chinn is not nonsenseCilogy wrote:chinn I tolerated your nonsense for a while, but you need to calm downchinn70 wrote:can someone just lock this thread ffs .
/ thread
Go to another thread, we are having a pretty non-combatant discussion about a range of topics.
omgCilogy wrote:chinn I tolerated your nonsense for a while, but you need to calm downchinn70 wrote:can someone just lock this thread ffs .
/ thread
Go to another thread, we are having a pretty non-combatant discussion about a range of topics.
You're ostensibly cognizant of many of these issues, even in the absence of statistical evidence. Your brain does that for you, and you already admitted it as such. Compartmentalizing the issue, which is what you recommend: we should be able to do what we want regardless of negative consequences, is implicitly rejecting the full-breadth and weight of the issues at hand. Essentially, it breeds ignorance. I don't really like stuffing things into that sort of a binary because of how reductive they can be. It isn't, 'it's a force of nature and we allow it to continue" or "condemn it all", reality is always closer to a gradient of shifting measures we have to understand and thus react intelligently. I have this kind of coined phrase called 'general reasonability'-- essentially, regardless of what extremities your position concerns, never reject practicality or, really, just being kind of reasonable about things. You don't want to get mugged? Take precautions. I do. It has nothing to do with how 'fair' or 'unfair' it is, I don't want to get mugged, so I do what I can to make sure I'm not, even in supposedly safe areas of Chicago. I'm practical. Does this justify or advocate muggers? Absolutely fucking not, that's ridiculous, it's merely the expectation and reacting accordingly. On a social level, the principle carries over. What you deem 'fair' or 'unfair' isn't nearly as relevant as what will or won't construct positive consequences to the society as a whole in a Kantian or Utilitarian sort of method. React accordingly.That makes sense since the sun is a force of nature that we've come to accept. However, people should be able to do harmless things without the threat of negative reactions that can and should be stopped.
I don't want to continue deeper into this because I have a feeling it will turn out like my discussion with prince over marriage and etc. which was a complete mess and I think prince hates me even more now after that. My view is that the concept of monogamy as a convention will inevitably fall. I mean there will always be people who want monogamy, but it being this immovable cornerstone will probably be replaced by something different. It's all a part of natural change, which is a conversation for another day. Maybe we can just agree to disagree.Vader182 wrote:Well, okay. I'll bite. Advocating the sexualization of society and its members have specific, observable, and statistically proven deeply negative consequences. Much has been researched and covered of the incredibly damaging effects of divorce- to the former spouses, but especially the children. Having been enrolled in five psychology courses over the last few years, I've come across more heartbreaking data points proving this than I'd care to say. Sexual promiscuity has an obvious and easy link to a sexualized culture that necessarily places far less importance on monogamous relationships, leading to the skyrocketing divorce rate. I mean, when did the divorce rate spike up? Well, right around the sexual revolution in the 60's and Elvis, and rock and roll, and the birth of that entire movement that changed the media's entire relationship with sex. Further, monogamy has been statistically verified to promote mental and emotional health, and cultivate the family in an enduring way. This necessarily impacts society at large, and forms a harmony running through all levels of society and culture.
I agree with your perspective there, especially about your "general reasonability", which is a great point. I have no problem at all. I guess I was just talking in broader terms because I was I often see injustice in the fact that people simply go along with the status quo without taking much action to change it for the better. So it's possible I'm just wandering off into a different subject from the one we were originally on.You're ostensibly cognizant of many of these issues, even in the absence of statistical evidence. Your brain does that for you, and you already admitted it as such. Compartmentalizing the issue, which is what you recommend: we should be able to do what we want regardless of negative consequences, is implicitly rejecting the full-breadth and weight of the issues at hand. Essentially, it breeds ignorance. I don't really like stuffing things into that sort of a binary because of how reductive they can be. It isn't, 'it's a force of nature and we allow it to continue" or "condemn it all", reality is always closer to a gradient of shifting measures we have to understand and thus react intelligently. I have this kind of coined phrase called 'general reasonability'-- essentially, regardless of what extremities your position concerns, never reject practicality or, really, just being kind of reasonable about things. You don't want to get mugged? Take precautions. I do. It has nothing to do with how 'fair' or 'unfair' it is, I don't want to get mugged, so I do what I can to make sure I'm not, even in supposedly safe areas of Chicago. I'm practical. Does this justify or advocate muggers? Absolutely fucking not, that's ridiculous, it's merely the expectation and reacting accordingly. On a social level, the principle carries over. What you deem 'fair' or 'unfair' isn't nearly as relevant as what will or won't construct positive consequences to the society as a whole in a Kantian or Utilitarian sort of method. React accordingly.
One source (of many): http://bigthink.com/dollars-and-sex/doe ... le-happier
-Vader
Jungian wrote:"It doesn't matter what she did?" What the hell? Do they levitate above the rest of us just because we wanna fuck em?
true. 
