>>543120 >don't have children that you can't afford How is the first one sexual morality, unless you're saying it means don't have sex if you can't afford the offspring?
>don't cheat on significant others Not in all contexts. The woman cheating on her husband in Thelma and :Louise is largely seen as empowering.
>don't use sex to get power or advance in the workplace What. Since when has that been seen as immoral from a secular perspective? The person giving advances for such things might be seen as immoral (because it is possibly coercive, and unfair to others), but the person using sex?
>During Joseph Stalin's rule, the trend toward strengthening the family continued. In 1936 the government began to award payments to women with large families, banned abortions, and made divorces more difficult to obtain. In 1942 it subjected single persons and childless married persons to additional taxes. In 1944 only registered marriages were recognized to be legal, and divorce became subject to the court's discretion. In the same year, the government began to award medals to women who gave birth to five or more children and took upon itself the support of illegitimate children. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_in_the_Soviet_Union
>>543257 >I mean that a different context can change the moral perception of an action. In what contexts is cheating okay?
>Which screwing your way to the top is seen as perpetuating. It's really not. If anything, it tends to be seen more as a coercive practice by the boss in question, as a way of taking advantage of women being discriminated against.
>>543114 Yes, not cheating on your partner or fucking someone else's partner
Objective morality is simple: if hurts somebody it's immoral, if it doesnt it isnt immoral. That's why having consensual sex with someone of the same gender as you or someone from your family isnt immoral (as long as no adultery involved) while cheating is.
>>543114 Is there any viable religious morality on sex?
I don't see how the presence of a deity changes anything. People still need motivations based on the real world to make choices.
As for the morality of sex itself. Once it become established that raising children well is important everything starts revolving around that. If something brings instability to the marriage it harms the child's environment, if something prevents a union than it prevents the child from occurring. Beyond that what happens in the bedroom shouldn't be anyone's concern. If two lesbians having sex 5 times a week makes them bond better and thus be less likely to divorce, than it's good for the child they adopted. Likewise hook-up culture becomes bad the moment it starts moving one away from thinking seriously about a wife or husband.
>>543303 >There is a degree of ambiguity in many things, but you at least have to have *some* shred of a guideline rather than, "It's your call."
There is really no more sound a guideline. This is relating to a purely emotional matter, founded entirely in intimate entanglements, so the only basis from which you could make such a call is a purely emotional one.
>It almost always seen as the boss.
Because it often is. They're in a position of power and less likely to compromise their position with such an advance.
>>543324 >There is really no more sound a guideline. This is relating to a purely emotional matter, founded entirely in intimate entanglements, so the only basis from which you could make such a call is a purely emotional one. So you don't really see it as a matter of morals, do you? I mean, it's legal, so it can't be.
>>543352 Incest taboos don't really have a leg to stand on though. It's almost entirely about children, so if you don't have children or its same-sex incest, what's to despise? Sibling relations are formed through living together in traditional families, there's a bunch of reasons why people don't form the taboo.
>>543374 People disagreeing with something doesn't make it immoral, its the negative effects on others that does. If you fucking something that don't wanna be fucked, it is immoral, no matter how many people you can fight off to keep doing it.
The movement towards acceptance of alternate sexuality like homosexuality is because we now consider consent to be important. Consent is the same reason we no longer consider marital rape or pedophilia acceptable.
Do you think there are any strong movements towards giving prepubescent children the right to vote, to join the army, to sign binding contracts, and to take recreational drugs?
>>543391 no, its not that there's disagreement...its that there is force greater than my own being waged in disagreement.
to clarify everything, I'm positing "might makes right" -- basically, if you don't like how I'm fucking, try to coerce me (or have you "allies", like state power, friends, family, clan, etc). if you can't, then I'm morally correct.
>>543382 >What special rules for sexual conduct do you think are needed beyond general morality? This is basically all I wanted to know, but if this topic interests you, you can read Sexual Desire, which lays down a secular sexual morality and its reasoning.
>>543398 No, I do think the consent age will start to be lowered. Maybe not to prepubescence, though.
>>543299 >If two lesbians having sex 5 times a week makes them bond better and thus be less likely to divorce, than it's good for the child they adopted.
Because we all know that lesbians are such reliable and responsible parents, amirite? Stop buying into fucking memes and check some of the statistics. Gay couples in general have an absurdly higher rate of splitting apart than in comparison to their heterosexual counterparts, but I digress, so apologies to the thread maker.
>>543114 Secular sexual morality? There are norms established in the western world (As it doesn't need to be pointed out for anyone with even half a brain - none of them are objective) and the same norms are rapidly shifting towards promoting sexual "liberation" towards extreme measures.
As was noted before in the thread, some stigmas of the past have been shoved under rug, most of those concerning women. So called "slut shaming" is all but dead, cheating -is- actually being promoted as to empower the female sex from a twisted perspectives of feminism etc.
I am not thoroughly sure if this fills the quota for an answer, but you'd really have to elaborate further on your question to explore the topic in more depth.
So the test is irrelevant, the only relevant skill is the ability to exercise superior violence.
