Also, just to be clear, I'm also pro second amendment because I believe in absolute liberty and that guns do more good than harm by a mile. I can't say the same thing for casual sex. It's an impulsive pleasure that has really hurt us, but ill never argue to outlaw it or something. I just think we need to change our attitude about it, because its effects are anything but casual. Okay, now I'm done. It's really hard not to reply when people @you lol
@Xandrith Hypothetically if we were both extremely attracted to eachother, were both gay, both atheists, there were no consequences and just really wanted to smash, wed smash right? say yes, multi can come too
@Xandrith So, youre saying that people should have to reconsider their feelings towards casual sex, because ‘other’ people have casual sex irresponsibly? That doesnt sound right.
No. I'm saying that ignoring the myriad of potentially catastrophic effects, for the sake of impulsive pleasure, is itself irresponsible. Guns stop millions of crimes a year, and can potentially stave off foreign land invasion/tyranny. That's a good trade off for the relatively rare misuse of guns. What does casual sex and polygamy do? They satisfy your lust for a day, while wreaking psychological havoc on the individuals involved, and therefore damaging society at a level I would have never guessed possible until after seeing it's effect. That's the opposite of a good trade off. The best possible outcome of casual sex is that both people leave satisfied and happy, but are both inevitably that much less likely to pair bond in the future as icyhot mentioned earlier when neurochemicals were brought up. That's the best you can do, and it's still a net loss, whether or not the people involved were aware of it. Still, if people are aware of its effects and choose to do it, that's fine. You have that right, and you should. My problem with all of this comes in when some 18 year old on twitter is telling people that marriage is an oppressive social construct and that it's honorable to have oodles of casual sex whenever you want. It's like... No, actually it isn't honorable. That's what I want to see changed. Our culture glorifies all things impulsion and it's going to be our demise of we aren't careful. I'll never argue for the legislation of morality, but we can't just dissolve our foundation of principals and buttresses of social stigma and expect our society to stay structurally sound. Okay NOW I'm done I promise ahaha
Not sure if any of you have seen chrons map (lineage) I think its called Salty and I agreed last night its his best map in this game There is a lot of super cool **** going on good job @Chronmeister
Nobodys ignoring it. If they arent contributing to it, they are not the problem, and nothing they are doing is irresponsible. In your opinion. Plenty of people dont feel that innocent people should die just because you think guns are necessary. Wreaking psychological havoc? Okay.
That's the thing, you can't not participate in the negative effects of casual sex. Like I said, you're less likely to pair bond afterward, and that's best case scenario Also, I don't think anyone should die, ahaha. That would be pretty messed up. I think that the benefits of gun rights outweigh the potential negatives, by a country mile. It is indeed unfortunate that guns get misused for all sorts of terrible things. I don't know what else to to say man ahahaha it's not like I'm for mass shootings And yes, psychological havoc. Mocking the phrase doesn't make it untrue
Thanks bro! This made my day! It started as a 2v2, but its pretty huge so it will probably play 4's too.
Do not pass GO, and do not collect $200; you obviously are not reading the chain. I was extrapolating on the analogy given to Xandrith, continuing the conversation about promiscuity in vehicular terms. I also clearly stated the position I ascribed to xzamples was A S S U M E D and not at all factual, used for the sake of fleshing out a general principle.
Yes you can. Not pairing isnt a negative if neither party ever intended to be together. I didnt insinuate anything. You misunderstood my use of ‘should’. It means that you accept the inevitable fact that more people will die by the hands of people with guns as long as theyre legal. Not all people agree that the sacrifice is worth the principle. It isnt true, though.
Casual sex damages people's ability to commit, which leads to divorce and broken homes. The more you do it, the higher the chance, and that's the best case scenario. We haven't even talked about single mothers and abortions on top of that. Again, you're completely off base. You're describing to me my own perspective, and it's not even the perspective I hold. I think that murder is inevitable with or without guns. If there were substantial evidence to suggest that less guns would = less murder, then sure, I could see restricting them, but I think it actually has the opposite effect. In any system, with any freedom, there will be insane defectors. That's not a good enough argument to restrict freedoms that do a ton of good, unless you can prove otherwise. Until then, just know that I don't think anyone should die, and you absolutely insinuated as much. Last time I checked there was only one way you can use the word "should," so unless you just don't know what it means, that's exactly what you suggested. This has all really derailed. The only fundamentally relevant rebuttal you've conjured up so far is just a denial. Like I already said, mocking and denying something doesn't mean anything. Prove multi wrong and actually read the conversation instead of just jumping in with a quick "ur wrong," because I'm not about to go over everything again for the sake of the other people reading this.
Ok, this is where the divide is. If two parties enter a physically intimate act together with the express foreknowledge that they will not stay together after that act has completed, that is fine from a contractual standpoint, and from a basic ethical standpoint. However. Leaving it at that ignores the myriad of evidence that supports the statement that such an act is not only harmful longterm to a society, but also to the individuals engaging in it, from a marriage potential, bonding, relationships, and even sexual pleasure standpoint. Casual sex, as in 'sex that is done entirely for the purpose of enjoyment of the two parties' is absolutely fine in a loving marriage (indeed, it serves a dual purpose), and maybe in a loving relationship - but without the bonds of marriage, doing so at the relationship stage is putting oneself in incredibly dangerous waters.
Schnitzels reply to all of this on discord is maybe the best reply yet "Casual sex hurts society" = "I'm a little ***** boy that needs a boogieman to blame for my inability to interact with females. My constant rejection is unfair, and if women weren't broken because of casual sex, I'd have much better luck finding a meaningful relationship." @Westin He says more but you get the point ahahaha
I like to drive my car recklessly to my casual sex destinations and shoot anyone that gets in my way I also make sewer maps
I should have been more clear - I meant that loving relationship stage, before marriage has been solidified. It’s less dangerous... but only if the express goal is to get married, and to stay together, not change ones mind suddenly.