US Senate Repeals "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

[SuperBowser]

I know prostate cancer chance is increased by not nasturbating, it's a health issue of the sexual organs, which wouldn't exist if the sexual organs didn't exist. It's not as if the chances are lowered if you masterbate, it's that they increase if you don't. That's why you don't see asexual creatures getting prostate cancer, because they don't have sexual organs which create that problem in the first place.

My head hurts.

 

[Mr.Freeman]

My head hurts.

I'm becoming more and more convinced Dre is a robot.

 

[Dre89]

I did prove it's not meant for pleasure, with that list of factors a few posts ago.

Look up "blue balls" on Wikipedia. Prolonged sexual stimulation is painful and bad for you.

BPC- It's not me being condescending, it's that it's a different debate. First there us my meta ethical theory, which is where I conclude that there are objective goods, and why I take the nature orientated approach I do. Then their is the normative ethics, which is what is considered natural and unnatural in my framework. Then there is applied ethics, where even if this stuff is unnatural, I need to show why we should not do it.

Were mostly concerned with my normative ethics at the moment. The naturalistic fallacy and issues surrounding that pertain to my meta ethical framework, which is a separate debate.

 

[Pluvia]

Still waiting for that rational anti-homosexuality argument..

 

[Mr.Freeman]

i did prove it's not meant for pleasure, with that list of factors a few posts ago.

Look up "blue balls" on wikipedia. Prolonged sexual stimulation is painful and bad for you.

Bpc- it's not me being condescending, it's that it's a different debate. First there us my meta ethical theory, which is where i conclude that there are objective goods, and why i take the nature orientated approach i do. Then their is the normative ethics, which is what is considered natural and unnatural in my framework. Then there is applied ethics, where even if this stuff is unnatural, i need to show why we should not do it.

Were mostly concerned with my normative ethics at the moment. The naturalistic fallacy and issues surrounding that pertain to my meta ethical framework, which is a separate debate.

*a swear word*

 

[Namaste]

I did prove it's not meant for pleasure, with that list of factors a few posts ago.

Did you not see my post responding point to point to that?

And for Blue Balls: That's for when you don't ejaculate at the end. Not for prolonging sex. Talking about sex where no one has an orgasm is not the same discussion and talking about sexual activity. It'd be like trying to say that sex is a lot more risky then people say by using statistics about anal sex, which is more risky then the others. Or like saying that sex is dangerous because of the people who are into sexual cannibalism

 

[StinkomanFan]

I don't mean to intrude, but would a mod kindly move this to debate hall?

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

I don't mean to intrude, but would a mod kindly move this to debate hall?

I disagree. I do not think it should be moved to Debate Hall, if it MUST be moved THEN it should be moved to Proving grounds not Debate Hall.

 

[deepseadiva]

Dre's argument's remind me of the scrub who complains that I use Fox's reflector to shine spike rather than only reflect projectiles. They ignore the complex multi-functionality of both the shine and human sex organs. That somehow he has authority to tell me what is the correct way to use something when he has no experience in it is absolutely preposterous.

EDIT: Omg, this metaphor is perfect. Dre thinks that we should only play Melee/life with it's default, out of the box settings. Any alterations is not 'natural' and against the intent of the designers. This argument is cute, but it ignores a) the customability of life/Melee, b) the needs of competitive smashers/other human beings who share different views, c) is naive, self-vested, and boorish with pretense of authority.

Dre, what exactly changed at 18? What was your belief system before? And how old are you now?

And you did not just compare society's acceptance of homosexuality with the permitting of slavery

I apparently missed this post.

roflolololololol

Sending friend request in one sec.

 

[_Keno_]

Before my change I was exactly like you guys, I just assumed modern view.

This actually made me laugh out loud.

Then it made me a little sad.

Dre., your view seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) "if something it not used for its (natural) purpose, then the use is immoral." Now, if you truly do believe this, then yes, I can see how you would "reason" out that homosexuality is immoral. However, I sincerely doubt that you apply this to everything, or even most things. In fact, I've only ever seen creationists revert to this viewpoint on discussion of homosexuality.

If I use a soft blanket as a pillow, is that immoral? If like driving my car instead of walking, I am avoiding the "natural purpose" of my feet, is that immoral? How about solar power? The sun provides light and heat, but using its energy in such a way? That is surely unnatural and immoral?

