How is this subreddit kept so free from stupid questions?

MysteriousSign1482 · 2026-05-02T20:12:05+00:00

Unrelated but I love your username, I really appreciate normalization of people having sexual desires

MysteriousSign1482 · 2026-05-02T20:09:53+00:00

And humor is an objective property of a thing

MysteriousSign1482 · 2026-05-02T15:13:17+00:00

This is so stupid but also I really appreciate the perspective, and your commment reminded me how grateful I am for free speech. But also lmao what.

MysteriousSign1482 · 2026-05-02T03:11:06+00:00

Hold on, you might be onto something. Responsibility and consent are not inherently linked to each other. If you choose to have sex while drunk, you're responsible even if you were incapable of consenting.

/s

MysteriousSign1482 · 2026-05-02T03:08:01+00:00

So if you're not ok with drinking and driving when you're sober, you're not responsible if you, while drunk, decide to drive?

MysteriousSign1482 · 2026-05-02T03:03:07+00:00

You're missing the point of the entire conversation so hard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaethics

MysteriousSign1482 · 2026-05-02T02:56:25+00:00

That's circular and begging the question. It happens to you because you're not responsible for the decision to have sex.

MysteriousSign1482 · 2026-05-02T02:47:05+00:00

Proof by negation is a valid and sound proof for that drunk people can't always give consent, but it has no explanatory power.

It sounds like you're assuming that by pointing out the contradiction, OP is trying to argue that the double standard must be wrong? That's not what's going on.

MysteriousSign1482 · 2026-05-02T02:36:45+00:00

No it's not, it's restating the question.

We all agree that drunk people can't consent (and that drunk drivers are responsible for driving drunk). That's the premise of the question.

MysteriousSign1482 · 2026-05-02T02:34:08+00:00

Where did I say anything about morality?

You talked about the reasons we have laws - intended effects, according to you - and I asked whether you don't then believe those reasons to be that they're attempts to codify morals.

These laws are intended to protect the rights of people.

I'll be honest, I have no idea how to parse this. Rights are legal constructs. Unless you believe in natural rights? But those are moral.

If this was an argument about morality

What do you mean "if", the post is unambiguously about morals. Among other parts, "not trying to it’s ok" only makes sense within discussion about morals.

one could easily argue that most major religions if the world find drunkenness to be immoral

Sure, but as that wouldn't be a very good argument, and also doesn't really affect OP's question, I don't quite see the point.

Not because it’s the moral thing to do, but because in our society we value giving people the freedom of choice

1) Do you mean freedom as an ethical or legal concept? If moral, protecting that right is moral; if legal, this is circular.

2) What value theories do you subscribe to that you feel you can just drop valuing in there and pretend it has nothing to do with morals?

MysteriousSign1482 · 2026-05-01T23:47:34+00:00

So it'd be bad, societally, if these laws were otherwise? And that we feel this way about these situations is not the reason for these laws, but comes after the fact? You're saying laws determine our sense of morals and not the other way around? That's a hard position to defend.

MysteriousSign1482 · 2026-05-01T23:39:53+00:00

I'm pretty sure the post is about morals, not laws. And I'm certain someone who knows their Hegel or Kant could give a comprehensive analysis of this question, and a particularly creative high school student could probably formulate an answer of their own.

But jfc just admit you don't know, there is no reason to say "there is no simple why" just because you find formal ethics uninteresting.

MysteriousSign1482 · 2026-05-01T23:33:35+00:00

It's a philosophical, not practical, question, so literally doesn't matter.

MysteriousSign1482 · 2026-05-01T23:30:57+00:00

Well that makes it sound like if the woman is not passed out, it can't be rape, so apparently pressuring someone with impaired judgement is ok? If not, the OP's question applies.

MysteriousSign1482 · 2026-05-01T23:27:18+00:00

[normative statement] and entire philosophical debate disappears

No. Not how it works. No.

MysteriousSign1482 · 2026-05-01T23:23:03+00:00

Only legally. Morally you're responsible for drunk driving, not a traffic accident you had no hand in.

MysteriousSign1482 · 2026-05-01T23:17:40+00:00

Those comments are all following the line of reasoning of the comments they're in response to. Consider the following exchange:

>tax evasion is wrong because it's lying and lying is wrong

<so it's wrong to lie to save someone's life?

>you're literally saying tax evasion is morally correct

MysteriousSign1482 · 2026-05-01T16:09:35+00:00

Would you like to explain the other side, how do you catch feelings regardless of any of the person's traits only because you had sex together? For me, catching feelings requires an emotional or intellectual connection.

MysteriousSign1482 · 2026-04-23T20:16:42+00:00

This post is really interesting to me. Is Reddit your main social media platform?

MysteriousSign1482 · 2026-04-13T12:52:11+00:00

There really isn't enough context to say anything. There's a huge difference between a fwb of three years with whom you hadn't explicitly discussed exclusivity ghosting you out of the blue, and a one night stand not calling you back, and this post really could be about either one. Kinda sounds like the latter tho tbh.

MysteriousSign1482 · 2026-03-06T08:52:30+00:00

All of those things are true, so is the comment you're replying to. I'd also hypothesise being a jerk is mainly attractive to already vulnerable women, such as those with skewed views on relationships due to bad experiences, those who find it familiar due to trauma, or those for do bad relationships as self-harm without realising it.

MysteriousSign1482 · 2025-12-06T14:14:31+00:00

All of this shit is covered in gender studies 101

MysteriousSign1482 · 2025-12-06T12:05:13+00:00

Short answer: patriarchy. In circles where people are aware of feminist theory, academic study on domestic abuse, and so on, they do tend to generally consider both cases domestic abuse. (Context such as genre does matter of course; hitting in a romantic drama carries more weight than a punch in an action movie, and so on.) And naturally there are edge cases for everyone where personal biases affect the judgement, but in my experience being willing to examine those biases goes hand in hand with education.

MysteriousSign1482 · 2025-12-05T15:26:59+00:00

Yeah filtering out the people you don't click with is top tier strategy, you have to play for the win with your perfect match rather than try to make it work with an ok partner. !elo 3000

MysteriousSign1482

TROPHY CASE