Is there any viable secular sexual morality except for consent

>don't have children that you can't afford
>don't cheat on significant others
>don't use sex to get power or advance in the workplace

Common sense covers a lot of this.

>>543114
>Is there any viable secular sexual morality except for consent
yes, but people dont like to hear about it.

>>543114
>that picture
O i am laffin

>>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?

>>543114
Constantine you're a literal retard. What on earth do you think feminism is?

>>543172
I think the sexual morality of feminism is best expressed in The Second Sex, and The Dialectic of Sex.

>>543171
>look at me i'm projecting that atheists are soulless amoral robots without feelings again and all atheists are the same!

>>543171
Don't have sex, use birth control, or get an abortion.

I personally don't care which one you use as long as it prevents a bunch of unwanted, dislocated children.

>Not in all contexts

Murder is sometimes portrayed positively in our media too. But we have a pretty firm anti-murder mentality as a society.

>Since when has that been seen as immoral from a secular perspective?

Since you work your ass off and don't get promoted because the promotion went to some whore.

This is generally looked down upon in Western societies.

Maybe condoms.

>>543175
So, you already know the answer to the question you asked, but you just want >>543183 to be true then?

>>543171
You got your answer, and now you're trying to argue that not every single secular sexual moral framework agrees with each other? How is that part of your original question?

Stop moving the goalposts and being a contrarian retard.

File: 1447910220709.jpg (33KB, 480x400px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 480x400px

>sexual morality

Why would we need something so inane as that?

>>543171
>The woman cheating on her husband in Thelma and :Louise is largely seen as empowering.
Only by cucks

>>543171
>Not in all contexts. The woman cheating on her husband in Thelma and :Louise is largely seen as empowering.

Kill is generally seen as immoral as well, but killing in self defense is acceptable. Context changes shit.

>What. Since when has that been seen as immoral from a secular perspective?

It flies in the face of our belief that advancement should be meritocratic.

>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.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_in_the_Soviet_Union

>>543187
>Don't have sex, use birth control, or get an abortion.
How is advocating abortion or the morning after pill, sexual morality? It doesn't regulate sex at all, just the product of sex.

The idea of not having sex to avoid children is seen as downright backward by secular morality, almost scandalous.

>Murder is sometimes portrayed positively in our media too
No, I think cheating gets far more popular justification if the guy is seen as a jerk, than murder does.

>This is generally looked down upon in Western societies.
Calling the woman a whore is actually what would suffer the harshest reprimand, I think.

>>543225
The movie is a feminist pop icon. Show me one feminist who has seen it and dislikes it.

>>543229
>cheating in self defense
What

>It flies in the face of our belief that advancement should be meritocratic.

Which is seen as being systematically denies women.

>>543114
>viable secular sexual morality
Explain
And let me try
>Don't be a dick (figuratively) and ask for consent, don't kill yourself financially or biologically trying to do it, don't abuse it.

>>543247
>cheating in self defense

No you fucking retard. I mean that a different context can change the moral perception of an action. Do you try to be this fucking dense?

>Which is seen as being systematically denies women.

Which screwing your way to the top is seen as perpetuating.

>>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.

>>543279
>In what contexts is cheating okay?

Fucked if I know. It varies with each individual, up to them to judge. Is it just a Christian thing to demand that everything be set to some variety of absolute? Can you handle no fucking ambiguities?

>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.

Depends on who is initiating.

>>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.

>>543299
This guy gets it

>>543295
>Can you handle no fucking ambiguities?
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."

>Depends on who is initiating.
It almost always seen as the boss.

What do you mean by 'sexual morality'? Proscriptions against certain sexual behaviors? An ethos of sex--eros? What?

>>543295
>it varies with each individal whether it's okay to cheat on your lover

JESUS CHRIST. This is why the far right exists

>>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.

>>543298
>Objective morality is simple: if hurts somebody it's immoral, if it doesnt it isnt immoral.
How is that objective?