Who should be the baker? The guy who is best able to kill the previous baker?
Who should be the plumber? The guy who is best able to kill the previous plumber?
Like I say, might makes right is precisely wrong. Whenever it's used as an argument in favor of something, it's the person admitting they have no good argument for their position, but they will fight anyone who disagrees.
>>543445 Gay couples have no legal and traditional reason to stay together, which was marriage for straight couples. People are pretty unreasonable about this IMO.
>portray homos as sinners/animals and don't consider their feelings legitimate since forever >homos turn to hedonism to escape their intense self-hate >expect them to form a atrong tradition of marital faithfulness in a few decades
We've made our own mess. I think the situation will improve once homosexuality is completely integrated in society, but that could take a long time
>>543467 I used to think s/he was decent, much better than that paramecium or whatever christfag chucklefuck that plagued this board. But now I see they're getting to be insufferable as well. Might be time to rev up that filter soon.
>>543453 >So the test is irrelevant, the only relevant skill is the ability to exercise superior violence.
Indeed. which is why we exercise violence and the threat of violence as a major stabilizing force in society.
>Who should be the baker? >Who should be the plumber?
The men who wish to be those. They protect themselves and their position through their own might and the combined might of their allies.
Might makes right is poorly stated because it passes moral judgement, but might does indeed make reality. This is a fundamental truth of human interaction. We are justified in doing what we have the capability to do, and use might to ensure that those who would wish to do ill have a reason not to do ill.
Might makes right implies that being capable of making a situation one way, that is the moral way to go.
Nobody denies that people with the ability and willingness to use violence can get their own way, what is disturbing is that people go on to say that those with the ability and willingness to use violence are the true moral arbiters of society.
But no. In fact, including the argument that might makes right proves that the premise of the argument is unfounded.
>>543506 Fair, though I think arguments beyond might makes right are on flimsy pretexts fundamentally. If someone does wrong to another, and gets away with it, what difference did the the fact it was wrong make in the end?
>>543486 Drugs are an absolute catastrophe. Orthodox Churches, for instance, used to always be left open, 20/7, even when the priest wasn't there, so regular people can go in and pray. They can't do that in a lot of places anymore--you know what? Because even criminals and the poor who would normally respect Churches turn into something else on drugs, and they were turn the Church upside down looking for things to sell (took my priest's laptop, which was left at the Church since it was for Church business, not too long ago).
Hard drugs have done more than anything else to destroy the morality and dignity of the poor, it's awful. They're evil.
Did it make a difference to the person who was wronged? Would it make a difference if the person who was wronged without their knowledge discovered what happened?
The argument of might makes right is the flimsiest of all. It doesn't address anything to do with the issue being discussed, it only says that one party is willing to use violence to get their way. Moral arguments end at the point when someone brings up might makes right.
>>543525 The desperation of the poor is what turns them to drugs, since it's a relatively cheap way to escape for a while. Drugs are a symptom, not a cause. Remember: there are plenty of wealthy drug users out there that don't stir up trouble to get a fix.
>>543530 Ok. That wasn't an answer, that was just an emotional appeal.
I don't think might makes right, but I can't see what difference any other moral position makes if you can't back it with force, and if it's just a simple matter of being backed with force, then in end, might is indeed what has made something right or wrong.
You have poor homeless people spending every cent they have on drugs. Drugs are ruining our capacity to sympathize with the homeless, we don't give money to them because, "They will just spend it on drugs."
Once you because seriously addicted to a hard drug, it becomes a religion.
>>543533 I'm a homosexual man and I've had one partner. Why should your statistics have any cause whatsoever to vhange what I thonk of homosexuals who want a seriousl stable relationships, and there are many of those?
Wow, stats, the ultimate argument. Let's hear divorce stats for straight couples next.
Am interested in the thread's great question, but damn, did it devolve into just ourselves discussing sexual morality. I think that betrays the fact that, sexuality being the hardest thing (at least for men) to master since it's often the source of both the greatest pleasure and purpose for individuals, it would be the thing hardest to create by ourselves an objective standard for.
That is the reason I do not think secular thought, either now or at any time in the past or future, will be able to adequately create a good standard. That is why revelation may be our only guide in this area.
>>543542 >That's hardly physically possible That's merely your view. A false one at that.
>1978 Most of those studies range from roughly 20 years ago. If you think that expiration of social stigmas attached to homosexuality hasn't further bolstered and encouraged such behavior, you evidently enjoy being deluded.
These are homeless people who are receiving enough in welfare to afford a place to rent and a course to train them up in skills; but instead choose to spend it all on drugs and live on the streets instead?
>>543331 Except, as an outside anon seeing this discussion I have to explain, contracts are not broken on a whim or just for any "emotional" reason, which is overwhelmingly the case with modern marriages today.
>>543555 >I'm a homosexual man and I've had one partner. Why should your statistics have any cause whatsoever to vhange what I thonk of homosexuals who want a seriousl stable relationships, and there are many of those?
>Muh personal input trumps the scientific consensus and certified studies
>Wow, stats, the ultimate argument. Yeah. The bane of liberals and the deluded.
