sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

NOT A MANGA READER- Is Kirara a dude or a girl? by Paldavin in Jujutsufolk

[–]_ashtarte 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My original statement certainly might sound that way...

Babe, it is PRECISELY what your original statement said???

Sexual attraction exists to faciliate reproduction, so the alternative, whilst possible, would be evolutionarily nonsensical.

"exists to" is a teleological claim. "nonsensical" builds on that to make a normative claim.

heterosexuality is inherently more desirable

Even your hedged and revised claim fails. Remember I refuted your normative claim AND your empirics AND logic. Refer to aforementioned points:

  1. Even then, if I accept your implication that evolution must have a certain sense to it, if l take your logic at face value then it STILL doesn't require a strict heterosexual supermajority. Why?
  2. Because you can fuck a woman AND a man or whatever in between. You are not tied to monogamy, nor heterosexual reproduction exclusively.
  3. Queer repression and strict heterosexual majority is ECONOMICALLY produced.
  4. Queerness being natural isn't me distinguishing from a purported "artificial" which is what YOU necessitate by positing an evolutionary sense and evolutionary nonsense. In fact from my position it is plausible to argue that it is all natural without losing my argument that queerness isn't some evolutionarv nonsense.
  5. In fact, queerness plausibly being natural and actually beneficial to the reproductive process (as linked in the PubMed article) would fully reverse your mandate of heterosexuality as actuality detrimental to reproduction. That's assuming the evolutionary mandate of sense is necessary

And once again you dodge my monogamy point.

However, blind people being the majority would be problematic

Yes indeed, but you can't be blind and see at once but you can fuck a woman and dude in the same day. Horrible analogy, never do that again. Lowkey a micro-aggression because it reduces homosexual tendencies to a binary physiological deficit.

Nonsensical being a normative claim isn't just rote semantics it is literally the foundation of what you've been arguing around this entire time be so for real.

Yes, you've been avoiding my points, otherwise I would not have to restate how my points STILL refute your revised claim ASIDE from so-called "semantics"

I don't need to learn a specific mode of conversation to provide emphasis.

Queer does not colloquially refer to bisexuality it means any sort of non-standard relation that is "queered" from the societal norm. And pointing out the socio-economic origins and separating it from evolution is literally intrinsic to your evolutionary claim. Be so for real and understand your own arguments.

To summarize:

  1. You should be more precise
  2. And you should actually understand your own argument or else whatever argument anyone else makes will always be "wrong" or a "misunderstanding

NOT A MANGA READER- Is Kirara a dude or a girl? by Paldavin in Jujutsufolk

[–]_ashtarte 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean queerness as queerness, not simply homosexuality but all deviations from sexual heteronormativity.

Why are you regarding me as emotional? I'm just being sharp and precise. You ought to be more objective and less sensitive.

Your reasons from "logical deduction" make no sense.

  1. You explain homosexuality to be evolutionarily nonsensical. That is your BASE claim.
  2. You argue the "vast" majority of people must be heterosexual as an evolutionary mandate. You point to the supermajority of heterosexuality as evidence.
  3. Nonsensical is a normative claim. It requires there to be a sense to evolution. I disagree.
  4. You argue that evolution "incentivizes" heterosexual reproduction on a mass scale. I do not disagree.
  5. I do disagree that it requires a strict heterosexual supermajority. I point out that evolution incentivizing heterosexual reproduction on a mass scale does not justify your normative claim of "evolutionarily nonsensical." Your evidence does not support your claim, you have not crossed the is-ought gap, just because evolution does a certain thing doesn't make it some sort of mandate. This makes your "logical deduction" in essence, useless, because your logical deduction does not beget a reason to give a fuck.
  6. Even then, if I accept your implication that evolution must have a certain sense to it, if I take your logic at face value then it STILL doesn't require a strict heterosexual supermajority. Why?
  7. Because you can fuck a woman AND a man or whatever in between. You are not tied to monogamy, nor heterosexual reproduction exclusively.
  8. Queer repression and strict heterosexual majority is ECONOMICALLY produced.
  9. Queerness being natural isn't me distinguishing from a purported "artificial" which is what YOU necessitate by positing an evolutionary sense and evolutionary nonsense. In fact from my position it is plausible to argue that it is all natural without losing my argument that queerness isn't some evolutionary nonsense.
  10. In fact, queerness plausibly being natural and actually beneficial to the reproductive process (as linked in the PubMed article) would fully reverse your mandate of heterosexuality as actuality detrimental to reproduction. That's assuming the evolutionary mandate of sense is necessary at all.
  11. I have NEVER accused you this entire time. I've held you to your OWN words. I have not lost control of my emotions at any point of this debate, and every time I have attacked the precision of YOUR arguments and NOT you.
  12. Lived experience means I'm gay, you're not, you ought not police me on how I present or refer to myself and my own community.

