0
0

Common Filth talks about YMS (youtu.be)

HovarTM が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]BoozeoisPig 0ポイント1ポイント  (23子コメント)

Nothing but Ad Hominems and logical fallacies. Just from the 3ish minutes I listened I could tell that this person may be particularly stupid because at one point he disparages the LGBT community. Adam is right on this issue because he takes the default position against which there is little evidence, and that position being: You can sexually interact with an animal without necessarily causing it great trauma. If you assert that it necessarily causes trauma then you ought to fulfill a burden of proof to suggest that. And really there are several different burdens of proof you have to fulfill, because there are several different kinds of animals that you could have sexual contact with and there are several different kinds of sexual contact that you could have with each animal. For example, if you stuck your penis in a dog then that would almost certainly cause them trauma necessarily, because dogs are not built for penetration, especially very physical penetration. So that would be very easy to prove you cannot have PIV sex with a dog. But what about oral sex? What about outercourse? all Canis Lupis reproduce through outercourse (they come on the surface of the vagina without very much physical contact). So obviously they aren't going to be able to handle penetration. But what about cows? Why can't we fuck a cow that has a vagina that is built for rough sex?

And to stop all that for a second, should it even matter how much it hurts them? We actually don't give much of a damn about animal consent when we are extracting other kinds of utility from them, as long as that utility isn't sexual. If we are raising an animal to slaughter it for animal products that we can eat, wear, or do dozens of other things with in our modern economy then it seems that it doesn't matter that much how badly they suffer, or how little they consent to it. Why is it that the utility that we can extract from an animal is always more important than the utility felt by the animal itself EXCEPT when it comes to sexual utility? As Adam even said: We can chain an animal up to a pole on a 2 foot chain and force it to live there in complete sloth in order to make veal. I have eaten veal, I will probably eat more veal in the future, it's fucking good. And the fact that it is fucking good is perfectly good justification as far as our culture and law is concerned. But if some guy wants to fuck a cow for no other reason than: "It's fucking good." then that doesn't matter. No, it fucking does matter, when it comes to what the fucking actual law says, it matters a great deal. Conventional wisdom and cultural sensibilities aren't good enough justification for creating good legislation. You need logic and evidence, or the default position. Adam has logic and possibly evidence, but he definitely has the default position. No one else is willing to have any logic relating to this issue, just a bunch of fallacies. And I have yet to see any evidence.

[–]anUnkindnessThat YMS guy 15ポイント16ポイント  (13子コメント)

I'm at the point where he's rambling about how the only moral sexual activity is when a baby is made from it and I'm laughing my ass off. 10/10 comedy material.

[–]BoozeoisPig 4ポイント5ポイント  (4子コメント)

I think this guy is just a younger Bill Donahue or Bill O'Reilly. Just a conservative religious retard who has very easily rustled jimmies. Well, compared to older conservatives not really, mostly because he said he enjoyed your content, prior to this revelation. I think the better comedy comes from the fact that he is demonstrating a lot of the logical fallacies that many of the otherwise mostly liberal people in your audience have demonstrated, but he is interspersing it with old school conservative retardation. I don't know if unintentional satire is even technically possible, under the definition of satire, but if it is then I think this would be an example of it.

[–]anUnkindnessThat YMS guy 6ポイント7ポイント  (3子コメント)

No, I think he was quoting the person who asked him to talk about it who said they enjoyed my content.

[–]BoozeoisPig 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Starting @3:04: Common Filth Radio: "...Here's a topic for ya: This guys name is Your Movie Sucks an' he has a very controversial opinion. Controversial opinion which made me lose all my respect for him when I found out he's just another degenerate. And he's apparently, um, he's also apparently a homosexual in addition to this..."

When he said "lose all my respect" my mind kind of established a narrative that he had previously established an opinion of respect for you, most likely as a content creator since that is the way that 99.9% of people establish respect for a person who is a well known content creator. But yeah, even then I should have picked up on the fact that he was a piece of shit when he said you were "...a homosexual in addition to this..." but apparently my autistic mind actually glossed over the importance of that tone and word choice the first time I listened.

[–]anUnkindnessThat YMS guy 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Oh. Fancy that.

[–]BoozeoisPig 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Whoa. I thought you were just a furfag. Now you're telling me you are a masochist who fancies people who hate him? You really are a freak.

[–]wewlad20 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

He's right though, regardless of how much wanting to cum for a few seconds of momentary pleasure entices you to believe otherwise. More accurately, sex's only aim doesn't need to be procreative, nor does procreation have to occur, but it should be open to the possibility of creating life. Declining birth rates in developed countries, high rates of abortion and contraceptive use indicate a lack of appreciation and reverence for the primary - and beautiful and unmatchingly important - deontological aim of sex; the creation of new life. It's just orgasm sport, otherwise.

t. gay guy with long history of promiscuous faggotry

[–]anUnkindnessThat YMS guy 7ポイント8ポイント  (6子コメント)

So you're against condom use then? Doesn't that eliminate the possibility of creating life? Sodomy is equally as immortal as marrying an infertile person then, right?