> Let's hear divorce stats for straight couples next. Yeah, let's digress from the issue on hand by attacking a totally another topic. Talk about fallacy.
Also, your spelling seems a bit off. Are your jimmies rustled, friend?
So what is your explanation for the heterosexual parents that support this sort of thing for their children? There's more of those. Why aren't you decrying traditional man-woman marriages as hotbeds of child tampering?
>>543579 >Whatever crime you proposed in the first place has taken place. If no crime took place, then nothing happened. >So what crime are we talking about?
You can be angered about something without it being an absolute moral wrong, you can also convince others that they too should be angered about this in a bid to get them to lend their might to seeing something done about this. But on a desert island, if one murders another in cold blood and nothing befalls him for it, what difference does the immorality of his action make?
>It's not just not moral, it's the opposite of moral. Once it's used in an argument, whoever raises it is saying that they are no longer discussing morality, they are comparing threats and violence.
A major part of sustaining the functions of society is threats and violence. You don't use them willy nilly, because that's not in anyone's actual interests, but it's an inescapable truth, and the kneejerk emotional reaction people have to it fundamentally absurd, since they benefit from it every day.
>>543573 You ought to first prove that the study isn't roughly applicable to today's condition and/or is completely invalided by now considering some drastic, non-existent mentality shift in the LGBT community.
>>543588 Yes, I think someone would bother with that. I do not fully exclude the possibility of exaggerating, but in such cases the numbers possibly reach above hundrends, if an individual gains an impression of one thousand.
>>543599 >No, there aren't. In fact drugs are probably the main reason they aren't. Th easiest solution would be to require drug tests to get financial aid, but good luck actually getting that to pass.
Your solution is to make it more difficult for them to get off the street?
>You can be angered about something without it being an absolute moral wrong, you can also convince others that they too should be angered about this in a bid to get them to lend their might to seeing something done about this. But on a desert island, if one murders another in cold blood and nothing befalls him for it, what difference does the immorality of his action make?
Then you're saying that in this case, nothing immoral took place?
When your brother shows up dead, you accept that the might of his murderer made the killing right?
>A major part of sustaining the functions of society is threats and violence. You don't use them willy nilly, because that's not in anyone's actual interests, but it's an inescapable truth, and the kneejerk emotional reaction people have to it fundamentally absurd, since they benefit from it every day.
Only if the threats and violence are used in support of moral arguments that have already been settled. When they're used to force a win in the argument, they prove that the winning side is immoral.
>>543593 >polling sexually active people on their sexual activities is the knockdown argument to project my hate onto an entire group of people >how dare you deviate from my narrowly defined statistics, you must be lying
>>543608 >Have you ever lived on welfare? I've been homeless, as in sleeping in dumpsters and parks, and lived on EBT.
>Then you'd have drug addicts that are even more desperate getting around. What do you mean? It's pretty much impossible for a poor single man to receive financial assistance beyond EBT. I'm saying their should be more programs for financial assistance, but there aren't because the money might be spent on drugs.
>>543593 >He unironically thinks homosexuals weren't always deviant and hedonistic >He unironically thinks that happened overnight as a reaction to cause
You are talking universally about homosexuals, that's a collectivist statement.
To say that SOME homosexuals have always been deviant, hedonistic and have always been that way, would not be a collectivist statement, and you would actually be right, as it would be supported by the (here assuming) facts in your pic.
I know that most westerners are alcoholics who refuse to admit their problem, most refuse to admit that alcohol is a drug to begin with, but if you compare it objectively to other recreational drugs, it's in the top five of the worst, alongside heroin, cocaine, barbiturates, and street methadone.
>>543627 I do not care about exceptions in this case. Your entire petty excuse of a community is a cancerous tumor upon each and every society it has befallen. Now get the fuck out.
>>543635 Let me elaborate it then : You do realize the surveys were done by taking input from homosexuals personally, yes? Thus, there was a certain percentage of them who have claimed roughly thousand sexual partners. I argue, that it could be true and that there could exist a case of exaggeration, because as I have noted, if someone grants an impression of having thousand sexual partners, the numbers surely do not drop below a hundrend/few hundrends.
>>543671 I still cannot comprehend why do you deem it so shocking. With the casual sex trend running strong, I assume you are aware that there are both men and women who frequently and on roughly weekly basis (Some even on daily), engage in sexual activities with different partners. The so labeled "hook-up" culture isn't just a trifle trend of today.
I can imagine someone having over thousand sexual partners in a time span of roughly ten years, whether they are homosexual or heterosexual.
>>543686 >A spoonful of heavily diluted wine is not going to produce any effect.
So use de-alcoholized wine instead.
>Drunkenness is, and always has been, prohibited in Christianity. Drinking wine has always been an integral part of Christianity.
And yet virtually every Christian drinks, including you. And you can't drink without getting drunk. You can get more or less drunk, and there is a level of drunkenness that you consider to be not drunk.
>Uh. Could you explain your logic here?
Wine contains alcohol. If you didn't want the alcohol, you could avoid it by drinking water.
>>543623 >When your brother shows up dead, you accept that the might of his murderer made the killing right?
