Heterosexuality is a Universally Preferable Behaviour

2016-04-24 at 3:31 AM UTC

#1

The Self Taught Man Black Hole

I have hear a lot of talk on this forum about what yall dub UPB or "Universally Preferable Behavior". I, not being an ethicist, will note that I have not read up on universally preferable behavior but will note that it seems quite reasonable to define it as behavior that universally preferable to some other behavior.

Now let me begin by saying that I will define universally preferable behavior as above. We can then assume that there are behaviors that are beneficial and behaviors that are less so. In terms of what is most important (the continuity of our race and species) there is nothing more derogatory to that end than a homosexual life style. Sure you may make the argument that with test tube babies and science the idea of human copulation to produce offspring will become unnecessary but this is a ludicrous claim. To think that the natural will be overtaken by the synthetic is nonsense since the human drive is inherently towards the natural and it is an undeniable psychological fact (at least in the days of sane psychology) that one who is averse to this drive is indeed mentally ill (at least in the sense that their preference does not align with the majority nor does it serve a useful function socially).

So to round this out we can without a doubt say that heteronormative individuals are indeed preforming a behavior that is beneficial to the race as a whole by getting together, having a nice fuck and making a new human. The subsequent care for that new human is assumed to be through the couple who preformed the act but is necessarily unimportant for this argument because what truly matters (in terms of our argument here) is that a new human is created rather than reared. Homosexuality on the other hand is universally unpreferable in this regard as there is no reality in which a homosexual couple can, together without the assistance of a multitude of doctors, social workers, sperm donors or surrogate mothers, have a natural child. We can see that even from a Marxist (fucking gross!) standpoint that heterosexuality is far more advantageous than homosexuality simply by comparing the amount of labor involved in each process.

Q.E.D.

2016-04-24 at 3:59 AM UTC

#2

Lanny Bird of Courage

I want to respond to this enough that I'm fairly confident it's a troll and thus I shouldn't. So I won't.

2016-04-24 at 4:02 AM UTC

#3

The Self Taught Man Black Hole

It is not. I would genuinely be interested in hearing your response.

2016-04-24 at 4:21 AM UTC

#4

Lanny Bird of Courage

So I guess the immediate issue is in defining preference-holding agents. It seems like most animals are capable of preferring some set of things to another and by and large increasing human populations harms the ability of most animals to satisfy their preferences. So you need some argument for higher and lower preference but that's going to drag you dangerously close to utilitarianism which is a well known trap set by marxists to justify totalitarianism. I'd argue there fundamentally is no such thing as a truly libertarian utilitarian. You could of course try some rationalist argument, but go ahead and pick one and I'll show you how it defeats the premises that universally preferable means morally obligatory. And I mean that's just in dealing with the argument itself, there's this whole world of whacky politics and cultish lifestyle restrictions Molyneux and co draw from it that's not justified at all.

2016-04-24 at 4:51 AM UTC

#5

The Self Taught Man Black Hole

Your naturalism is amusing. As much as they cannot differentiate between that which is for nourishment and that which is waste they refuse to take any argument that Man is superior to all other beings. God gave us this earth, friend. He gave us every gott dayum thang on it, the dirt, the sea, the grass and their beasts. And he gave all that to us as much as he gave us to that. You may think I am trolling but there is everything to support this theory. Discounting silly arguments of our reality state (OH but ur in a sImUlAtIoN maid bi alienz! or other more well counstructed yet fundamentally flawed arguments) there is nothing to prove that we are not the apex predator. In our time here we have molded the land to our liking. We have taken what we needed and paid the prices nessecary for survival. Among all that we are where we are and there is no reasonable evidence our place is threatened.

