with or without porn. And unwanted pregnancies can be reduced significantly simply by teaching sex education and making birth control inexpensive and available.
And so it all comes back to what I've been saying all thread - education.
Stop treating sex as something both shameful and simultaneously precious, start talking about it more, and teach children how to have a mature approach to it, and whatever ills Poem thinks plague society now will be well on the way to being solved.
And so it all comes back to what I've been saying all thread - education.
Stop treating sex as something both shameful and simultaneously precious, start talking about it more, and teach children how to have a mature approach to it, and whatever ills Poem thinks plague society now will be well on the way to being solved.
The religious are nuts about sex. They create horribly unhealthy attitudes about it. Teach children about having and using condoms. That alone goes a long way to eliminate any problems. But the religious turn sex into something stupid.
And so it all comes back to what I've been saying all thread - education.
Stop treating sex as something both shameful and simultaneously precious, start talking about it more, and teach children how to have a mature approach to it, and whatever ills Poem thinks plague society now will be well on the way to being solved.
This is the step at which you keep stumbling. It's not enough to show that porn causes harm. It certainly can. But you have to show that your proposed solution will actually improve things. And you're a long, long ways off from being able to do that. Alcohol does harm too, but Prohibition was still a mistake.
A functioning society needs the traditional family unit. No it doesn't have to be 100% traditional - but making a child and bringing that child up generally needs a stable woman / man relationship.
You have spoken in favour of sexual restraint and monogamy regarding families - how are you defining monogamy? - I mean, are you including porn? Your statement above implies as much.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
