Hey charmbag, fuck you

[Luke de Spa]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

i'm sorry that doesn't really make sense

i'm starting to wonder if you know what the fuck you are talking about

and i'm starting to wonder how much you read and how much you just jump to conclusions. fucking hell.

desire is spontaneous. regardless of whether or not we have free will, our impulses are still just that. they are not willed; they arise from somewhere in the brain that is invisible to consciousness.

you are hungry. you want company. you want to sleep. these sorts of things are fundamental, pre-agency – they arrive in the mind wholly formed and without invitation.

this doesn't mean we don't have free will – the conscious mind's ability to override our impulses is the common-sense argument for free will. the meat robot argument approaches from a different direction entirely. but that's all beside the point, which is: pay attention

[Cool As Ice Cream]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

i'm sorry that doesn't really make sense

'cause ur retarded

[dean_r_koontz]

Originally Posted by Cool As Ice Cream

'cause ur retarded

u'r a scared little boy.

[Eulogy]

all bodies are objects

we are all attracted to certain varieties of them

some women like participating in porn, viewing porn, getting ejaculate all over their faces (and some people find it degrading. people have different sexual interests!), etc.

some don't.

to throw a blanket over the entire industry and its consumers because you think it's all unforgivably exploitative is stupid. you can't on one hand say "RESPECT MY RIGHT TO BE OFFENDED AND UNCOMFORTABLE" while at the same time mandating that everyone conform to your beliefs (and that is what is being done here).

[Eulogy]

i will admit though that i don't get what it is about consensual sex acts that makes people uncomfortable

just because there can be aspects of submissiveness built into a sex act doesn't mean it needs to translate into submissiveness in any other context. i really don't think anyone should be judged for any consensual and adult sexual activity. getting all abstract about it in order to make some point about subjugation is unnecessary and obnoxious and doesn't accomplish anything and picks the wrong targets.

[Cool As Ice Cream]

Originally Posted by dean_r_koontz

u'r a scared little boy.

you catholic too?

[duovamp]

Originally Posted by yo soy el mejor

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...sdfasfdgg6.jpg

God I miss being that young.

[duovamp]

Originally Posted by duovamp

I love how rapidly this thread reached the existential wall of deconstruction.

[duovamp]

Brendan, just because there is no such thing as free will, that doesn't mean humans are incapable of operating as a civilized society instead of like a pack of wolves. In fact, one way of operating may prove to be more beneficial to its members. A change of heart may be written into the script. Or at least an ounce of reflection and self-analysis.

[Cool As Ice Cream]

there is no free will? where did you get that?

[duovamp]

There isn't. Deal with it.

[Cool As Ice Cream]

well, all right. in that case there's nothing i can do about it.

[redbreegull]

NSFW

Originally Posted by Luke de Spa

surely the point is that it's all on some spectrum of objectification/sexism/exploitation/whatever. some activities on that spectrum are going to be less desirable than others, but they're all undesirable to some degree. theft is not as bad as murder but it's still crime, etc.

so according to you, this:


http://www.zyzyo.com/wp-content/uplo...us-de-Milo.jpg


is just a less bad version of this


http://www.bdsmtsunami.com/wp/wp-con...s-2011a012.jpg

[yo soy el mejor]

he didn't say theft was a less bad version of murder.

[yo soy el mejor]

you totally freak out every time you're wrong.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Luke de Spa

i'm not talking about determinism at all. if determinism is true, this debate is just a script playing out and it doesn't matter what anyone wants (or does). for the sake of discussion, let's just continue to assume we all have agency, okay?

anyway. what is being consistently conflated here are two quite different categories of behaviour:

1) wanting to look at naked women, and
2) enthusiastically participating in a system that reduces women to the status of consumer goods.

criticising the latter implies nothing about the former except perhaps causation. how is that hard to grasp? it doesn't matter what you want – that's not relevant. desire is generally short-term, and can generally be overridden. what matters is how you act, and the consequences of your actions.

consider: imagine you have an occasional inclination to kill your neighbour. well, that's unfortunate and sick and probably you should seek help for that. but you shouldn't be locked up for thinking it. on the other hand, if you kill your neighbour...

well done

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by yo soy el mejor

he didn't say theft was a less bad version of murder.

he said they were crimes of varying degrees of un-desirableness, an analogy meant to illustrate that both trots' emma stone thing and my nipples thing are both undesirable exploitation and objectification of women. So by that logic, any portrayal of a female as attractive is objectification to some degree.

[yo soy el mejor]

posting little nudies like a prepubescent curly-haired freak is.

[redbreegull]

good argument

[slunken]

HIDE YR KIDS HIDE YR WIFE

[Trotskilicious]

i'm just asking questions here, i dunno if it's a by product of people having respect for my intelligence that they assume that all of this is elementary but i am a student here as far as i'm concerned

when it comes to economic issues i'm more sure of my footing but i'm not very good at the social game in general, let alone considering social constructs and etc. i understand it on a basic level, but i'm just asking questions

i'm trying to stop being rude but it's a force of habit

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

he said they were crimes of varying degrees of un-desirableness, an analogy meant to illustrate that both trots' emma stone thing and my nipples thing are both undesirable exploitation and objectification of women. So by that logic, any portrayal of a female as attractive is objectification to some degree.

i dunno if that's being said exactly

when we're talking about famous women I think are cute, i have a lot of criteria for it. Yes, Katy Perry is hot but that's about all that's noteworthy about her, and so I'm not really very interested. However, Corin Tucker is a bawse and she's really strong, confident, and her vox are like a banshee howling on the moors and she's equally effective singing astute politically or socially motivated lyrics or just singing about fucking. She's cute. Super cute. I'm not fetishizing her nipples.

And it's been socially acceptable for women to swoon for musicians for decades, but when a man does it it's weird, creepy or sexist or something. I dunno, i read something with neko case complaining about the lack of male groupies and i'm like gee i'd love to make out with neko case.

[c|-|/-\R/\/\8@g]

hmm

[Trotskilicious]

i don't really have any sway with the admins, i think the only one that i'm not actively ugly to is andy slash

[redbreegull]

trots what the shit are you talking about

[Trotskilicious]

i'm talking to charmbag because i can read muted posts you dingbat

[Trotskilicious]

or if you're still confused why the fact that nipple worship is different than crushing on musicians i can't help you

[redbreegull]

nothing wrong with loving girls with guitars
nothing wrong with loving girls with boobs

[Trotskilicious]

nah you should love a girl based on who she is rather than her tits.

how hard is that to understand

[Eulogy]

physical attraction is an ok thing, guys

the important thing is to remember that people are much more than just their tits. not to try to deny that physical attributes are important.