[Continued from Part I]
Me: From your perspective, we should just all be animals, then, and forsake progress of any kind. If that’s how you define humanity, then I have nothing to say.
It’s not your fault that you did not understand it. Don’t blame yourself. Your foolish interpretation did make me laugh though.
Me: No, that’s exactly what you’re saying. I think progress, at least in terms of gender, is about overcoming our biological and reproductive imperative which in many ways contributed to the existing structures of gender, and become “better” as people, in which sexual relationships between individuals are safe, mutually respectful and rid of the gender power dynamics. You’re saying we should honour that biological imperative and treat it as natural, even though that’s the way we’re built, if it just comes down to women should be fucked by men just because they are women and don’t have a penis and have less sexual authority and they should compete for men’s attention to be fucked–isn’t that extremely materialistic and animalistic?
No, it is called evolution. How can I possibly debate with and hope to convince an addle-head who, owing to her egocentrism, simply cannot help but completely disregard the fundamental concept of human beings?
Do you have any idea how stupid you sound?
This is what you’re saying – “Waaaah waaah, nature is sexist! Why should man fuck and woman be fucked? Waaaah waaaah, this hurts my ego soooo much. I feel like crying. I have an idea, let’s all turn into non-humans. Let’s turn into machines. That way the sexist nature won’t be able to find us. To the ones that state otherwise – We’ll shame them by calling them animals. Waaaah waaaah (Sobs)”
Just because you’re too naive to comprehend , does not mean you can go around nullifying evolution. Go pester someone else.
You, the savant on evolution that you are, must understand that ’emotional’ beauty has served our pragmatic ethics and societal progress much more than objectification, which is the result of a warped notion of physical beauty.
Evolution would not exist if we were to be drooling primates, as you would have us, debasing ourselves to our primal needs and tendencies. The discussion is not about how sex is conducted, yet you seem to base all of your arguments on that strawman.
The interesting thing about human beings and their predilections is that we must adjust to our ever-changing social-cultural paradigm. Now, if we have people that take an argument as the one stated above and twist into ”let’s turn into machines,” then I fear our future.
Me: For one, I think I have remained fairly calm and polite throughout this entire discussion. I am responding to your ideas and I have never made any comments towards your person whatsoever. You have been the one who is ostentatiously and continuously condescending. I don’t think you have the right to accuse me of being egotistic. Also, it’s funny how you deny the fact that female objectification exists but you are objectifying women this whole time. I am not nullifying evolution. I am simply stating I believe that progress is consisted of overcoming our materialistic impulses and advancing towards a more emotionally and spiritually aware society where the basis of culture is equality and respect.
“Emotional beauty”, I am curious my friend, which planet do you descend from? You surely do not belong to earth, that much is for certain. What the hell, pray tell, is “emotional beauty” moron? Illustrate it with examples.
“Drooling primates” And this is how I know another birdbrain has joined the conversation, who not only does not have any qualms about misrepresenting his opponent’s rationale, on the contrary, seeks to do so on purpose, which begs the question, it is a strawman troll? The discussion is only about how sex is conducted. You would think the title of the damn video would give you a clue.
“we must adjust to our ever-changing social-cultural paradigm” What are these “social-cultural paradigm” that you speak of? That since the society now is increasingly female oriented, and since men and women are supposed to be “equal”, men compensate by being anally fucked by women wearing strap-ons to even things out?
Why, why do psychoneurotic fuckwits reckon that they have the authority to corrupt both sociology and biology in the name of “gender studies”? Unfathomable.
Celsian hyalophane @ Me: Why do you insist on using words erroneously that you do not understand? To sound smart, isn’t it? Well, don’t. Those of us who understand the words, find it silly. “Materialistic” is the desire of goods, man-made materials. That is not even remotely pertinent here.
“Emotionally and spiritually aware” (Laughter), please dear, try to think clearly. You come off as muddle-headed and disorientated. “Respect”, again, not even close to being germane. What the hell has “respect” got to do with anything here? Intercourse is about sex. Are you saying that men who penetrate women don’t have respect for them?
Please, just read your own comments, or make someone else read it, and explain it to you how asinine you sound. I was impertinent precisely because you are wasting my time with nonsensical twaddle. Don’t. When you persist, you leave me with no other choice.
Me: I don’t think you’ve paid attention to anything anyone has said in this discussion. You’re just in love with your own voice, aren’t you?
