|
whats the bibles opinion on facefucking
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:53 |
|
|
it's for it lot's daughters got facefucked it was p hot
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
ok i'll do the shorthand math for you, but i assumed the exercise wasn't difficult. "boss sex w employee" is unethical bc of power dynamic: boss tells employee what to do, has structurally-embedded position of "power," this power is coercive and cannot be removed from personal relations "man sex w woman" is unethical bc of power dynamic: man has structurally-embedded position of "power" due to patriarchal history of humankind, this power is coercive and cannot be removed from personal relations now your answer is "yes but a corporation is far more tangible than a patriarchy, i can point to its mission statement and its corporate headquarters and its quarterly reports in the nytimes, i don't even really believe in the patriarchy" or something like this. ok well there you go there is the shorthand. how about this one "man sex w woman" is unethical bc of power dynamic: man has penis, woman has vagina, factually absurd to assert their "equality" when it is plain for all to see that they are different and cannot be equal, unclear who has power over whom but if equality is the basis of free association there can be no free association, hence coercion inevitable take your pick. i assume you don't like that one either, it's a little odd and "nobody in their right mind" in this day and age would give it a second glance, even though it's basically the way society has been structured since humans figured out where their penises and vaginas were. old societies solved these ethical niceties rather straightforwardly, by making women property and mostly debarring familiarity btw men and women. this wasn't because they were kookoo and didn't understand all the fancy stuff we understand now. they understood perfectly well, maybe even better than we did -- we just wave our hands and say "everyone is equal now" and expect that that changes everything in depth, instead of adding another level of complexity. i don't think it's unreasonable for me to say "you have made a decision to differentiate between bosses-employees and men-women, despite both being a case of power-imbalance." to handwave that decision away as self-evident is doing yourself a disservice as a decision-maker. you're only hurting yourself by handwaving, because you actually disenfranchise yourself as actor and being. asking yourself "why did i make this decision to differentiate" might help you make other decisions in the future. might help you feel more alive and real and joyful in those decisions. maybe you yourself do not have this problem. but i think it's pretty widespread. people take a lot of things for granted that aren't. like "two people should be able to freely associate sexually." that's a huge thing to take for granted! it wasn't always that way. not everybody in human history has come to that conclusion. why? instead of just thinking "well because they were idiots, and we as a society finally have that little issue figured out," maybe assume that people in the past weren't gigantic idiots and had reasons for their decisions too. how is it, then, that they came to different conclusions? must be that things are more complicated than they appear, probably because we almost always assume our morality is fundamentally obvious and everybody else's is obviously fundamentally flawed -- which is weird, because we can look back and see that we think the past is flawed, but we forget that the future must inevitably think the same of us.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
nomadologique posted:"boss sex w employee" is unethical bc of power dynamic: boss tells employee what to do, has structurally-embedded position of "power," this power is coercive and cannot be removed from personal relations composition fallacy black or white nomadologique posted:"man sex w woman" is unethical bc of power dynamic: man has penis, woman has vagina, factually absurd to assert their "equality" when it is plain for all to see that they are different and cannot be equal, unclear who has power over whom but if equality is the basis of free association there can be no free association, hence coercion inevitable appeal to nature (now who is going 'it is self evident' ?) black or white again begging the question a bit I think too quote:ok i'll do the shorthand math for you, but i assumed the exercise wasn't difficult. lol please quote:how is it, then, that they came to different conclusions? people are stupid idiots Anyway you haven't shown that one follows from the other. Just bc a boss-subordinate relationship has a bad power dynamic ethically speaking that doesn't mean I need to accept all 'power dynamic' arguments at face value or assign them all the same worth ethically speaking. Yeah there might be some bad power dynamic in men-women relationships in 2016 but that doesn't make it equal to boss loving employees and to suggest they are the same is self evidently silly. ie you're making a false equivalency. Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
Nobody is equal, coercive power is inescapable, ethics are meaningless. Good job everybody, we cracked this one wide open.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
somehow this thread got worse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Piso Mojado posted:somehow this thread got worse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
Codified rules can have actionable exceptions, people want a simplified guidebook to living but that's next to impossible. You can made rules or norms or morés but that doesn't mean things won't happen even with eternal damnation hanging in the balance. Every action has a consequence even if the only action you ever attempt is to take a breath. You can lead a horse to water but it might still gently caress it's daughter
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:all im saying is that this I know you are a cook or something but when actual work of importance is occurring the multitude of conflicts of interests and distractions that can occur (along with the possibility that the underling feels obligated to accept) creates a bad work environment even if the relationship isnt toxic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
Well most of us can say pedophilia is wrong. what I want to know is what is appropriate punishment for a pedophile? I have found this to be the most varying. Some countries chemically castrate. I think this is pretty humane, although if it removes all ability for sexual attraction, then it might not be fixing the problem. Some people want registries or death penalties. What happens when we have sex robots? Does a sex robot that looks like a kid encourage a pedophile because it's not genuine, or does it alleviate?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
PIV is always rape.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:53 |
|
|
TheLightPurges posted:I know you are a cook or something but when actual work of importance is occurring the multitude of conflicts of interests and distractions that can occur (along with the possibility that the underling feels obligated to accept) creates a bad work environment even if the relationship isnt toxic. ofc it creates a bad work environment. Dude was saying if boss-subordinate is bad bc power dynamic then all men-women relationships are bad bc power dynamic which I don't think is true. also I was a cook until I went back to school to get my degree and am now a proud office employee 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 01:05
|
|