Consent is the answer.

You can't discount the actual answer as part of the question.

There are 'oughts' and 'ought nots', but the only time a sexual act is truly immoral is when one of those involved doesn't consent.

>>543309
>this is why the far right exists

Yes, indeed. Sexual insecurity is a big part of the far right.

But seriously, relationships are fundamentally contractual transactions. It's up to each individual to decide when the contract is no longer in their favour.

>>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.

>>543328
Consent is general morality. Like, you need consent to give someone a ride in your car, you need consent smoke near your friend, etc.

File: 1451024578821.jpg (29KB, 317x357px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 317x357px

>>543114
>sexual morality except for consent
wut?
Explain the question before you demand an answer
Give me an example.

>>543332
Of course it's still a moral matter, but morals are as much a matter of knee-jerk emotions as they are anything else.

Does consent apply to having consent from your partner to be intimate with someone else, or is it just the feminist bullshit on rape?

>>543340
I mean do you think necrophilia and incest will still be illegal in a hundred years, and do you think they would be frowned upon by secularists if they were legal?

Don't be a pedo.

>>543361
This is only seen as bad because of consent. It is ever deemed children can give consent, pedophilia will be seen as morally acceptable.

>>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.

>>543114
without the constraints of a god, all things devolve into power politics.

if I can fuck it and nothing challenges me to that effect, it is moral.

if I can overpower anything that would challenge how I'm fucking (including its supporting allies, etc) then it is yet moral for me to keep on fucking.

only when I can be coerced into not performing a given action is it immoral.

>>543369
True, but its also about the physical affects (mostly on a female child), as a child's body is physically unfit for sex with an adult.

>>543339
consent technically relies on property rights, which rely on a holder of the monopoly on violence who recognises property rights.

>>543339

So what special new rules are needed for sex?

If it's done without consent, it's immoral. If it's done with consent, but one party is being lied to about something that would make them withhold consent, it's immoral.

If it's done with consent, it might be rude, it might be imprudent, but it's not immoral.

What special rules for sexual conduct do you think are needed beyond general morality?

>>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.

>>543114
There is no reason why the values of everyday morality wouldn't, or shouldn't apply to sex.

Sexual exceptionalism is bad for society.

>>543369

Does this seem likely?

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?

>>543376
Nah, it really doesn't, or else it would be more focused on PiV instead of sexuality in general.

>>543381
Don't you think using property as the crux of morality is a bit dangerous?

>>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.

>>543401
>property

tell me what consent is; its nothing but the allowance of one to make use of something that you have an intangible claim to.

under what right do you have, say, body autonomy? why is it immoral for me to overpower and rape you, if not for the arbitrary idea that you have proprietary ownership of your own body?

>>543409

Might makes right is precisely wrong.

Should you score 100% on a test if you get every question wrong and threaten to kill the professor?

Any time the argument falls back to 'might makes right' it's proof that the arguer has no point to make beyond their strong feels and willingness to use violence.

>>543409
Not that guy, but might doesn't make right. It only makes reality. You're not morally correct because you're strong enough to do something, you're just capable of doing it.

>>543424
who sets the moral standard, though, but the state, which is the holder of the monopoly on violence?

>>543420
So should assault just be prosecuted as vandalism?

We are made in the image of God, it's hugely different.

>>543423
>Should you score 100% on a test if you get every question wrong and threaten to kill the professor?

Why shouldn't he?

>>543309
My boyfriend and I agreed that as long as it was a one night stand and it didn't happen very often and we develop no real feelings, it's ok

>>543401
Property over oneself is the most precious moral concept there can be.

>>543430
There's no need to set one.

>>543417

>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.

Give us the one post description of sexual morality, then.

Or else this thread is just 'you're all wrong and you won't know how wrong until you read this book'.

>No, I do think the consent age will start to be lowered. Maybe not to prepubescence, though.

The question of age of consent has nothing to do with pedophilia.