No, I accept that my might will see something done about it (or more plausibly, the might of an intermediary, such as the police) because a world that tolerates murder is worse for me, and because I would want some manner of retribution for the crime.
>Only if the threats and violence are used in support of moral arguments that have already been settled. When they're used to force a win in the argument, they prove that the winning side is immoral.
There's no winning moral arguments in a world without objective truth. There is only opinion and the will to see that opinion reality.
>>543686 >I certainly hope they're not prescribing anything any amphetamine as strong as meth, that would be dangerous to give kids Adderall is prescribed for both ADHD and drinking until 7 in the morning.
>>543702 >No, I accept that my might will see something done about it (or more plausibly, the might of an intermediary, such as the police) because a world that tolerates murder is worse for me, and because I would want some manner of retribution for the crime.
Then the might of the first guy didn't make his actions right? I thought might makes right? How about if he explains that he was mightier than your brother, do you then agree that he was in the right? Or is there some other moral argument in play here?
>There's no winning moral arguments in a world without objective truth. There is only opinion and the will to see that opinion reality.
Moral arguments have little to do with objective truth. They deal with the effect of actions on subjects, there is no objective morality, in fact objectively morality is a contradiction in terms.
>>543708 >And 1000 in ten years is two a week, which is still pretty high Well, when you consider all the concepts of orgies, gloryholes and bathroom sex in a random bar, the numbers drastically increase and invalidate the need for any constant.
>>543729 Not him, but there's a difference between being drunk and being effected by alcohol. I personally hate being drunk and everything that comes with it, but a mild buzz is awesome. Even just drinking a beer or two where there aren't any real effects is nice after a long day. I also genuinely like the taste of good beer.
>>543729 Do you non-sarcastically deem that the only effect to achieve with alcohol is a drunken state? There is such a thing as a glass or two for relaxation purposes, you know. Also, some people admire the very taste, but in case of high alcohol percentage liquors such as whiskey, I can't say it's the same case for me.
>>543758 It's always great at first but by the time everyone is crashing out and it's time for bed, I start to feel shitty. And then there's hangovers and generally just being depressed the next day. It just isn't fun to get shitfaced anymore.
>>543445 Well your entire premise is bullshit. Your premise is that it's a choice between hetrosexual and gay. Homosexuality isn't a choice. So it's a choice between letting homosexuals adopt children and letting them be raised in orphanages.
I havn't seen any statistics that indicate gays are bad at raising children (and no you cherry picking out examples from the news is not evidese). There is one study that gets posted a lot on /pol/ which was completely discredited, as in the people behind it admitted they made up the statics and were payed off by right wing groups.
And even if gays were foudn to be worst parents you have to ask yourself. What is the alternative? Well that would be letting the children be raised in orphanages and if you do some research into that you will find that it has horrible effects on children. Most of them end up on drugs or committing suicide.
Religious nuts would rather see children end up with no parents at all than to see them with gay parents. This is a group of people with no love for children or any care about family.
>>543303 I know one case, in the case of the past, it was deemed okay for a man to fuck a concubine for children, even though she wasn't your wife, in case your wife was "barren." In not so distant past, it was seen as less grave for a man to cheat than a woman. Or did you want modern examples only?
>>543724 >Then the might of the first guy didn't make his actions right? I thought might makes right? How about if he explains that he was mightier than your brother, do you then agree that he was in the right?
How many times do I need to say this? It doesn't make right. Are you fucking dense?
Also, even if it did make him right, it would still be right to see something done about it, because that is within the capabilities one's might.
>Moral arguments have little to do with objective truth. They deal with the effect of actions on subjects, there is no objective morality, in fact objectively morality is a contradiction in terms.
Then if there is nothing objective about it, how can the matter be considered settled in any truly substantial fashion?
>How many times do I need to say this? It doesn't make right. Are you fucking dense?
Now you say might doesn't make right.
>Also, even if it did make him right, it would still be right to see something done about it, because that is within the capabilities one's might.
Now you say might does make right.
>Then if there is nothing objective about it, how can the matter be considered settled in any truly substantial fashion?
You could prove objective facts about the case, but morality only enters in when it affects a human being, a subjective being. Pocketing a rock is not a moral action. Pocketing a rock that someone owns is an immoral action.
>>543774 >So it's a choice between letting homosexuals adopt children and letting them be raised in orphanages. No, it is a choice between handing out children to homosexual couples or heterosexual couples, but guess what side is favored due to affirmative action.
>I havn't seen any statistics that indicate gays are bad at raising children (and no you cherry picking out examples from the news is not evidese)
Of course you didn't. God forbid any study is released which goes against the grain of political correctness and is discriminatory. Hedonistic lifestyle of a significant number of homosexuals is evidence enough of their potential bad parenting. Before you attempt another whataboutism, same goes for heterosexuals.
>There is one study.. >You cherrypick, but when I do, it's nothing!
>Most of them end up on drugs or committing suicide. False. Most actually become integrated with the society.
>This is a group of people with no love for children or any care about family.
