Is political correctness anti-scientific?

Post Reply New Topic

Nope. I came to that conclusion by myself.

Even in purely nonreligious terms, doesn't taming the sex instinct make sense? We don't need to make love with random people like animals.

Nope.

Why bother?

If people want to dress up in gimp suits and spank each other just let them get on with it. It does you no harm so why the judgemental attitude?

Quite ironic. I've been a vorarephile (a fetish that gains pleasure from the idea of being swallowed alive) ever since I was little, and I have sometimes thought that I might be gay. I have suppressed all of them. Vorarephilia is quite harmless, but it is still pretty sick. Fetishes like my own have even more of a stigma than being gay. I know of a bunch of sexual deviants that people condemn without condemning homosexuality. WHY ARE PEOPLE NOT ACCEPTING MY KINKY FETISHES, DAMMIT?

Heaven help you if think infantalism (AKA babyfur), vorarephilia, macrophilia, watersports (pee fetish), tentacle hentai, yiff, or any other deviation is sick if you tolerate homosexuality. You don't get to pick and choose what sexual deviations to be tolerant of if you tolerate any sexuality outside of a heterosexual marriage for the purpose of procreation. Why don't YOU be less judgmental?

That has been one of its' purposes for quite a while. That is no longer needed. There are plenty of children even if single people continue having sex. There are also plenty of laws in place to corral sex as needed (such as all the forms of rape laws) without requiring it to be confined to marriage.



It is abusive to the animals.



It is abusive to children. If confined to consenting related adults it is still a significant birth defect risk.




I am not against polygamy per se. My main complaint against polygamy (as practiced in the U.S.) is that for cultural reasons, it seems to be linked with underage marriage. If marriage was not legal below age 18, my objections would disappear. Although I think there would need to be some sort of re-jiggering of divorce and child support laws to accomodate it- I don't know exactly how that would work.

DC didn't actually say anything judgemental against your fetishes. Are you sure that there is such overlap between people accepting of homosexuality and people condemning of the things you listed?

I don't actually condemn anything on your list (unless infantalism refers to sex with babies [A Serbian Movie ]rather than pretending to be a baby).

Although I don't condemn the things on your list, I disagree that not condemning sex outside of marriage must mean not condemning any sex or being hypocritical. I condemn rape, sex with children or animals and necrophilia and stand by those condemnations because they are hurtful to others. I do not think that refusing to condemn homosexuality while condemning those specific things is hypocritical.

Yes. It exists. I have been cursed out by people for being a vorarephile even though those same people tolerated homosexuality. I have also been gay-baited in junior high. Many other students acted as though they were sexually attracted to me for craps and giggles.

And how is bestiality hurtful to other people? Maybe to the animals, but not to other people. I stand by the idea of "you don't get to pick and choose" because almost all deviations are hurtful in some way. Homosexuals are more likely to die of an STD (only 3% of gays live past age 55) and sex outside of marriage can result in STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and broken trust between people. Even my own fetish can result in death if taken too far (hard vore in real life). Soft vore is bad enough. Does fantasizing about being eaten by a sexy 50 foot tall fox girl sound healthy to you?

This is the sex instinct which we are talking about here, which is powerful. Why not tame it to prevent such pain and suffering?

False. -.- Marriage is for creating long-term STABLE relationships to create a social environnement in which children can be brought up. Heterosexuality has little to do with it.

Also, it should be noted that bestiality is the cause of men (mostly) ending up hurt for trying to penetrate an animal, mostly due to pH differencies in the environnement (female dogs, for example). Their phallus ends up with burns. =/

Do you have a source for your early gay death assertions? No need to bother really a quick google search will show it is a load of rubbish spread by fundie lunatics (lunatics in question called Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron) and and has been thoroughly debunked.

Can you point to where exactly I've been judgemental?

I have posted stating factual evidence that is accepted by the scientific community and accepted normal definitions of words. At want point exactly, please quote me, have I been judgemental of your fetishes?

If you want me to judge you fine, I think you are screwed up and angry, disgusted by your own sexuality and deciding to take it out on a group of people that you deem perverts so that you can feel better about yourself and do this by posting lies and hateful judgemental messages on the internet.

Got anything substantive to back this up?
You're quite good at making this sort of statement, aren't you - I'm thinking of a similar performance on a thread dealing with abstinence.

I'm not trying to be hateful. I'm just being realistic. I prefer to look on both sides, good and bad. There are those who refuse to see the good in anything, and there are those who refuse to see the bad in anything. I take both sides, and determine if it is bad or good. Condoms work, but abstinence is better. When it comes to disease and unwanted pregnancies, any risk is too much risk if it can be easily prevented by a little self control. Or being realistic by saying that homosexuality shouldn't be condoned. I tolerate people who are tempted with homosexuality, but that does not mean I have to accept such conduct as acceptable or normal.

African Americans also have high STD rates. Are you going to suggest they use safer practices or just suggest that being black shouldn't be condoned?

I think you're failing in both endeavours.
Those are all poorly reasoned answers to questions I didn't ask.
Still waiting...

I got my arguments from a book called "enough is enough: a call to christian involvement"

He got his sources from "the gay agenda" a video and
The family under siege by George Grant

Also, cornflake, you are just as closed minded as you accuse conservatives and religionists of being closed minded. I gave you sources. And don't you dare call it biased, because everything will have a bias, like it or not. A liberal slant is not "unbiased". People are so closed minded that they are unwilling to accept any argument that they don't want to hear because, you know, they just want to f*** each other. Passion over reason. Same with scientific studies. They alter the data if they don't want to hear it, because it will just prove us right.

Do you honestly think that we push sexual morality because we are primitive fools who are disgusted with sexuality? No. Taming sexuality sounds progressive to me. Flaunting it and letting it run wild sounds animallike. Sexual morality isn't primitive. Sexual freedom is.

Consent.

Animals cannot give consent. Corpses cannot give consent. Children cannot give consent. Adolescents below a certain legally set age cannot give legal consent. The cognitively impaired (intoxication, retardation, psychosis, etc.) may be sufficiently disabled as to be unable to give consent.

Evolution does not need "reason" or a "design" to function, nor does it need a "creator."

Sex is the natural means of procreation for humans. Sex is also used in humans as recreation, to express love/social bonding, etc.

Even uncorreberated scientific theories start out with the facts. Some effect or phenomenon observed in nature. Science works because even in its most hypothetical it must meet the facts in the laboratory or in observations. Things not based on facts are non-scientific. Among such things are philosophy (which is vapor ware) and (worse) religion. Political doctrines are also not only non-factual but anti-factual. Politics is the most base and damaging use of the human intellect.

ruveyn

It sounds medieval to me. Subjective impressions don't count for much in debate.

If I had to choose between hanging out with a sexually repressed evangelical Christian or a porn star "flaunting it and letting it run wild" and "animallike," I would choose the porn star, no contest. At least she'd be a fun and interesting person.

This is just a restatement of what you said in the first quote in other words. You haven't constructed an argument, just given subjective impressions that those who disagree with you do not share.