If it helps assuage your grief, and makes you feel better darling, you go ahead and keep telling that to yourself. It hardly impacts anything.
Eugenio José Martínez Ramos @ Me: There is no point in arguing, both of you think differently and it will remain the same no matter how much you argue. And I believe you should never attribute others personality matters when trying to state some point, it is really unnecessary. Sorry if I misspelled something, havn’t practiced in a while
Celsian hyalophane @ Eugenio José Martínez Ramos: I understand mate. That is fine. I was already aware that you won’t be entirely convinced, however, I do hope that on some level, I made you reconsider things and deliberate on them. That was my actual intention, to make you rethink about it yourself, and only then reach a conclusion. In the end, that is what matters.
Tharian Landar @ Celsian hyalophane ”Justified derogation” implies that you already think it is justified, hence acknowledging your own bias. More importantly, your derogation is pointless and therefore I don’t really put much value on its justification or lack thereof.
With ’emotional beauty’ I mean the factors that cause attraction bar the physical.
I quote you: ”Understand what that means?? It means if you are against man fucking a woman, you are against human nature, you are against evolution, you are against heterosexual sex.”
Sounds pretty much like an argument based entirely on the physical and literal conduct of sexual intercourse, whereas the discussion is about the psychological and socially cultural backdrop, that being the paradigm where a myriad of things are valued consciously and subconsciously.
Every paragraph you wrote involves insulting the one you speak to. Now, Eugenio José Martínez Ramos comes along and says ”I understand you,” before which you fawn with: ”I understand mate.”
Read it and, in your own words, reconsider things and deliberate on them, because this will be my last post, for yours are not much to ponder on.
Me: @ Eugenio José Martínez Ramos Yup, I realized that from the very beginning. The only reason I kept going was for the sake of generating discussion, since I think that this topic needs more conversation around it. As for attributing personality, that’s an unfair accusation. Throughout this entire discussion I have never once insulted the person I was talking to. On the other hand, if you’ve been following our discussion, I have been talked down to, condescended towards, and called addle-headed, stupid, egotistical, and naive–which is fine by me; I’m not really affected by it. Other than that last remark about the person I am arguing with, “you’re in just in love with your own voice”, I have never said anything negative.
This is my last post as well. I think enough has been said on this subject. There’s no point continuing this discussion anyway…now it’s just going in circles.
“your derogation is pointless and therefore I don’t really put much value on its justification” This is called bias. What you’re doing is called projection.
“I mean the factors that cause attraction bar the physical” Have you tried listening to your own balderdash? Trust me, it would be wearying even for you.
The physical attractiveness comes exclusively from physical traits. The emotional appeal, comes from emotional traits. The emotional aspect comes after. The emotional connection, or “chemistry”, is the only redeemable point that you may indicate, and even that is so trifling, that to predicate your entire argument upon it, is put simply, ludicrous. You seem to be inflicted with severe confirmation bias, wherein you tend to aggrandize and magnify the diminutive instance, just so that you can counter the monumental significance of that which is essential, that you for some reason are unable or unwilling to deal with.
“psychological and socially cultural backdrop” Now read this carefully – When A has a designated function AAA, and B has a designated function BBB, when these 2 meet, it is inevitable that any and every such circumstance entails these very designated functions, diverging from which, you are only trying to delude not only yourself, but others as well. Keep in mind, by functions I do not mean “gender roles” but the functions that dictate the dichotomy. The discord is, in part, due to the moderately dysfunctional state that we’re in where masculinity is being denigrated, and females (note – not femininity) are being glorified at the masculine expense, such that serves to make them not just equal, but indeed, as females being dominant.
A person with such mindset is susceptible to experience some conflict, which is understandable, however, this individual must not make his own conflict, the basis of justifying his endeavours to hoodwink others along with him.
The things that are valued “consciously and subconsciously” as you put, are the very aspects that are the integral constituents of the ones that possess them.
“you wrote involves insulting” Wrong. If you were conscientious, indeed, if you had an iota of integrity, you would have actually read the person’s argument that I responded to in such manner, wherein you’d have realized that it wasretaliation of the initial insult, not the initial insult. Thus your last claim is rendered invalid as well.
“before which you fawn with” Do unto others as you would __. More often than not, if someone is polite to me, I strive to be polite to them.
“This this will be my last post” Well, it was about time. Good day.