Philosophers who have questioned love without doubt have quested sex. They two, for many, go hand in hand, are interchangeable. Then, there is the biologist who believes all things follow from form and function, and that sex is reproductive only. Oddly enough, he shares company with the puritanical theist. In mass are the psychologists and porn abusers (see: users) who regular explore the fringes of sexual imagination and without fail, the limits of object relational theory and behaviorism at its finest.
The purpose of human sex is. . .
In this you find a plethora of expression, intention, meaning, and behavior, nothing like the animal kingdoms expression of sexuality. the same way nothing like the concept capacity (logical space) of the human exists outside some game taught chimp - we have a language instinct.
Sex then, being abstract, causes my language instinct to ask, who is the sexual moral authority, and if none exists, what's it's purpose.
therefore, if satisfaction in its purpose is achieved, it is purposed. Now, how that affects other spheres of 'moral space', that's up to the codified laws in retribution, or the person in shame..
>>543499 If you believe in God, as you say, then toy have a soul or even if you don't you have subjective consciousness. You also have a physical body(which many parts) which by your own existence as a conscious being, you have control over.
>>543775 >So you like being drunk, you just don't want to use the word 'drunk'. I think the disconnect here is that you either don't understand how alcohol works or don't know what the word drunk actually means.
You are the one who says that you can consume an amount alcohol without that having any effects on your body or mind. This is just not true. If you are drinking enough to 'relax', to 'get a buzz', to 'loosen up', as a 'social lubricant', then you're drinking to get drunk.
I'm saying different amounts of consumption has different effects. You're just defining the lower end of the effects as something other than drunk.
>>543863 That's because the actual definition of the word, both in original intention and by cultural and legal standards does not agree with yours.
drunk drəNGk/Submit 1. past participle of drink. adjective 1. affected by alcohol to the extent of losing control of one's faculties or behavior. "he was so drunk he lurched from wall to wall" synonyms: intoxicated, inebriated, inebriate, impaired, drunken, tipsy, under the influence; More noun 1. a person who is drunk or who habitually drinks to excess. synonyms: drunkard, inebriate, drinker, tippler, imbiber, sot; More
>I actually advocate that there are levels of drunkenness as well, but that they can be nowhere near be classified under the same grouping.
So long as you don't still insist you don't drink to become intoxicated.
>The very definition of being "drunk" is being intoxicated by alcohol to the point of losing control over inherent mental or physical power.
Then we'll use that definition as drunk.
>When I consume a glass of wine or two, at most, I "suffer" minor muscle relaxation, which would not adhere to the aforementioned definition.
The level of drunkenness, or intoxication, that you enjoy involves what you describe as minor muscle relaxation. I'm not putting words in your mouth, this is what you wrote, your recreational drug of choice is alcohol, and you like to use it until you feel it's effects on your body.
What word would you use for the level of intoxication you enjoy?
>>543863 >If you are drinking enough to 'relax', to 'get a buzz', to 'loosen up', as a 'social lubricant', then you're drinking to get drunk.
Wrong. Very definition of drunken state is losing power over body and/or mind, as was noted a post or two before. A small, single glass of beer will -not- have any recognizable or detectable negative effect upon individual.
>>543878 >So long as you don't still insist you don't drink to become intoxicated. The very word "intoxicated" also includes the state of losing mental or physical power of an individual. Your premise is absolutely wrong.
>Then we'll use that definition as drunk. >What word would you use for the level of intoxication you enjoy?
There is none, because it is not qualified as a level of "intoxication".
>>543880 >Wrong. Very definition of drunken state is losing power over body and/or mind, as was noted a post or two before. A small, single glass of beer will -not- have any recognizable or detectable negative effect upon individual.
Then why not drink a soft drink?
The single glass of beer intoxicates you slightly. That is why you choose alcoholic beer instead of non-alcoholic beer or a soft drink.
If you can't notice the effects of a single drink of beer, how it differs from being sober, then I'd suggest you either drink too frequently, or you binge drink, to the point where you can't notice the effect of a small amount of alcohol.
>>543471 TO be fair, no one looks at the fact that even in pre christian and pagan societies, homosexuals did not get married. Same sex relations were seen as .pleasurable yes. but not to be fostered into marriage. The only point of marriage was kids. Only when this idea of marriage for loves sake enter that people started to even think about same sex marriage having any place. Even then, if a dude way back when preferred dicks no one was stopping him, it was still no reason for them to get married. >Except with Nero but that was just him fantasizing about his dead wife plus it was later repealed probably for the same reasons I listed.
>>543891 >Then you enjoy being intoxicated by alcohol below the level you define as drunk, yes? Yeah, sure. Not even sure what the original intention of this argument was supposed to be. I only busted in to point out that drunk is a word with a specific meaning and for the vast majority of people a couple of beers would not put you at that level. What point are you trying to make, anyway?
I'm trying to make sure posters in this thread understand that alcohol is a recreational drug, and that there are more levels of intoxication than 'completely sober' and 'completely drunk'.
Drinking a couple of beers would not leave a person completely sober. Other posters in this thread have described the effects of this amount of alcohol consumption; relaxation, reduced social inhibitions, a 'buzz'. Do you disagree that a couple of beers have an effect? If they don't, why does anyone drink a couple of beers?