>>543431
>We are made in the image of God, it's hugely different.

only because Christian states have historically shaped western legal thought.

assault is prosecuted because it IS vandalism; against the state's tax revenue generation equipment.

Who are you, Constantine?

File: 23562363.jpg (114KB, 813x800px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 813x800px

>>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.

>>543434
That's not cheating.
Cheating would be you going beyond your pre-established limitations with another man.

>>543434
>getting cucked this hard
Kek

>>543430
Might does not make right.

>>543443
a textbook example of "lalala i can't hear you~"

>>543432

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.

>>543447
I guess
>>543448
We're apart from each for lengthy periods of time and we're both men with male libidos, so it's just a pragmatic solution

>>543453
>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?


this is how unregulated markets indeed work. without a state to regulate property rights for them, drug dealers indeed operate this way.

>people still fall for the Constantine bait

>>543460
>drug dealers indeed operate this way.

Wrong, drug dealers have been forced by the State to operate though violence.

>>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

Only have sex with someone you're in love with. Don't give up on the one you love. It's what they tell children, who knows if it's true.

>>543460

Do you deal with drug dealers? This is not how it works.

They rely on personal reputation. Violence only gets into it once you're two or three handshakes removed from the user.

>>543468
>AnCap intensifies

>>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.

>>543478
Even democrats hold this position.

It would be immature to suggest there's something inherently violent about the drug business.

>>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.

File: 256256.jpg (85KB, 500x705px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 500x705px

>>543471
>He unironically thinks homosexuals weren't always deviant and hedonistic
>He unironically thinks that happened overnight as a reaction to cause

Also, good luck with integrating the mentally diseased into the society as functional members.

>>543436
Property owns itself?

>>543438
>Give us the one post description of sexual morality, then.
The idea of necrophilia and incest being wrong, for instance.

>>543495
Go away /pol/. The adults are talking.

>>543495
Fuck off, cunt. You and your kind know very well that there are a bunch of gays who are nornal people with stable relationships, you don't notice them cuz you're not supposed to.

>>543495
>collectivism

>>543490

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.

>>543127
Well, I think the purpose of this thread is to hear about it, so cough up.

>>543499
>The idea of necrophilia and incest being wrong, for instance.

I don't see a moral issue here. If the deceased had left their body for use by a necrophiliac, I don't have a problem with that.

What is wrong with incest?

>>543499
You (the whole), own your parts.
You are your arm, but your arm is not all of you.
However, you own your arm, as it is a part of you.

Nobody has a higher claim over your arm than you do, unless you were to cut it off and sell it or something.

>>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.

>>543523
>I killed 1000000 people to get this delicious donut, but it's ok

>>543523

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.

File: 2356254.jpg (198KB, 680x787px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 680x787px

>>543503
>there are a bunch of gays who are nornal people with stable relationships
>He bought into the le stable gay couples meme

>>543500
>If I label it as /pol/ I don't have to address it

>>543504
Poor deduction.

>>543518
Something being part of you, in communion with your body, is way more personal than property. Someone sodomizing your car is not the same as raping you.

>>543525
>In some places, some people who have done some kinds of drugs have sometimes been pretty bad.

That would be a much more accurate statement.

>>543534
I would agree that it could be property of a higher order, yes.

>>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.

>>543533
>1000 partners
That's hardly physically possible
Also
>1978

>>543532
They have enough money to get a fix.

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.

>>543525
>Drugs are an absolute catastrophe.

>implying you don't use recreational drugs

>hard drugs

Oh now it's hard drugs. Like? Well, alcohol obviously, crystal meth, and...?

>>543531
>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?

Does it matter if they can't do anything about it?

>>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.

>>543533
>If I label it as /pol/ I don't have to address it

Talks like a /pol/, quacks like a /pol/. Yep, it needs to go back to /pol/.

>>543533
How so? You are literally making collectivist statements and arguments.

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.

>>543543
What about the drug the priest sips with the wafer?