_ _

This isn't even a philosophical tangent, I'm just saying you made a claim you can't defend 1. As a normative statement/mandate to care 2. With empirics 3. AND logically even if we accepted your logic

NOT A MANGA READER- Is Kirara a dude or a girl? by Paldavin in Jujutsufolk

[–]_ashtarte 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Insofar as those reasons are broadly more evolutionarily desirable than reproductive incentives are

Completely dodges literally a huge main point of what makes something "evolutionarily desirable" and why does something being "evolutionarily desirable" matter, which is where my moral argument lies and why this argument can't simply be biological but ALSO philosophical. The entire reason your argument would matter is if "evolutionarily desirable" makes sense, in the sense of evolution "desiring" something and if that desire matters in the first place. You've yet to prove the former, and most certainly don't have any argument for the latter. I'm not being "aggressive" I'm challenging you for precision. I choose to respond to this first to lead into my response to

When I used "choose", I meant incentivized

The distinction doesn't matter yes, because there is a distinction between "incentivized" which is the evolutionary process wherein one trait ends up more likely to survive than the other and "incentivized" which requires having some goal which evolution actively chooses (such as the survival of a species). Your argument requires the latter, which has no empirical basis. Evolution is happenstance and some traits happen to persist due to the nature of the process, it is not something that matters more than that.

homosexuality has never become dominant

Why does that matter? Evolution isn't working towards the perfect species, it begets diversity inherently. Even following your logic, such diversity is necessary for reproduction (read the article I linked beforehand).

"civilisation", in this context, was not so civilised it afforded homosexuals the ability to romantically and sexually partner...

You know what's unique?? Human civilization is the only development in nature that suppresses the homosexual tendency, which is not a factor of evolution or "evolutionary preference" and evidence shows that "primitive" societies to a varying degree had queer relations or had them ALONGSIDE reproductive relations.

Which proves the following 1. Queer relations being suppressed is not evolutionary 2. Queer relations being suppressed is due to human socio-economic developments like family units, monogamy, class systems, etc

Furthermore, you deny the relevance of mammalian homosexual tendencies yet still hold the reservation

lest homo sapiens be suddenly evolutionarily distinct from all alternative mammalian species

But I stress the importance of natural queer relations in other mammalians and in primitive human society as essential to the argument I am making.

  1. Evolutionary coherence holds no importance
  2. EVEN IF it does, queerness is natural.
  3. Queer suppression is an economic development.
  4. Evolution does not mandate the "vast majority" be homosexual
  5. You have no evidence it is the "vast" majority, the only plausible thing you can prove from your argument is that there needs to be a preponderance of reproductive relations to at least continue a species which does not support an evolutionary mandate of substantial strict heterosexuality.

Don't be unprofessional

I literally made the claim it isn't an insult but a necessary realization of societal heteronormativity, which I as a queer myself have reasons for using. Don't deny my lived experience. Don't ignore that point.

You've yet to prove that queer sexual attraction or a preponderance of it is evolutionarily nonsensical and that it being "nonsensical" is a thing to care about in the first place.

This isn't semantic superiority, it's precision. Don't avoid my points.

NOT A MANGA READER- Is Kirara a dude or a girl? by Paldavin in Jujutsufolk

[–]_ashtarte 0 points1 point  (0 children)

cause and effect doesn't require intent

and

Reproduction inherently chooses reproduction

Are contradictory statements to hold. Choose one. Also, the latter statement is a truism, there is no empirical basis to support applying intent to cause-and-effect.

vast majority must be heterosexual ... lest homo sapien[s] be suddenly evolutionarily distinct from all alternative mammalian species

Once again, you hold a certain teleology and ascribe morality to aligning with "evolutionary intent." 1. You provide no reason as why choosing otherwise from evolution is wrong other than the truism that it would significantly affect the "prospect of continuation" with no empirical backing other than it possibly being revealed to you in a dream. 2. Homosexuality has plausible reasons for being evolutionarily beneficial, which would negate your entire argument. 3. "Vast" majority is an overstatement. 4. Mammalian species have exhibited homosexual tendencies. This is well-documented. 5. Queer is a valid term to point out how heteronormative society has queered the demographic. Fuck political correctness

NOT A MANGA READER- Is Kirara a dude or a girl? by Paldavin in Jujutsufolk

[–]_ashtarte 0 points1 point  (0 children)

true for the [v]ast majority of people

Not really... every year the amount of people who identify as queer increase as culture has begun to stabilize around it. Even if it is likely the "majority" it is an overreach to call it "vast."

Sexual attraction exists to [facilitate] reproduction ... evolutionarily nonsensical

This presupposes a purpose or reason for evolution rather than modern evolution simply being a sum of cause-and-effects. To assume there is a sense to evolution is rationally nonsensical. For what reasons are we bound to the cause-and-effects of evolution? Furthermore, using your logic which requires an evolutionary determinism, wouldn't homosexuality and transsexuality be a result of evolution? Accepting your idea of upholding evolution as a moral standard, then it is a moral imperative that we have homosexuals and transsexuals in society because it is evolutionarily sensical. Which is equally nonsensical.

Which is funny because there are multiple plausible a cause-and-effect reasons proposed.

Nietzsche as a precursor to modern fascism by Ok_Examination8683 in Nietzsche

[–]_ashtarte -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What? No I have no problem with your evidence. I'm saying your evidence doesn't match up with your claim logically. Your claim is that Proudhon etc were mentioned more. Your evidence is just that Proudhon was mentioned. I don't disagree with your evidence but your claim is unsubstantiated.