>>543903 >The single glass of beer intoxicates you slightly. That is why you choose alcoholic beer instead of non-alcoholic beer or a soft drink. No. If a single glass of beer were to intoxicate me, I would lose some of my mental and/or physical prowess as a result, which is not the case. As I've already pointed, at most I come under effects of minor muscle relaxation if I consume the ordinary, moderate dosage for me - and I do not deem that to be losing control over my mental or physical prowess.
>>543915 Depends on your definition of sober. There is a certain duality in it, which I will explain:
I am sober in that manner that I am not under effects of being drunk.
I am not sober in the manner that I am not affected by alcohol.
>>543931 >If people just drink to be intoxicated, then there would be no alcoholic drink on the market except for clear grain spirits. Not the guy you are replying to, but that argument if flawed, because the variation of alcohol products on the market is also existent due to varying tastes.
>>543952 Uh, well the taste of the alcohol itself is very significant. If you could create a non-alcoholic whisky that tasted exactly the same and was allowed in the workplace, it would sell very well.
>>543927 >No. If a single glass of beer were to intoxicate me, I would lose some of my mental and/or physical prowess as a result, which is not the case. As I've already pointed, at most I come under effects of minor muscle relaxation if I consume the ordinary, moderate dosage for me - and I do not deem that to be losing control over my mental or physical prowess.
So you come under the effects of muscle relaxation?
>Depends on your definition of sober. There is a certain duality in it, which I will explain:
>I am sober in that manner that I am not under effects of being drunk.
Only if you use the strict definition of drunk presented earlier. If drunk means any effect from alcohol, you are not sober.
>I am not sober in the manner that I am not affected by alcohol.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the use of any recreational drug.
There is something wrong with denying that a modest level of intoxication is occurring. And there is something wrong in denying that alcohol is a recreational drug, or that people use it almost exclusively for recreational purposes. And there is definitely something wrong with claiming that alcohol is a special case among recreational drugs, that it's especially safe, or especially hard to prohibit.
>>543990 >Uh, what? That's like saying you get jacked every time you drink tea.
It's like saying you feel the effect of caffeine every time you drink tea.
You will only NOT feel this effect if you abuse caffeine.
The same is true with drinking one or two beers. The only way you could not feel the effect is if you drink every day, and this level of sobriety is normal to you, or you binge drink regularly so this level of drunkenness can't be noticed by you.
I am not claiming that caffeine does not have an effect on you. There are people in this thread who claim that alcohol has no effect on you; until you reach the legal limit wherever you are, at which point you become drunk.
>>544005 >It's like saying you feel the effect of caffeine every time you drink tea. There are a ton of decaffeinated teas that sell quite well, though, because caffeine doesn't affect the taste of the tea.
>>543984 >Only if you use the strict definition of drunk presented earlier. If drunk means any effect from alcohol, you are not sober. It was already tenfold explained and concluded that the drunk refers to a certain state which includes mostly negative repercussions as in losing control over one's bodily functions.
>I am not sober in the manner that I am not affected by alcohol.
>Then you are not sober.
Yes, if you opt for that definition of being sober, for there are actually two meanings of it, as I have already presented. It's a matter of simple semantics.
The standard path with meth is that it is first used in moderation, as an aid for wakefulness and concentration, and then abused later.
Alcohol is comparable to the other top five most harmful drugs in terms of health effects on your body, how addictive or habit-forming it can be, and the social effects drunken people have on those around them.
What do you consider modest use of alcohol? The level of use that leaves you completely sober, as other anons say they do?
>>543891 > Not one molecule, do you stop at one molecule of alcohol when you drink recreationally? No I just stop at the point before I begin to become intoxicated. :^)
> It's any drug you use for fun, for no specific medical purpose. So would you consider decaffeinated coffee a recreational drug? After all decaffeinated coffee still contains the "drug" caffeine in it.
And you continue to insist that one is completely sober up until the point that they are completely out of control, or above the local legal limit, whichever happens sooner.
I agree that we should use the term drunk to describe that level of intoxication. What term do you want us to use to describe the lower level of intoxication that recreational alcohol users in this thread enjoy?
>>544039 >The standard path with meth is that it is first used in moderation No, it's not possible to use in moderation. That is, it's not possible to use without feeling an enormously powerful effect. If you just use a teensy bit, you will be off the wall.
>What do you consider modest use of alcohol? For everyday operation? Under the legal limit for driving. For relaxing? Enough to make your endorphins go up without making you act any differently than you otherwise would.
>>544039 >And you have refused to agree on a term for the level of intoxication one experiences when they have a smaller amount of alcohol.
Literally what? Do you want me to invent a term for such a state? The closest which would come to it would be tipsy and/or merry, but this is a level even below that, because both of those terms explain a stronger grip of alcohol than what I am describing.
>One of your definitions of sober allows for some intoxication. No, not intoxication, because intoxication is synonymous with drunk, and drunk is not synonymous with consuming a dosage of alcohol which isn't impairing your mind and/or body.