Now I will tell you why you subverted any real argument against my points but rather tell me what arguments I need to defeat for my argument to work. This is something I have seen you do and it is a particularly hooked nosed deceit you are pulling. In terms of biological imperative my argument holds. But lefties such as yourself cannot handle biology and must resort to intellectual masturbation to make a point. It is no doubt that you have proceeded upon or at least have attempted to proceed upon the aforementioned biological imperative (perhaps not even realizing it a means of production). Are you to tell me this natural drive is unnatural and that its unnatural deviations are genuine, or at least moreso than the natural drive? Perhaps I have convoluted myself. To speak more precisely, totalitarianism is not an aspect of copulation. Capitalism cannot sell babies and Fascism cannot force them anymore than the Communists can prevent them. It is universally preferable to engage in heteronormative behavior for one simple undeniable fact. It holds true beyond ideology, philosophy or what have you. In any society ever the majority has always been of a heteronormative persuasion. In any declining society approval (or at least tolerance) of homosexual behavior emerges. This is the ebb and flow of nations and civilization.

Now address my argument as it is rather than resorting to some fallacy about totalitarianism and elevated preference.

2016-04-24 at 5:08 AM UTC

#6

Lanny Bird of Courage

Your naturalism is amusing. As much as they cannot differentiate between that which is for nourishment and that which is waste they refuse to take any argument that Man is superior to all other beings. God gave us this earth, friend. He gave us every gott dayum thang on it, the dirt, the sea, the grass and their beasts. And he gave all that to us as much as he gave us to that. You may think I am trolling but there is everything to support this theory. Discounting silly arguments of our reality state (OH but ur in a sImUlAtIoN maid bi alienz! or other more well counstructed yet fundamentally flawed arguments) there is nothing to prove that we are not the apex predator. In our time here we have molded the land to our liking. We have taken what we needed and paid the prices nessecary for survival. Among all that we are where we are and there is no reasonable evidence our place is threatened.

Classical is/ought problem. Learn2Hume

Now I will tell you why you subverted any real argument against my points but rather tell me what arguments I need to defeat for my argument to work.

Uhh, m8, those are the same thing.

This is something I have seen you do and it is a particularly hooked nosed deceit you are pulling. In terms of biological imperative my argument holds. But lefties such as yourself cannot handle biology and must resort to intellectual masturbation to make a point. It is no doubt that you have proceeded upon or at least have attempted to proceed upon the aforementioned biological imperative (perhaps not even realizing it a means of production). Are you to tell me this natural drive is unnatural and that its unnatural deviations are genuine, or at least moreso than the natural drive?

Who's the laughable naturalist now?

Now address my argument as it is rather than resorting to some fallacy about totalitarianism and elevated preference.

I don't think you know what "fallacy" means.

2016-04-24 at 5:48 AM UTC

#7

The Self Taught Man Black Hole

Classical is/ought problem. Learn2Hume

Now let us cut the grass here and be honest. You cannot discount an argument with the silly and convoluted assumption that everyone is on your exact level enough to completely comprehend 8 words addressing each issue. Do you think Hume just said "Nahhh bruh, i been thining this over and you got a classic is/ought goin on nigga". Not once, he most certianly would have demonstrated the is and the ought of the thing and refrained from being a cheeky cunt.

Uhh, m8, those are the same thing.

To say that two differences are the same is preposterous. Sploo has tried his hand at p = np and failed quite miserably. His IQ being several standard deviations higher than your own I am taken to believe if he cannot solve it you certainly have no chance. Please prove how exactly one argument is every argument against every perspective. I would be delighted if you could provide something rigorous. Your deciet shows yet again in the fact that you must equate two things (a statment and its proof) unjustly and without foundation. As an analytical philosopher you certianly enjoy pointing out the flaws but you certianly cannot explain them away either and therefore must resort to making vastly unreliable claims.

Who's the laughable naturalist now?

You also claim I must be a naturalist simply because I used the term natural and unnatural. It is precisely because I find homosexuality unnatural that excludes me from being a naturalist. It is precisely because I elevate the male female bond that I can not be a naturalist. The Naturalist would only see pleasure in the sexual act and allow the homosexual and the heterosexual to be equated without looking far enough ahead to note that there is indeed a sizeable difference in the outcome of each attraction and their subsequent actions.

I don't think you know what "fallacy" means.