It's not as if the chances are lowered if you masterbate, it's that they increase if you don't.

Dre.... there isnt a difference...

 

[DoH]

Dre is now going to argue that you can't corrupt inanimate objects. But don't worry guys, there's no warrant for that statement either.

Maybe making babies is the supposed end game for breeders. But gay people are inherently different. My sexual activity is never instinctually driven around vagina, despite my chromosomes.

 

[Dre89]

Still waiting for that rational anti-homosexuality argument..

Still waiting for you to contribute something to the discussion.

I've honestly never understood why people make these pointless one-liners. Tell me, what was the point of this post? Was it to get attention? Most likely you were hoping for someone to say something "LOL QFT" or "Pluvia have my babies". Now that I've given you this response, in an attempt to not to give an answer that I predicted, you'll imply that you were trolling and you did it to get a response out of me, but you only say that after seeing this response, it was never reasonable to expect a post like this before you made your post.

It kind of reminds me of the try-hards in the tier list thread who come in and say "The BBR is a joke" or "if you think Sonic is A tier you should quit this game", they act cynical in an attempt to look hard, but if I showed my friends some of these types of posts they'd probably cringe at how pathetic it is.

Anyway, felt like getting that off my chest, back to people who are contributing to this thread.

Namaste- But if pleasure for X amount of time causes pain, then it will cause pain regardless of if you never ejaculate, or if you ejaculate 5 minutes later. Whether you intend on ejaculating or not, you can prolong the pleasure long enough to have pain. This is my point- if pleasure was an end, there would be no restriction on this, and you wouldn't get blue balls if you don't ejaculate, because there would be no problem with pleasure without ejaculation.

The body is essentially limiting how much pleasure you can have without ejaculating, both in the sense of the pain and health effects, and in the fact that the most intense pleasure is experienced during the ejaculation. Even the that slight euphoric feeling one gets through their body after ejaculation (is that an endorphin release?), comes again, only after ejaculation. Not only that, but the pleasure stops immediately after ejaculation, because now that you've ejaculated there is nothing you need to be enticed into doing anymore.

Cheap Peach- There's no real problem with using artificial objects for alternate purposes, because they only exist for our purposes to begin with. Many examples people throw at me don't actually really work. Footwear, for example, is not corrupting anything. Footwear simply allows us to achieve travel, and traversing hazardous terrain more efficiently, which were the goal of our feet in the first place. No aspect of our nature is being corrupted.

Suppose another example is that we use apples to fuel robots, something which they are clearly not designed to do. This is a human act, but as humans go this is not really a corruption, because we are corrupting the apple, not ourselves.

This is why casual sex is such a big corruption. You're removing the end goal, procreation, so that the means to that end, pleasure, itself becomes the end. Not only is this corrupting the natural process, but what is being corrupted is the body, which is fundamental in human nature, which makes it a very serious corruption.

Doh- The "X exists so X is acceptable" is really over-used by people who haven't thought of the consequences of such logic. Just because something exists, does not mean it's permissable. You would essentially have to defend moral relativism, or amoralism then. Being blind is clearly a defficiency, you don't say that because blind people exist, being blind isn't a handicap. Similarly, you don't say that because **** occurs, that it's acceptable.

Something being practiced does not automatically qualify it as being acceptable.

 

[Shadic]

Something being practiced does not automatically qualify it as being acceptable.

Something being "unnatural" does not automatically qualify it as being unacceptable.

Not that I think homosexuality is unnatural.

 

[Luigitoilet]

This thread is kind of going in circles.

 

[Dre89]

Something being "unnatural" does not automatically qualify it as being unacceptable.

Not that I think homosexuality is unnatural.

I never said otherwise.

In fact in my recent post where I briefly cketched out my entire ethical framework, in the applied ethics section I said that I don't automatically jump from proving X unnatural to X being unacceptable in the sense that it should not be practiced. I admit that jump itself requires a justification, but I have an argument for that too.

LT- El Nino opened up one in the DH recently, and already I think it's more productive than this one. I feel that this thread isn't so much producing a debate as it is merely producing an account of my ethical framework.

 

[Luigitoilet]

Oh? I am not aware of what goes on over there so thanks for that info.

I think with that, this thread should finally be done with.