Are you a bit slow in comprehending things? Genuine question.
>>544054 >No, it's not possible to use in moderation. That is, it's not possible to use without feeling an enormously powerful effect. If you just use a teensy bit, you will be off the wall.
Not true. The typical pathway to meth abuse is that it is first used to stay awake and alert so as to hold down two or more jobs; with the loss of a job, meth fills the spare time more easily than searching for a new job. Most meth users start out using in moderation.
>For everyday operation? Under the legal limit for driving. For relaxing? Enough to make your endorphins go up without making you act any differently than you otherwise would.
So you use the drug alcohol to make your endorphins go up.
What do you mean by everyday operation? You drink every day?
If so, it's not a surprise that you no longer notice the difference between sobriety and a low level of intoxication.
>>544060 >Literally what? Do you want me to invent a term for such a state? The closest which would come to it would be tipsy and/or merry, but this is a level even below that, because both of those terms explain a stronger grip of alcohol than what I am describing.
Since you aren't happy using the term 'mildly drunk' or 'mildly intoxicated', you tell me what word you use for that level of intoxication.
So let's use tipsy. You enjoy using the recreational drug alcohol to the point where it makes you tipsy, yes?
Earlier you were saying that levels of alcohol use below intoxication and drunkenness did not have any grip on a person, and now they do?
>No, not intoxication, because intoxication is synonymous with drunk, and drunk is not synonymous with consuming a dosage of alcohol which isn't impairing your mind and/or body.
There is no dosage which doesn't effect your mind and/or your body. What dosage makes you tipsy?
>>544071 >The typical pathway to meth abuse is that it is first used to stay awake and alert so as to hold down two or more jobs; Yeah, it's still not "moderate" use. The use here is waaay stronger than light alcohol use, which is the equivalent of caffeine, not methamphetamines. Any amount of meth use as potent as being drunk to the point that you have trouble walking, just in a different way.
>What do you mean by everyday operation? You drink every day? I mean drinking a beer at lunch.
I have been saying that there are levels of drunkenness since the start.
It was anon who insisted that any level below drunkenness, which they define as incapacitated, counts as sober; and (maybe a different anon) says that nobody drinks to enjoy a level of inebriation lower than that, they drink for the flavor.
>>544056 I didn't say caffeine, I said decaffeinated coffee. Decaffeinated coffee still contains caffeine much in tbe same way watered down sacramental wine still contains alcohol. So is decaffeinated coffee a recreational drug in your opinion despite the fact that it is consumed recreationally specifically in a manner that prevents the "recreational" effects (implying caffeine is consumed for recreational rather than medicinal purposes) of caffeine consumption?
>Yeah, it's still not "moderate" use. The use here is waaay stronger than light alcohol use, which is the equivalent of caffeine, not methamphetamines. Any amount of meth use as potent as being drunk to the point that you have trouble walking, just in a different way.
Again, this is not true. People start using meth to hold down more than one job, it increases their ability to do that job when they use in those amounts.
>light alcohol use
...but I thought you said there was no such thing?
>I mean drinking a beer at lunch.
This is light alcohol use? Getting inebriated every day in the middle of work? I guess this explains why you can't tell the difference between sober and tipsy.
>>544102 >Again, this is not true. Yes, it is. I've done meth, I know many people who do meth. There is no such thing as "moderate use", as there is with alcohol.
>...but I thought you said there was no such thing? There is such a thing as light alcohol use. There is no such thing as light meth use, because meth is far, far, far, far, far more potent.
>This is light alcohol use? Getting inebriated every day in the middle of work? I guess this explains why you can't tell the difference between sober and tipsy. Medieval peasants drank about a gallon of small beer every day.
>False. I have made distinct difference between effect and impairment. I will further elaborate that I classify impairment as loss of mental or physical function to a certain degree.
>I've also put forth my notion, that the effect which I describe as minor muscle relaxation I do not intend to classify as loss of control over motor functions.
>You again correlate - actually you overlap impairment and effect and therein lies your faulty premise.
I don't overlap or conflate them at all. If you feel the effect, you are feeling the effects of recreational use of alcohol. If you become impaired, you are feeling the further effects of recreational use of alcohol. If you have a hangover, you are feeling even more effects of recreational use of alcohol.
In case you haven't been following, I've been arguing that alcohol is used as a recreational drug, against people who claim that it has no recreational effect when used below a certain dose (despite admitting to drinking at these levels for recreational purposes), or that people don't use it for recreational purposes unless they intend to become completely drunk.
>>544117 >you are feeling the effects of recreational use of alcohol Now you've chosen to conflate and generalize the effects of alcohol. Not all effects of alcohol lead to impairment of motor functions ergo drunken state - this I will repeat for as long as it is required for you to understand.
>against people who claim that it has no recreational effect when used below a certain dose (despite admitting to drinking at these levels for recreational purposes)
And those people are right in saying that alcohol consumption below a certain dose, does not have an effect WHICH LEADS TO THE STATE OF DRUNKENNESS.