>>543543
>You have poor homeless people spending every cent they have on drugs.

Because they don't really have many other options for escape. As I said, it's a symptom, not a cause.

>>543553
>Does it matter if they can't do anything about it?

Yes. They were wronged. This is immoral.

But you say it's moral to get away with any act, because might makes right, yes?

>>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.

>>543565
>This is immoral.

And the actual, tangible effect this has is?

>But you say it's moral to get away with any act, because might makes right, yes?

See above. It's not moral, it simply is.

>>543568
>If you think that expiration of social stigmas attached to homosexuality hasn't further bolstered and encouraged such behavior, you evidently enjoy being deluded.

Prove it.

>>543543

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?

>>543478

You don't need to be an An Cap to realize America's War on Drugs is a farce that directly leads to thousands and thousands of preventable deaths every single year.

>>543569
>And the actual, tangible effect this has is?

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?

>See above. It's not moral, it simply is.

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.

>>543568
Do you honestly think someone will keep track of 1000+ partners? Or maybe that they just exaggerate for effect?

>>543515

I think it's icky-poo and you should, too.

>>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?

>>543558
Can you point out some for me, please?

>>543578
Just the way he stated it was very ancappy

>>543445

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?

>>543563
And the symptom takes away their dignity and morality, which is even worse than being deprived of material necessities.

>>543574
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.

>>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.

>>543562
Wine that's heavily watered down? How is that a hard drug?

>>543599
>And the symptom takes away their dignity and morality, which is even worse than being deprived of material necessities.

Have you ever lived on welfare?

>Th easiest solution would be to require drug tests to get financial aid, but good luck actually getting that to pass.

Then you'd have drug addicts that are even more desperate getting around.

>>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?

>>543600

>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

kill yourself m8

>>543606
It's a drug, enough of it will kill you. There is even a word for its addicts: winos.

File: 1306203582781.jpg (21KB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 512x384px

>It's a the-received-wisdom-of-our-ancestors-is-completely-bullshit-because-CURRENT-YEAR argument

>>543609
>but in such cases the numbers possibly reach above the hundreds, if an individual gains an impression of one thousand
What?
Like literally, I don't comprehend this statement

>>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.

>>543606

Alcohol is a hard drug.

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.

>>543629
You'd have to drug about five cups of it before you started to feel anything. To get high from meth, you need to take enough to cover your fingernail.

>>543643
Orthodox can drink, but not get drunk. Drunkenness is a sin in Orthodox Christianity.

>>543533
>look up 'exodus global alliance'
>an ex gay community
Is this honestly supposed to be taken seriously?

>>543629
>sipping wine that has been diluted to the point that any physiological effects it could have are nullufied is the equivalent of recreational use of PCP

Are you on drugs right now anon?

>>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.

>>543623
>Your solution is to make it more difficult for them to get off the street?
What are you talking about?

>>543646
Amphetamines are prescribed to children, are they robbing churches?

>>543652

You can't use the drug alcohol without feeling the effects of the drug alcohol.

You mean to say that you can drink a certain amount, that a certain level of drunkenness is acceptable.

If you weren't drinking to get drunk, you'd be drinking water.

>>543664

You were saying that if any fail a drug test, they shouldn't receive any help.

So the idea is that they go through withdrawal in an alleyway somewhere?

>>543660
And that takes off the shock value of 'over 1000!!'

Also checking the edge of the first part of the post

>>543640
I thought it was clear that I am majorly referring to the homosexuals of the western world, which do share a significant amount of qualities between themselves, hence the generalization.

File: tmp_3741-1446139314442-1229571227.png (29KB, 551x514px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 551x514px

>>543640
You would have a point if it weren't for the fact that all celebratory demonstrations of homosexual culture are flagrantly hedonistic and debauched.

>mfw Facebook keeps recommending I join the group "Worshipping Muscular Gods" because my coworker is a member

>>543665
Not if they don't have to pay for them, obviously. And I certainly hope they're not prescribing anything any amphetamine as strong as meth, that would be dangerous to give kids.

