Rottweiler got banned

BlackHumor

BH, this thread was created to discuss me.

I offer no apologies for disappointing you if you'd prefer discussions of me occur without me, behind my back.

Again, not saying that; I'm referring to you turning the thread about you being banned into a thread about aristocracy/Christianity within two pages.

It hadn't derailed before that, so it kinda had to have been you.

Pvtnum11

Rott, you got banned?

...Wondering if/when I'll say something ban-worthy and get myself banned.

BlackHumor

@pvt: Unlikely, you're not rude about what you say.

Rottweiler

Thanks, random and Ian.

BH, again I make no apology for the fact that you consider talking about me behind my back in a thread titled "Rottweiler got banned" on-topic and speak for myself  a derail. If it derailed your fun, your fun wasn't very sporting.

Caissas_DeathAngel

You know Rott, you ignored my post earlier on this page if you'd care to reply?

Rottweiler

@Addy: Others will say I'm derailing the thread by having the audacity to reply to direct questions.

Anyway...
why is there something innately wrong with having sex purely for
pleasure? Why can't that be a tangible benefit in itself, and why
therefore is it immoral for those who cannot reproduce to have sex?

Pleasure is not the telos of sex. The pleasure evolved because it gave organisms positive feedback for performing the reproductive act.

So what end do homosexual acts lead to?

snowbull

Do what end do heterosexual acts lead to? Over population?

Bob

[Comment deleted]

Vivi

"So what end do homosexual acts lead to?"

The back end.

^It's not always a burden...

Rottweiler

@snowbull: I just told you what the telos is.

@Bob: So you're claiming that the telos of homosexual sex is reproduction minus the burden of children?

Bob

[Comment deleted]

Khwarizmi

I dislike the term telos.  It implies that purpose is an inherent property of actions or objects, rather than something which is created by human beings.

Nyktos

@Rottweiler: So is it wrong to have sex with an infertile person?

Bob

[Comment deleted]
[Reason: Shitpost]

LoneWolfEburg

Also, people who sell bread are immoral. The telos of bread is being eaten, not being sold. Same can be said about people who sell other stuff - manufacturers of shoes are immoral, because they sell their shoes, instead of wearing them - being worn is the telos of the shoes. Thus, we've established that commerce and business are inherently immoral. Which leads us to the conclusion that the only moral people in the world are those who despise commerce - and traditionally, that were landowning feudal aristocrats. Thus, we've revealed the inherent amorality of current deMOCKratic bourgeois society, and the morality of the Middle Ages, a truly moral system destroyed by Lucifer's "Enlightenment".

Paleoconservatism is cool.

Stormtroper

What about trading cards?

LoneWolfEburg

I'm utterly confused as to what the telos of trading cards is. Therefore, they do not have any telos at all, and are very immoral.

Bob

[Comment deleted]
[Reason: Shitpost]

FrodoGoofballCoTV

A belated "Welcome!" to Bon and Rott.  I'm glad you've joined us!

Also, FYI, I am anti-Rott-haters, though sometimes I DO wish he'd stop talking in formal language unnecessarily, for whatever that's worth.

Which leads us to the conclusion that the only moral people in the world are those who despise commerce - and traditionally, that were landowning feudal aristocrats.

Actually, landowning feudal aristocrats also practiced commerce.  For example, they sometimes purchased supplies for castles from neighboring kingdoms.   The hypocracy! 

BonSequitur

But Eburg, selling something does contribute to its purpose (I refuse to use a Hellenism when there is a perfectly good English word. C.f., 'weltanschauung') in that it drives that something towards its ultimate purpose; every step of the way towards the purpose serves the purpose, although you can argue some part of the process is superfluous or inefficient. So you can argue that having bakers who make bread for many people and sell their bread is inefficient or a bad way of fulfilling the purpose of the bread, but you can't argue that it doesn't fulfil the purpose.

Of course, purpose is subjective. Any teleological moral argument has about as much authority as random lake-dwelling tarts handing out swords as a basis for a allocating executive power in a system of government. Indeed, teleological thinking in general is only valid in the context of the applied sciences and humanities, because purpose isn't a feature of the universe but rather a human frame of reference towards objects social or physical.

Bastion

Morbidly curious though I may be about how "the telos of eros is babies" squares with enjoying BDSM, I know nothing good can come from asking.

LoneWolfEburg

Porn is immoral because the telos of sex is babies, not being shown on TV.

And I thought that the ridiculousness of my previous post shows that I am engaging in subtle mocking of poor Rott.

vandro

Poe's Law, LoneWolfEburg. Poe's Law.

glennmagusharvey

To be honest, once upon a time I argued against homosexuality by saying that the point of sex is procreation, and thus homosexuals are going against this natural order.  However, someone then countered that my argument would mean that infertile heterosexual couples engaging in sexual intercourse would also be a travesty against nature...at which point I decided that my argument sprang from a subconscious notion that homosexuality was icky, and thereafter decided that it was neither my right nor a good idea to care about whether other people do totally icky stuff that does not interfere with other people.

> Of course, purpose is subjective.

Precisely.  Speaking of which, my using a stack of D&D books to prop up a computer monitor is also against its natural purpose.

Rottweiler

You know, the first step to successfully mocking Aristotle would be reading him.

That's how Hobbes managed. Get back to me when one of you is clever as him.

glennmagusharvey

I need not read the writings of any philosopher in order to debate philosophy, my good sir.

Philosophical arguments are only as convincing as the form they take, between venue, speaker, diction, and audience, when presented.

Rottweiler

I need not read the writings of any philosopher in order to debate philosophy, my good sir.

Hey Myr, let's hit a bar and weep together.

Myrmidon

You got it man. 

glennmagusharvey

The same idea is the same, no matter who presents it, be it a pauper on an inner-city street or a billionaire sitting in his oceanfront private office.

Wicked223

You know, Rott, if you're going to insist that everyone who debates with you has to read [philosophical text] first, why even bother arguing? Why not just post a philosophy reading list every time you enter a thread?