>>544127 >For some reason you think I'm defending meth use. I think you're defending the idea that there is such a thing as "moderate" meth use.
>And you include daily recreational use of alcohol as moderate use? Just so long as you're drinking as a regular beverage to go with food.
>Then we're now agreeing that people drink a few beers in order to feel the recreational effects of the drug alcohol? A few? Yes. If you drink it like soda, no. But nobody just drinks cup after cup of soda as an activity unto itself.
>Well, if medieval peasants can drink recreationally every day, why can't you? They drank it in place of water. So did British sailors.
>>544130 >The alcohol in it is a recreational drug.
A drug is only recreational if it is consumed recreationally. If the alcohol present in sacramental wine is not consumed for recreational purposes then logically the alcohol it contains is by definition not a recreational drug.
>>544134 >Now you've chosen to conflate and generalize the effects of alcohol. Not all effects of alcohol lead to impairment of motor functions ergo drunken state - this I will repeat for as long as it is required for you to understand.
I never said that they did. I have been arguing against the anon who said that there were only two states, sober and drunk.
I said that people drink alcohol for recreational purposes. Anon protested and said that drinking below a certain level of alcohol had no effect on the body, and then this whole thread happened.
>And those people are right in saying that alcohol consumption below a certain dose, does not have an effect WHICH LEADS TO THE STATE OF DRUNKENNESS.
This is already a state under which you feel the recreational effects of the alcohol. You don't want to call it drunk, so let's use tipsy or inebriated.
>A few? Yes. If you drink it like soda, no. But nobody just drinks cup after cup of soda as an activity unto itself.
This is what I have been saying since the start. You are not sober when you have taken alcohol.
>They drank it in place of water. So did British sailors.
And it had a very low alcohol content. And it was in place of water, which could contain disease, or go stagnant.
For a modern alcoholic, such as those in this thread, this is not a good comparison. The alcoholic beers anon drinks for fun is different from the low alcoholic beers people in olden times drank for necessity.
I'm done here.
tl;dr - Alcohol is a recreational drug. People who drink alcohol drink it to feel the recreational effects of alcohol. That is what I have said from the start, this is what anon has argued against.
>>544152 Hasn't the solar calendar proven to be a more accurate form of measuring time provided it's divided the right way since the sun is the center of the solar system and the earth does in fact orbit it all the way around in 3651/4 days. The only problem being again how the days are divided into months and weeks.
>>544194 An $80 bottle is more fresh or shall I say fermented than most $5 ones. So at best it tastes like slightly less shit than it could. It still takes like shit. >>544189 Implying only teens think this.
>>544203 >An $80 bottle is more fresh or shall I say fermented than most $5 ones. So at best it tastes like slightly less shit than it could. It still takes like shit. Nobody pays $80 for a bottle of something they think tastes like shit unless they can't get it cheaper, and in this case they can get it far, far cheaper.
Do you think wine tasters think it tastes like shit?
>>544233 I'm not moving a goal post. I just commented on that one anon's point. >Wine >Hard liquor Pic one Also you still disregard my point about $80 bottles being less shit than $5 bottles. If $5 bottles are way shittier than $80, of course people will buy them. Also it's mostly only people with money to blow that go as far as that $80 so that's a silly point you made.
Until actual gender reassignment rolls around it's just a placebo. The plastic surgery industry makes a lot of money off of it, that's why it's perpetuated in society. Pure mutilation for the sake of false comfort and profit.
Besides that, people undergo the feeling of feeling like a stranger in their own body due to false preconditioning anyways. People are dumb, more news at 11 Tim.
>>543328 At what point do we draw the line on consent? Do we need consent before starting the engines on our gas guzzlers? Do we need consent before going to work for a retailer, inadvertently feeding sweatshop operations in china?
And what if we cannot feasibly recieve explicit and direct consent; is there such a thing as implied consent? How does one judge what has been consented to by whom?
Consent is simply irrational and impractical as a rule of morality.
>>543726 Out of any and every subject I've ever encountered, nothing invokes more autism as the topic of sexuality and we're all pretending too, desu if you're a woman, you want to argue that slutting up is natural and that men are bad for not accepting it if you're a man, you're a scared betacuck that wants to ban sexual pleasure since it diminishes the possibility of being cucked if you're homosexual, you're going to try to argue that being a faggot isn't deviant shit
but we're going to pretend none of that is true and instead argue from different perspectives.
>>544820 why? he sincerely got what was coming to him i know that i might sound like some naive idealist but the mere fact of having a SO that would willingly fuck other men even for my pleasure sounds heart-breaking. I'm pretty sure that's 100% of all women. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z23Gzp0RTOg
>>543114 I don't think that there's really a significant basis for moral rules or reasoning that exclusively apply to sexual actions. Outside of consent, things like adultery are bad because they essentially involve lying and betraying the trust of someone else, which is just more generally the kind of thing that I would regard as being morally bad, not just exclusively in sexual situations.
There are things that I might regard as undesirable, like anonymous sex, but I don't regard that as morally wrong as much as just unhealthy and potentially dangerous.
Thread replies: 315 Thread images: 19
Thread DB ID: 402607
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.