>>543666
>You can't use the drug alcohol without feeling the effects of the drug alcohol.
A spoonful of heavily diluted wine is not going to produce any effect.

>
You mean to say that you can drink a certain amount, that a certain level of drunkenness is acceptable.

Drunkenness is, and always has been, prohibited in Christianity. Drinking wine has always been an integral part of Christianity.

>If you weren't drinking to get drunk, you'd be drinking water.
Uh. Could you explain your logic here?

>>543670
Does the word "rehab" mean anything to you?

>>543682
The point of Pride is to be obnoxious; it isn't done unironically

>>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.

>>543673
No biggie then. But a single word can change a sentence to reasonable and fact-based, to unreasonable hatred.

>>543682
>all celebratory demonstrations
Collectivist desu

There are many gay book club meetings in tea houses. Nothing hedonistic about that.

>>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.

>>543688

So you pay for that first?

>>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.

>>543688
The point is attaching a drug test requirement to welfare is going to create a lot more homeless. If you think they'd just clean up to avoid losing their benefits you're being naive.

>>543694
I don't find it shocking but others do and it's obviously the point
And 1000 in ten years is two a week, which is still pretty high

>>543692
So you're saying the dancing men in the speedos on the parade float are throwing condoms to the crowd to be ironic?

>>543711
Ironic was the wrong word, I mean they do it knowing that it's degenerate because it's supposed to be obnoxious

>>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.

>>543701
> And you can't drink without getting drunk.

Not everybody is Asian, anon.

>>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.

File: 1436396380237.jpg (12KB, 250x247px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 250x247px

>sex thread on /his/
>150 posts in an hour

>>543686
Meth is actually prescribed for extreme ADHD and obesity under Desoxyn.

>>543720

If you aren't drinking for the effect of alcohol, why are you drinking alcohol?

>>543701
>So you pay for that first?
There are plenty of rehabs you don't have to pay for.

>>543717
Well if one dose of adderall will make you incapable of sleeping or eating for twelve hours, then it's as strong as meth.

>>543728
I sure hope they don't give that to kids.

>>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
Why do you drink tea?

>>543735
That's not too far off for high doses, but is a little cocaine ok for kids?

>>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.

>>543701
>So use de-alcoholized wine instead.
What, Why? Even babies receive their spoonful in the Orthodox Christianity.

>>543634
People in the past were fucking stupid cunts and wouldn't care anyway because they're dead

>>543746
I don't know how the doses of cocaine work, so I can't say.

File: 1360984019660.jpg (133KB, 1372x1080px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1372x1080px

>>543748
>I personally hate being drunk
Wow what a square

I bet you fucking love bible study though NERD

>>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.

>>543729
Me?
I like the taste.
Priests delivering the sacrament?
Ritual reflecting the historical importance of wine in the ancient world to every day life.

File: 1361953303509.jpg (74KB, 443x466px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 443x466px

>>543753
>Gee I sure am appalled at the prospect of giving drugs to kids
>My church regularly gives drugs to kids

>>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.

>>543757
Similarly to all drugs, what can be medicine in small doses becomes poison in large quantities. From alcohol to caffeine, nicotine to methamphetamine.

>>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.

>>543743

Recreational use. Same reason you use the drug alcohol.

>>543748

So you like being drunk, you just don't want to use the word 'drunk'.

>>543753

If you want to avoid the intoxicating effects of the recreational drug alcohol, you should avoid consuming it.

>>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?

>>543774
>Religious nuts would rather see children end up with no parents at all than to see them with gay parents.

Religious "nuts" believe gay parents are worse than no parents at all, kind of like how I'm sure you'd agree that sexually abusive parents are worse than no parents at all.

>>543762

If you feel an effect from the drug, you feel an effect from the drug. You say you like to get drunk to relax.

>>543764

You like the taste of the alcohol itself?