Oh shit nigger, you found my secret. I have never taken a high school lit course. :rollseyes:

2016-04-24 at 6:24 AM UTC

#8

Lanny Bird of Courage

Now let us cut the grass here and be honest. You cannot discount an argument with the silly and convoluted assumption that everyone is on your exact level enough to completely comprehend 8 words addressing each issue. Do you think Hume just said "Nahhh bruh, i been thining this over and you got a classic is/ought goin on nigga". Not once, he most certianly would have demonstrated the is and the ought of the thing and refrained from being a cheeky cunt.

Do you understand the is/ought problem? It's a hurdle any moral theory has to jump to be potentially valid and I'm saying "apex predator" fails it, we have lucid refutations of it going as far back as the republic. If you're not familiar with the problem, or arguments around why "might make right" fails to resolve it I can point you to resources and discuss them if you like.

To say that two differences are the same is preposterous.

I'm saying there's the same thing though. Specifically I'm saying an argument against a given point, and an argument you have to defeat to make that point valid are the same thing.

Sploo has tried his hand at p = np and failed quite miserably. His IQ being several standard deviations higher than your own I am taken to believe if he cannot solve it you certainly have no chance. Please prove how exactly one argument is every argument against every perspective. I would be delighted if you could provide something rigorous. Your deciet shows yet again in the fact that you must equate two things (a statment and its proof) unjustly and without foundation. As an analytical philosopher you certianly enjoy pointing out the flaws but you certianly cannot explain them away either and therefore must resort to making vastly unreliable claims.

Wait, so this is a troll? Come on man, don't waste our time here. Go out and do something fun, don't waste your time here making arguments you don't actually believe.

You also claim I must be a naturalist simply because I used the term natural and unnatural. It is precisely because I find homosexuality unnatural that excludes me from being a naturalist. It is precisely because I elevate the male female bond that I can not be a naturalist. The Naturalist would only see pleasure in the sexual act and allow the homosexual and the heterosexual to be equated without looking far enough ahead to note that there is indeed a sizeable difference in the outcome of each attraction and their subsequent actions.

Sure using the terms natural and unnatural don't make you a naturalist, but rebukes such as "lefties such as yourself cannot handle biology" certainly suggest that's the case.

2016-04-24 at 5:15 PM UTC

#9

The Self Taught Man Black Hole

To be quite frank I remember the is/ought problem vaugely from my freshmen philosophy class but perhaps my understanding has faded more than I care to admit. If you would be so kind as to post your resources I can trim up my arguments to fit the necessary criteria.

What you seem to be saying is that I need an argument that defeats all arguments against it which seems to me rather impossible and certainly impractical. Could not someone come to me and argue against me with a simple no? Where is the line of validity drawn? (I ask that question very seriously as I am still confused to your first point regarding totalitarianism and utility in the sex time and feel that there must be some distinction between factors that are indeed relate able to the point and extraneous thoughts.

Sploo has tried his hand at p = np and failed quite miserably. His IQ being several standard deviations higher than your own I am taken to believe if he cannot solve it you certainly have no chance. Please prove how exactly one argument is every argument against every perspective. I would be delighted if you could provide something rigorous. Your deciet shows yet again in the fact that you must equate two things (a statment and its proof) unjustly and without foundation. As an analytical philosopher you certianly enjoy pointing out the flaws but you certianly cannot explain them away either and therefore must resort to making vastly unreliable claims.

The bold parts are not a troll. The not bold parts are light hearted bantz. Learn the difference with me or you may find yourself picking the wrong argument. I will again admit that my formal learning in philosophy is dusty so forgive me if I am making a plebeian error but I believe my inquiry regarding the equality of a statement and its proof to be the real point I am shooting for. You tell me to go out and do something fun. Well to me this is fun. I would admit am not arguing points I do not believe rather I am arguing against someone with a wider formal knowledge base. This is fun to me because I am able to learn from your knowledge base and expand my own. I am autismal like that.

And to say that only a naturalist would use "rebukes such as "lefties such as yourself cannot handle biology"" seems to me to be nonsense. Arguing the scientific basis of any thing seems rather appropriate in a philosophical discussion on that scientific phenomenon (here we are discussing biological m8ing but the idea could be extended to pretty much any other area of scientific inquest). Am I to call myself a naturalist based on the simple fact that I adhere to natural and biological facts? I ask this as well in a serious tone as I would assume the naturalist to believe the offspring of a deer and a human to be essentially the same but I elevate the human as the deer obviously cannot hold a job (in nonbanter the human can do exceptional things the deer can not).