[–]wewlad20 -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

So you're against condom use then?

Yes.

Sodomy is equally as immortal as marrying an infertile person then, right?

No. Apart from the possibility of things like a mistaken diagnosis of infertility, and the fact that they may adopt and provide the important male and female role models for a child's social development - there's not an equivalence in the morality of same-sex monogamy and heterosexual monogamy.

When they're engaging in the sex act, they're still having potentially functional heterosexual sex that's only hampered by a medical disability. Deontologically, they're doing everything according to its function. It is an act intrinsically oriented toward life, regardless of what affliction affects the people involved. A married, loving heterosexual couple suffering from infertility would still provide the ideal child-rearing environment if, hypothetically, their infertility were to spontaneously remiss. There is nothing they're doing through any fault of their own to hamper their parental or marital ability.

Within homosexual acts there is no such possibility. It's sex divorced entirely from it's purpose. When you go out and cruise or meet guys online you're essentially performing nothing more than mutual masturbation. Condom use, the pill and hookup culture results in a similar disconnect among heterosexuals.

Its a good mental exercise to place these things in a cultural context, too. When we as a culture place value on monogamous heterosexual relationships by esteeming them with an institution like marriage, we're creating an idealization of a healthy, socially beneficial partnership and unit. We're saying that's a good thing to do.

I don't think gay marriage is so much a cause of problems as it is a symptom of them. It's the symptom of a society that doesn't really care about marriage or what it stood for. You're giving an intrinsically neuter partnership the same status as a life-creating one. You're saying they're equally valuable.

[–]BoozeoisPig 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

Well I would disagree with you as far as deontology because I am a [rule] utilitarian. But even then you are a very shallow deontologist, because you are generating rules based around reinforcing your preconceived illogical and counter factual notions of morality based merely on your personal instincts and intuition as they were developed by the culture you grew up in. Deonotologically people who have sex with eachother in a way that they know will not be able to create life is ALWAYS going against a rule that "you ought to only have sex as a means to attempt to make life." It doesn't matter if most penises cumming in most vaginas will have the ability to create life. If you know for a fact that your gametes and/or your larger reproductive system is incapable of creating life then you are breaking that rule by having sexual intercourse AT ALL. You are just making a lame caveat to your own rule because you think that heterosexual sex is fine and homosexual sex is gross, that's it.

There are plenty of people with physically irreversible infertility. The majority of people are like this. And a person with infertility problems that may "spontaneously remiss" is not truly infertile, you are equivocating you suit your own adgenda. You might as well say that gay sex actually is okay because one day some gay guy may spontaneously grow a uterus up his butthole and then his sex would have your definition of purpose.

Also I doubt you have even a quanta of data to suggest that your notion of a society based on families each led by a single heterosexual monogamous couple is both THE BEST familial institution on average, and is better to culturally impose on the larger society, rather than just accept that we will do better when allowed to have alternative family structures.

[–]wewlad20 -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

counter factual notions of morality based merely on your personal instincts and intuition as they were developed by the culture you grew up in

They're actually a radical departure from the cultural climate I was brought in and my own personal prejudices.

"you ought to only have sex as a means to attempt to make life."

That's not the 'rule' the ethics I laid forth were adhering to. I would substitute it with a makeshift rule assembled from various Catholic dogmas, that 'sex can be had for a variety of purposes, such as desire for pleasure and intimacy with one's partner, but should remain open to the possibility of procreation.'

To clarify, it should remain open to the possibility of procreation by not using contraceptives or performing an action with a contraceptive intent (pulling out) and so on. Nothing that would rob sex of its natural end.

An infertile couple having sex 'morally' aren't performing any wilful acts to neutralise the procreative aspect of their intercourse. All of their conscious sexual actions are functional and don't inhibit the natural aim of sex.

You are just making a lame caveat to your own rule because you think that heterosexual sex is fine and homosexual sex is gross, that's it.

I am homosexual, though. I find homosexual acts very arousing. I still think it is ultimately immoral.

The hypothetical spontaneous remission example wouldn't make any ethical sense under the rule you were following, that's right. But my point was to show that every deliberately incurred circumstance is procreative in function. It is only the passive, unintentional infertility that acts as a hindrance. The couple are playing the game, they just aren't scoring.