Why not try to find a non-alcoholic version that tastes the same, and doesn't also intoxicate you?

>>543775
> If you want to avoid the intoxicating effects of the recreational drug alcohol, you should avoid consuming it.

or you could just not drink enough of it to get drunk...

>>543372
>don't have kids
And really you trust most humans enough that they will actually follow through with this?

>>543792
>Why not try to find a non-alcoholic version that tastes the same

because there's no such thing.

>>543782

>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.

File: 245245.jpg (61KB, 634x438px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 634x438px

>>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.

Could you possibly appeal more to emotion?

>>543794
>or you could just not drink enough of it to get drunk...

You can only do this by not drinking the drug alcohol.

>>543799

>because there's no such thing.

So your appreciation of the flavor of alcohol outweighs your opposition to recreational drug use, in this one case?

>>543792
>If you feel an effect from the drug, you feel an effect from the drug
>There is no such thing as moderation quantity! You are either piss drunk or sober!

This is how retarded you just seem.

>>543114


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..

>>543817


they two: being Blackburn and socrates (plato), the rest are shit.

>>543810
>You can only do this by not drinking the drug alcohol.
I'm not Asian anon, I can hold my liquor.

> So your appreciation of the flavor of alcohol outweighs your opposition to recreational drug use, in this one case?

Of course. There is no equivalent to alcohol among the rank of recreational drugs.

>>543809
>when you can't tell if it's a troll or not
Well played

>>543813

You're the one saying that use in moderation doesn't count as use at all.

I'm saying there are levels of drunkenness, and you refuse to refer to the lower levels as drunk.

So how about we stop saying drunk and just say 'intoxicated'. You enjoy being slightly intoxicated by alcohol, yes?

>>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.

>>543824

>I'm not Asian anon, I can hold my liquor.

Then you're saying you get drunk but it doesn't show?

>Of course. There is no equivalent to alcohol among the rank of recreational drugs.

Every drug is different.

Are you now saying that alcohol is not a recreational drug?

>>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.

>>543834
I actually advocate that there are levels of drunkenness as well, but that they can be nowhere near be classified under the same grouping.

The very definition of being "drunk" is being intoxicated by alcohol to the point of losing control over inherent mental or physical power.

When I consume a glass of wine or two, at most, I "suffer" minor muscle relaxation, which would not adhere to the aforementioned definition.

>>543114
Is there any post you make which isn't shit?

>>543840
> Then you're saying you get drunk but it doesn't show

No I'm that the presence of a mere single alcohol molecule does not magically make me drunk.

> Are you now saying that alcohol is not a recreational drug?

I'm saying that people like have labored to broaden the definition of recreational drug to the point that it becomes meaningless.

>>543849

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.

>>543849
I think it's both. He seems like a sheltered /r9k/ escapee who has never had a glass of liquor.

>>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

>>543851

>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.

>>543861
>No I'm that the presence of a mere single alcohol molecule does not magically make me drunk.

Not one molecule, do you stop at one molecule of alcohol when you drink recreationally?

>I'm saying that people like have labored to broaden the definition of recreational drug to the point that it becomes meaningless.

It's any drug you use for fun, for no specific medical purpose. That's what it's always been. Alcohol has always been a recreational drug.

>>543874

Then you enjoy being intoxicated by alcohol below the level you define as drunk, yes?

>>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?

>>543898

>The very word "intoxicated" also includes the state of losing mental or physical power of an individual. Your premise is absolutely wrong.

>There is none, because it is not qualified as a level of "intoxication".

So you are now saying that you are sober up until you drink one last sip, and then you become intoxicated/drunk?

>>543909

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.

>>543921
>Do you disagree that a couple of beers have an effect?
No, of course they do. Are you claiming that there's something inherently wrong with this modest level of intoxication?

>>543921
If you are legally allowed to drive, you cannot possible be considered drunk.