So inform me, o great nigger faggot. Inform me of my philosophical errors and I shall attempt to fix my arguments to appease these incorrectivities. You see, while I may seem to be trolling, I am actually learning. I may seem to be fallacious (and perhaps I am) but simply dismissing my phallacy does not rectify it or give me the why of the thing. I ask of you, greatest spaciest of negros, to guide me so that I may hold steadfast in my argument and so that I may gain logical consistency.

OOOMba WOOOMba OOOMba WOOOMba SHIggY diGGy DIggY diGGy DIggY!

2016-04-24 at 5:52 PM UTC

#10

Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]

I dig this.

2016-04-25 at 1:25 AM UTC

#11

Lanny Bird of Courage

To be quite frank I remember the is/ought problem vaugely from my freshmen philosophy class but perhaps my understanding has faded more than I care to admit. If you would be so kind as to post your resources I can trim up my arguments to fit the necessary criteria.

The SEP article is always a good starting point, it may be a bit dense, the wikipedia article on the subject gives less nuanced but still valid coverage.

What you seem to be saying is that I need an argument that defeats all arguments against it which seems to me rather impossible and certainly impractical. Could not someone come to me and argue against me with a simple no? Where is the line of validity drawn?

So your typical phil 101 answer here is arguments are successful (that is, they give us a reason to believe in the truthfulness of their conclusions) only when their form is valid and their premises are true. Thus if another argument can be successfully made that denies either of those things then the argument being disputed is unsuccessful: you must either restructure your initial argument, admit its conclusion was false, or demonstrate the argument against was similarly flawed. So in presenting an argument you're not obligated to refuse objects like "just no", or "I disagree because" but if you want a philosophically good reason to believe in the conclusion of your argument you should be prepared to refute any argument that denies the truthfulness of your argument's premises, or which demonstrates its from is invalid.

To reify: I've taken a rough sketch of your argument to be "every species ought to provide for its survival, humans are a species of life, thus humans ought to provide for their survival" but I deny your first premise on the grounds that it comes from nowhere. You might say "oh but everything (mostly) always tries to survive" and OK, generally true, but that's an "is" claim, a statement about how the world is, not how it ought to be and thus not a defense of your first premise as described above. If that's not your argument then now's the time to make that clear.

(I ask that question very seriously as I am still confused to your first point regarding totalitarianism and utility in the sex time and feel that there must be some distinction between factors that are indeed relate able to the point and extraneous thoughts.

Well that was partly a joke. I'm saying if you want to play the game of taking preferable behavior to be morally right behaviour while maintaining human-centrism then you need to explain why the preferences of lower animals don't matter, which leads to kinds of preference and preference maximization which sounds a lot like preference utilitarianism. I'll make the broad statement that utilitarians generally are statists, rarely libertarians, never insofar as I'm aware opposed to homosexuality.

And to say that only a naturalist would use "rebukes such as "lefties such as yourself cannot handle biology"" seems to me to be nonsense. Arguing the scientific basis of any thing seems rather appropriate in a philosophical discussion on that scientific phenomenon (here we are discussing biological m8ing but the idea could be extended to pretty much any other area of scientific inquest)/

What we're discussing is the ethical permissibility of certain sorts of m8ing, no? Again, is/outght, you can say any amount of things about the realities of our biological realities, but none of it can build up to a claim about how the world ought to be.

So inform me, o great nigger faggot. Inform me of my philosophical errors and I shall attempt to fix my arguments to appease these incorrectivities. You see, while I may seem to be trolling, I am actually learning. I may seem to be fallacious (and perhaps I am) but simply dismissing my phallacy does not rectify it or give me the why of the thing. I ask of you, greatest spaciest of negros, to guide me so that I may hold steadfast in my argument and so that I may gain logical consistency.