Addressing your last point, I don't have any statistical data or psych studies on hand - apart from ones that show that single parent families are an incredibly damaging environment for children to be raised in. [1] [2]

We can garner that there is at least some connection between two-parent families and higher chances of children thriving, the first document suggests this is caused by lack of a vital parental role model, especially the father figure for young males.

I'd like to say something conjectural - I haven't really looked into it, but it makes a lot of sense to me. I think it's important for children to have exposure to both a long-term male and female parental figure. We exist in a world where humans are divided into two different types, and we want our children to be able to interact with both in a healthy manner and to have a proper appreciation and understanding of their own sexual identity. It seems to me that the influence of a mother and father are vital for the development of this in young children. Is a young boy raised by two women in a prime position to learn about his own masculinity in a healthy way? Where will he get his role models? Can he understand the unique problems of his own gender identity without a male figure of trust in the home to provide them? A young girl raised by two men?

Anyway.

just accept that we will do better when allowed to have alternative family structures.

If you want to introduce 'alternative family structures', and even make the claim we will 'do better' when we're 'allowed' to have them, you should justify your own position. Heterosexual monogamy is the working family model of all the most sucessful and influential societies that exist today, and problems appear to arise from deviations such as climbing single parenthood caused by a declining reverence for marriage; the fruits of the sexual revolution of the mid 20th century and the introduction of no-fault divorce.

[–]BoozeoisPig 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

An infertile couple having sex 'morally' aren't performing any wilful acts to neutralise the procreative aspect of their intercourse. All of their conscious sexual actions are functional and don't inhibit the natural aim of sex.

Yes, they are. If you willfully have sex in a way that will not reproduce then you are going against the "natural aim" of sex. First off, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that homo sapiens and well as many other social species evolved to treat sex as a method of social bonding as well as potential procreation. So the "natural aim of sex is also that". Although no act has an "aim", that is not how nature works. There is no evidence to suggest that nature acts with intent. But even without all that, the fact is that by your own standards infertile sex does not fulfill the arbitrary "aim" of sex that you laid out. I don't see how you cannot understand this simple logic.

If you want to introduce 'alternative family structures', and even make the claim we will 'do better' when we're 'allowed' to have them, you should justify your own position.

The burden of proof is on you to show that they are necessarily harmful. But here's a meta analysis of studies concluding that children who are raised in same sex parental households do no worse than children who are raised in male, female parental households anyway

Heterosexual monogamy is the working family model of all the most successful and influential societies that exist today

Post hoc ergo proctor hoc fallacy. Horse exploitation and sailing was the working method of transportation for the most influential societies that existed only a few hundred years ago. That doesn't mean that there wasn't a better option.

and problems appear to arise from deviations such as climbing single parenthood caused by a declining reverence for marriage

As well as a lack of increase in reverence for birth control and family planning in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Also a lot of good is done when shitty marriages are allowed to break up. Single parenthood is worse than plural parenthood because of RESOURCES not inherent quality of heterosexuality. A 3 parent household would probably do even better by logical extension, and the burden of proof is on you to show otherwise.

[–]wewlad20 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

there is plenty of evidence to suggest that homo sapiens and well as many other social species evolved to treat sex as a method of social bonding as well as potential procreation

Um, yeah? I didn't deny this. You realize that those bonding and procreative aspects would have been united though. Sex becomes disfunctional when someone removes an important aspect, like intimacy or procreation.

There is no evidence to suggest that nature acts with intent

A better term would be 'end'. The natural 'end' of sex is procreation. It's very hard not to anthropomorphize nature when discussing the roles that natural functions of our bodies play.

by your own standards infertile sex does not fulfill the arbitrary "aim" of sex that you laid out

Neither does a lot of unadulterated heterosexual intercourse between two sexually capable adults. Not all such sex results in fertilization. My point is that any action to explicitly remove the possibility of procreation from the sex act is immoral. It is life-effacing.

But here's a meta analysis of studies concluding that children who are raised in same sex parental households do no worse than children who are raised in male, female parental households anyway

This meta study self-admittedly states that many of these studies utilised small sample sizes, right? That's part of the nature of these studies. However it then makes claims about the lack of differences in whole population groups.

Horse exploitation and sailing was the working method of transportation for the most influential societies that existed only a few hundred years ago. That doesn't mean that there wasn't a better option.

Heterosexual monogamy isn't a recent invention, though. It's a tradition extending about as long as recorded human history. Traditions tend to become long-lasting because they work, they survive. They're fit.

lack of increase in reverence for birth control and family planning in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies

Birth control and """"family planning"""" are such banal, uninspiring things to apply the term 'reverence' to. They're tools. And it seems to me like people have been taking full advantage of the opportunities provided by contraceptives, abortion and so on.

A 3 parent household would probably do even better by logical extension

We'll just have to wait 15 years for the polyamory rights movement and we'll able to find out.