> If they don't, why does anyone drink a couple of beers?
If people just drink to be intoxicated, then there would be no alcoholic drink on the market except for clear grain spirits.

>>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.

>>543937
>varying tastes
Doesn't that right there go to show there's more reason to drink an alcoholic beverage than just to get drunk?

>>543941
It certainly does and I agree with that notion.

>faggots itt

absolutely disgusting

>>543941
The relative unpopularity of non-alcoholic versions of alcoholic drinks shows that intoxication is definitely a large component.

>>543928
He doesn't seem to be, but it is undeniably a drug.

>>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.

Then you are not sober.

>>543931

>If you are legally allowed to drive, you cannot possible be considered drunk.

Then you claim that you do not feel any effects from alcohol when you are below the legal limit for driving?

>If people just drink to be intoxicated, then there would be no alcoholic drink on the market except for clear grain spirits.

And if people drank without intending to become intoxicated, they would order drinks that did not contain alcohol.

>>543941

Not so long as they all contain alcohol. There are more reasons to drink these drinks than to get drunk, but getting drunk happens in every case.

>>543984
>getting drunk happens in every case.
Uh, what? That's like saying you get jacked every time you drink tea.

>>543928

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.

>>543994
Alcohol is certainly not comparable with meth or heroin. There is no such thing as "modest" meth use. If a single sip of alcohol made your speech slurred, then there would be a comparison.

>>544010

More likely because people only drink alcoholic drinks to get drunk.

>>544020
Are you American?

>>544017
>he doesnt drink everclear

>>543984
>but getting drunk happens in every case.
False.

You are starting to increasingly remind me of that chess and pigeon analogy, because times and again, you've been told the clear definition of a drunken state, but you still refuse to grasp reason.

>>544015
>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.

And you have refused to agree on a term for the level of intoxication one experiences when they have a smaller amount of alcohol.

>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.

One of your definitions of sober allows for some intoxication.

>>544017

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?

>>544028
Nobody drinks everclear straight.

>>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.

>>544027

Irish.

>>544031

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.

>>544049

>No I just stop at the point before I begin to become intoxicated. :^)

You mean you stop at the point of intoxication you enjoy most.

>So would you consider decaffeinated coffee a recreational drug? After all decaffeinated coffee still contains the "drug" caffeine in it.

Caffeine is the recreational drug.

>>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.

>>544042
>he doesnt pour everclear straight into his butt

I can't be bothered to read this thread but I assume one of you is a retard

>>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.

>>544053
>completely out of control
None said that. There are levels of drunkenness and degrees of control loss, as was also noted tenfold in the damn thread.

>>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.

>>544077

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?

>>544086
>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?

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.

>There is no dosage which doesn't effect your mind and/or your body. What dosage makes you tipsy?

You again correlate - actually you overlap impairment and effect and therein lies your faulty premise.

>>544088

>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.

>come back after a few hours
>everyone arguing about alcohol
seems to have gone well

>>544098

Coffee is not a recreational drug, caffeine is the recreational drug.

>>544101

>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
> Coffee is not a recreational drug, caffeine is the recreational drug

So then you admit sacramental wine used in religious ceremonies is not a recreational drug then?

>>544112

>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.

For some reason you think I'm defending meth use.

And you include daily recreational use of alcohol as moderate use?

>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.

Then we're now agreeing that people drink a few beers in order to feel the recreational effects of the drug alcohol? Not just for the taste?

>Medieval peasants drank about a gallon of small beer every day.

Well, if medieval peasants can drink recreationally every day, why can't you?

>>544126
>So then you admit sacramental wine used in religious ceremonies is not a recreational drug then?

I never said the sacramental wine was a recreational drug. The alcohol in it is a recreational drug.

>>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
Medieval peasants did not drink a gallon of beer a day for recreational purposes. They consumed beer because it was typically safer to drink than water.

>>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
How? You will feel precisely zero effect.

>>544135
Yes. What is your point? My point is that consuming a little during the workday is not going to make you inebriated.