Whoa there baby, buy a girl a drink first will ya

2016-04-25 at 1:39 AM UTC

#12

Sharpie Houston

Pederosexuality?

2016-04-25 at 2:38 AM UTC

#13

The Self Taught Man Black Hole

I will respond to the rest of your post in time but this I believe needs adressing

What we're discussing is the ethical permissibility of certain sorts of m8ing, no?

Mating: the action of animals coming together to breed; copulation.
What is called homosex cannot be called mating as it cannot produce offspring. This is where I am critisizing your naturalism. You can take two things, in this case two actions, and equate them even though their inherent outcome is different. Sex between a man and a woman is copulation, mating, real sex with the potential of real offspring. Gay "sex" between a man and a man or woman and woman is nothing more than glorified masturbation. Refute that.

2016-04-25 at 3:19 AM UTC

#14

The Self Taught Man Black Hole

To reify: I've taken a rough sketch of your argument to be "every species ought to provide for its survival, humans are a species of life, thus humans ought to provide for their survival" but I deny your first premise on the grounds that it comes from nowhere. You might say "oh but everything (mostly) always tries to survive" and OK, generally true, but that's an "is" claim, a statement about how the world is, not how it ought to be and thus not a defense of your first premise as described above. If that's not your argument then now's the time to make that clear.

I have yet to read your link but I quickly wanted to respond to this as well. What I gather from the segment of your post I quoted and bolded my understanding is that you are making arguments geared towards how the world ought to be rather than how it is. Perhaps I am still misunderstanding but it seems to me that the way the world is trumps the way it ought to be because to say how it ought to be is a rather subjective idea and the way it is is, well, objective concrete and extant. Perhaps my confusion will clear once I read the article but it seems to me that this is/ought conundrum is silly because you are arguing against what is and promoting what you ought. Again correct me if I am wrong in this but that just seems like ought is philosophical masturbation rather than any substantive understanding of how a thing really is.

2016-04-25 at 3:21 AM UTC

#15

Lanny Bird of Courage

Mating: the action of animals coming together to breed; copulation.
What is called homosex cannot be called mating as it cannot produce offspring. This is where I am critisizing your naturalism. You can take two things, in this case two actions, and equate them even though their inherent outcome is different. Sex between a man and a woman is copulation, mating, real sex with the potential of real offspring. Gay "sex" between a man and a man or woman and woman is nothing more than glorified masturbation. Refute that.

Masturbation is fine?

2016-04-25 at 3:28 AM UTC

#16

The Self Taught Man Black Hole

That is another argument entirely is it not? If we are to include an extraneus discussion on the preferability of masturbation we could certianly argue that the solo form is more preferable with a partner as with the solo you will not spread disease to another. And perhaps you will say the heteronormative may spread disease. This is true but there is the fact that it has the potential outcome of a human being. The homosexual does not have this upside and must therefore be less preferable at the least in terms of risk and reward. And no hedonism for its own sake is no reward.

Im assuming you arrived to quickly to address my above post so I will give you time.

2016-04-25 at 3:39 AM UTC

#17

Lanny Bird of Courage

Would you make the same criticism for heterosexuality where there is no chance of conception?

2016-04-25 at 3:43 AM UTC

#18

The Self Taught Man Black Hole

Considering that is not the case you seem to just be running in circles. Is there a point you are getting at or am I just pulling my own pud?

2016-04-25 at 4:09 AM UTC

#19

Lanny Bird of Courage

If you object to homosexuality on the grounds that it doesn't stand to produce offspring then I'm not clear on why you endorse heterosexuality without chance of conception, they seem to be functionally equivalent.

2016-04-25 at 5:06 AM UTC

#20

The Self Taught Man Black Hole

It is important to note that I have not endorsed heterosexuality without chance of conception. And the difference between the two situations is that in a tiny minority of cases a heterosexual encounter will not produce offspring under conditions that would normally produce them (i.e. no birth control, ovulation time and other biological factors) whereas there is no case in which a homosexual relationship will produce an offspring. The normal of heterosexuality is production. The definite of homosexuality is no production.

User Controls

Navigation

Heterosexuality is a Universally Preferable Behaviour