[–]BoozeoisPig 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Um, yeah? I didn't deny this. You realize that those bonding and procreative aspects would have been united though. Sex becomes disfunctional when someone removes an important aspect, like intimacy or procreation.

So what if they aren't? HOW does that make sex dysfunctional? Life is a possible means to an end, which is to generate happiness. Which will be hindered if we don't plan our population well. Sex is simply happiness, the only true end in the universe. If you disagree with that then I really don't know what to say. Also your standard is still stupid. Is basketball dysfunctional running and throwing? I mean it is running and throwing for no real purpose other than to be entertaining. So by your own standard games are a dysfunctional activity because they serve no alternative end that it otherwise could have.

A better term would be 'end'. The natural 'end' of sex is procreation. It's very hard not to anthropomorphize nature when discussing the roles that natural functions of our bodies play.

The natural end is also social bonding, as I have already explained. But the natural end doesn't matter fucking dick anyway. Natural ends are moronic standards. The natural end of my fingers was never to type on this keyboard but what the fuck do you know? No, the only end that matters is happiness. Without happiness and lack of suffering there is zero good reason to exist at all. So when we act it ought to be to maximize happiness. Sex makes people very happy. And as long as we are maintaining a population level it is not pertinent that we sacrifice fertile sex with some other activity.

Neither does a lot of unadulterated heterosexual intercourse between two sexually capable adults. Not all such sex results in fertilization. My point is that any action to explicitly remove the possibility of procreation from the sex act is immoral. It is life-effacing.

Every time a fertile woman abstains from sex their collective action is life affecting, because it takes away the chance to become impregnated. So homosexual sex is no more unique than bowling in this context. Both are activities that will not result in reproduction. Collectively homosexuals and people who will never become pregnant or impregnate another person will do exactly the same amount of moral wrong by your standard.

This meta study self-admittedly states that many of these studies utilised small sample sizes, right? That's part of the nature of these studies. However it then makes claims about the lack of differences in whole population groups.

Sure, but that doesn't mean they aren't good data, it just means that it is isn't the best data. But it goes to reinforce the default position that gender of people who raise children isn't a big deal. It is the quantity of people and the quality of their ability to nurture and teach that doesn't change merely because of gender.

Heterosexual monogamy isn't a recent invention, though. It's a tradition extending about as long as recorded human history. Traditions tend to become long-lasting because they work, they survive. They're fit.

They are fit for the culture they are a part of, but cultures can have stupid standards and beliefs. For the majority of human history we have had arranged marriages. That changed because we made a conscious choice when we figured out that they were bad using actual reasoning and evidence. The thing about culture is that it can change the prominence of memes and genes for particularly arbitrary reasons.

Birth control and """"family planning"""" are such banal, uninspiring things to apply the term 'reverence' to. They're tools. And it seems to me like people have been taking full advantage of the opportunities provided by contraceptives, abortion and so on.

They are tools that are often better able to maximize happiness than reckless reproduction, so they are deserving of plenty of reverence when they help to aid in terminating potentially dangerous conceptions.

We'll just have to wait 15 years for the polyamory rights movement and we'll able to find out.

There can already be data on polyamory. It's not illegal, it's just not able to be officially enshrined in group marriage.

[–]INTERNETMASTER666 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

What the FUCK

[–]TheDeathDistributor -5ポイント-4ポイント  (7子コメント)

ad hominem and logical fallacies

sure

disparages the lgbt community

have you ever wondered why? have you ever decided to stop being braindead and listen to your gut for once instead of basing everything on pure logic?

so cut the crap with the "dumb christian conservatives lol" and grow up

[–]BoozeoisPig 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

I just looked at your account and holy fucking shit you are NOT being sarcastic. I don't even know how to argue against someone who literally thinks that not being logical is better than being logical. Nothing that you say without logic is VALID. You have no JUSTIFICATION of what you say without logic. These are philosophical terms that are used to quantify how much sense you are making in anything that could potentially be reality. Why would I ever not want my opinions to make logical sense? Can you even justify why this COULD be a good thing without logic?

EDIT: BTW If you don't understand why it makes sense to use logic, and why it should always trump your "gut" in the first place, here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A_CAkYt3GY

[–]anUnkindnessThat YMS guy 9ポイント10ポイント  (5子コメント)

Don't you get it though? Why use logic when you have your gut? If your gut tells you that gay people are gross, that's all that should matter! However, if your gut tells you to be sexually attracted to someone of the same gender, that's a sin and your gut is wrong!

[–]GoldbergEchoes -4ポイント-3ポイント  (0子コメント)

You sound desperate justify the pursuit of dick tingles in the face of the damage you do to yourself and others.