So about the Sacrament.

When Jesus turned water to wine, did he really just slit his wrists and bleed into the water?

File: 1452544090732.jpg (38KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 500x500px

>>544149
You already know where you need to go, son.

>>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.

>>544146
and my point is that clearly the consumption of alcohol is not inherently recreational

>>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.

>>544141

>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.

>>543977
>Taste is significant
Said no one ever. Hard liquor tastes like shit. The only reason people drink it is to get fucked up. Stop kidding yourself.

>>544172
I miss being a stupid teenager.

>>544172
Is that why people pay $80 for a bottle when you could get it for five dollars?

>>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?

File: tmp_3741-14523566858941083425278.jpg (145KB, 393x391px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 393x391px

>>544203
>An $80 bottle is more fresh or shall I say fermented than most $5 ones.
see pic related

>Implying only teens think this
Perhaps not but only teens drink hard liquor solely to get wasted.

>>544203
Oh lol, I wonder how much is this feller gonna move goalposts.

>>544172
>babby who's never sipped a fine whiskey or tequila

>>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.

what's going on here?

>>544254
A gin and tonic, garnished with some lime, is the best drink there is. it doesn't taste remotely shitty. Neither does quality scotch.

This is now a "What's your favorite cocktail?" thread.

I make an Iranian tonic out of watermelon, honey and vinegar. Mix that with Vodka, and it'll get you there.

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.

File: 213213123123.jpg (72KB, 580x539px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 580x539px

>>544418
>This is now a "What's your favorite cocktail?" thread.
Korean Poo wine mixed with sake. I call it "The Zainichi"

>>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.

>>543114
>Is there any viable secular sexual morality except for consent


don't fuck your sister or you'll have retard babies

>>543114
Risk aware kink.

>>544478
>"The Zainichi"
My fucking sides.

Along those lines, and keep it /his/, vanilla icecream and honey liquor.

I call it a "Thirsty Israelite."

>>543120
/thread
All the tripfags following post were moving the goal post and retarded to boot.

>>544648
kek

>>543427
You should also mention to filter
">>>/pol/"
">>>/tumblr/"
">>>/reddit/"
"go back to /pol/"
"go back to reddit"
"go back to tumblr"
"holocaust"
"holohoax"
"kingz"
"analytical philosophy"

Constantine, shouldn't you be searching for work instead of shitposting on the internet all day?

File: feminism.gif (116KB, 255x230px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 255x230px

>>543114
as long as it isn't hurting anyone why do you care? fucking virgins wanting to take us a 100 years back

I dont understand

>>543817
No the purpose of sex is very simple; reporduction.
Our humanity is what is complicated.

File: 1448598023634.jpg (903KB, 1315x1784px) Image search: [Google]

903KB, 1315x1784px

>>543458
If it's two dudes, I can see it working. A male/female relationship would never work like that. Pic related.

>>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.

>>544789
This image ruins my day every time I see it.

>>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

>>544828
>I'm pretty sure that's 100% of all women.
including your mother?

>>544843
Yes.

File: 1430366435302.jpg (217KB, 1920x1139px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 1920x1139px

reminder that sex is woman tier pleasure and that only woman can enjoy sex for sex.
good hedonists do not care much for sex.

>>544914
Sade

>>544846
that's so sad anon, but im pretty sure you havent met a lot of women

>>544971
Meeting more women will likley make that conviction stronger for him.

>>544828
Seriously religious women, like Amish or Orthodox, would dump you if you asked them to fuck other men.

>>544994
That's the kicker. Women won't show sexual restraint unless they have sold their soul to the devil.

>>544987
well he should start looking for the right places to meet women

>>545069
Do you seriously think many non-religious men would hesitate to fuck other women if their gf's urged them to? Do you think they'd object if their gf wanted a threesome?

>>545088
No but there's guaranteed to at least be one of them.

>>545070
Or women could try to be worth the trouble.

>>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.