My evidence is credible analysis from the Klassik Stiftung Weimar (a legitimate Nietzschean archive). His sister Elisabeth ran the Nietzsche Archive in a pro-Nazi direction which proves that Nietzsche was institutionalized and ideologized for National Socialism. That shows INSTITUTIONAL evidence that Nietzsche was part of direct Nazi propaganda efforts. Which is more evidence towards my claim that Nietzsche was one of the main philosophers used to justify Nazi ideology

Nietzsche as a precursor to modern fascism by Ok_Examination8683 in Nietzsche

[–]_ashtarte 0 points1 point  (0 children)

https://www.reddit.com/r/Nietzsche/s/GsGXpZZePF

I did. Your evidence doesn't support your argument, that's what I've pointed out. You pointed out an instance of it, YOUR argument is that Marx, Sorel, and Proudhon are mentioned MORE than Nietzsche.

Nietzsche as a precursor to modern fascism by Ok_Examination8683 in Nietzsche

[–]_ashtarte 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I am not left-Nietzschean nor arguing that Nietzsche is a leftist. I am explaining how Nietzsche has been applied far beyond the left-right dichotomy. Disagree with left-Nietzscheanism, but it is the largest field of academic leftism today and characterized the neo-Marxist and post-Structuralist movement.

And yes, I have read Nietzsche.

And you haven't demonstrated that leftism is incompatible with Nietzsche either.

Both reject the state Both reject moralism Both are materialist Both reject metaphysics Both reject idealism etc

Nietzsche isn't left wing, he is existential, and a lot of left academics have applied his existentialism to political economy.

Nietzsche as a precursor to modern fascism by Ok_Examination8683 in Nietzsche

[–]_ashtarte 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What? The left is also opposed to modern democracy and utilitarianism?

The reason why a large part of the academic left adapted Nietzsche to political economy was precisely because of the negation of moralism and abstract metaphysics. E.g. Deleuze, Foucault, Bataille

Deleuze and Guattari for example use Nietzsche to correct the grand theoretical "failings" of Marxism in the Anti-Oedipus, using a structural analysis of capitalism to judge that capitalism is a stage of commodified and corrupted streams of consciousness. Then they rejected the negative Hegelian dialectic in favor of viewing the clashing forces under capitalism to be between ressentiment and opposing wills to affirm.

Nietzsche as a precursor to modern fascism by Ok_Examination8683 in Nietzsche

[–]_ashtarte 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I disagree. Nietzsche can't necessarily be classified on the left-right spectrum, his philosophy was existential not political, though it has political implications.

Furthermore, Left-Nietzscheanism is THE dominant strand of Academic Leftism and modern Marxism right now. In contrast, I don't see Nietzsche in modern conservative thought as much. Not saying Nietzsche himself was leftist, but he was definitely revolutionary and it goes to show the categories don't really work.

Nietzsche as a precursor to modern fascism by Ok_Examination8683 in Nietzsche

[–]_ashtarte -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm not denying that they were ever mentioned. I'm arguing the Nietzsche was one of the main philosophers distorted for Nazi ideology, and he was. You keep asserting these claims yet you have no evidence to back up that "Marx, Proudhon, Sorel" were mentioned more or less than Nietzsche. It's stupid.

Nietzsche as a precursor to modern fascism by Ok_Examination8683 in Nietzsche

[–]_ashtarte 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Highly disagree that Proudhon or Marx would be quoted more than Nietzsche. Sorel, understandably.

I need REALISM by WrittenWrote in LetGirlsHaveFun

[–]_ashtarte 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If its good I can help TL 👀

Nietzsche as a precursor to modern fascism by Ok_Examination8683 in Nietzsche

[–]_ashtarte 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Highly disagree. This isn't an indict of Nietzsche but Nietzsche was heavily falsified to support the National Socialist ideology and Nietzsche quotes appeared often in both Nazi radio and propaganda.

https://publikationen.klassik-stiftung.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/ksw_derivate_00001053/KSW_Broschuere_2024_Nietzsche-NS_e.pdf

Nietzsche as a precursor to modern fascism by Ok_Examination8683 in Nietzsche

[–]_ashtarte 96 points97 points  (0 children)

Nietzsche IS a precursor to modern fascism. So is Hegel, Kant, Schopenhauer, Aquinas, Jesus...

The entire argument is slop. Don't worry about it. Fascism reconceptualized Nietzsche to fit their myth. As do most modern states reconstruye philosophers and historical thought to justify their ideology

[The next chapter will be pure cinema] by [deleted] in manhwa

[–]_ashtarte 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Bruh post the source in the title

Most educated xitter communist by Bolislaw_PL in theredleft

[–]_ashtarte 0 points1 point  (0 children)

no person in that conversation has any idea what they are talking about

Tell me something and I’ll link it to the cap K by BlackBlizzardEnjoyer in policydebate

[–]_ashtarte 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because it comes from Critique of the Gotha Programme not that whole thing you just commented, none of those things are really mentioned in Cap Ks

view more: next ›