Orgies are mostly non-consensual; peer pressure, etc.
Agreed. This article is another leading indicator that people will expect government to go further up Maslow's Hierarchy in meeting their needs. The "basic necessities of life" will no longer be sufficient in contradiction to what the progressives here say.
Pretty much everything can be consensual zinfamous.
Group sex is considered more consensual than orgies. Orgies are mostly non-consensual; peer pressure, etc.
Agreed. This article is another leading indicator that people will expect government to go further up Maslow's Hierarchy in meeting their needs.
There is no logical reason that the expectations would not go higher. There simply is not. As I said before, what are now considered basic things were not considered so at a time. Such is the slope these things follow. People are looking at this only from “right now” perspective.
This thread has been quite illuminating for me. Not in terms of agreement or disagreement. But the sheer stupidity of the average American (and this forum has people of greater intelligence than average). Further confirmation of what I’ve known for a while. Any human group gets the community and society they deserve. Modern day America is a shining (dim?) example of that
Orgies are mostly non-consensual; peer pressure, etc.
So rather than consider that you have been an idiot all along, that you posted an idiotic article, that it must be the 99% of other people that have explained your failed analysis are the true idiots?
good luck with that, sparky.
There is no logical reason that the expectations would not go higher. There simply is not. As I said before, what are now considered basic things were not considered so at a time. Such is the slope these things follow. People are looking at this only from “right now” perspective.
I’d gladly consider myself an idiot if so many people didn’t draw the opposite conclusion of what the writer was saying what and my post was about. But that’s ok. No big deal
You honestly think welfare recipients are ashamed of their status? What will progressives do if someday we actually do achieve a post-scarcity world and you have billions sitting around with no purpose in life whatsoever and without the driver of hunger to spur them on to even get out of bed in the morning? Metropolitan cities are going to be a helluva big behavioral sink you're going to need to deal with. Hell, Jhhnn might even need to get a new hobby besides being jealous of the rich.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...-1960s-led-grim-predictions-humans-180954423/
I’d gladly consider myself an idiot if so many people didn’t draw the opposite conclusion of what the writer was saying what and my post was about. But that’s ok. No big deal
Agreed. This article is another leading indicator that people will expect government to go further up Maslow's Hierarchy in meeting their needs. The "basic necessities of life" will no longer be sufficient in contradiction to what the progressives here say. They're already starting to advocate for more beyond that as their focus is shifting from "basic necessities" to "income inequality" which is a matter of relative status (a higher level in Maslow's Hierarchy). As technology improve more and more, this will become more and more the case that people will expect (and eventually demand) that government provide more and more of their needs up to and including self-actualization. It's very interesting they claim to be OK with stopping at the second level of the hierarchy and not proceeding further, we'll see if that lasts.
I wish you'd stop clinging to the "welfare queen" wet dream fantasy. It wasn't true in Reagan's era and it's not true now. Not everyone can magically pull themselves up by their bootstraps and land a middle-class job through sheer force of will; the reality is that they often can't afford the education they need, don't have the right jobs nearby, and can't make enough money at available jobs to lift themselves out of poverty. You'd have a much better argument if you simultaneously advocated for a minimum wage increase, dramatic improvements in school funding (including heavily subsidized college tuition) and incentives for businesses to set up shop in impoverished areas.
There is no logical reason that the expectations would not go higher. There simply is not. As I said before, what are now considered basic things were not considered so at a time. Such is the slope these things follow. People are looking at this only from “right now” perspective.
This is why one of my favorite words in debates like this is "REASONABLE." When we are afraid of slipper slopes leading to unwanted results we have to remember that we are thinking beings and what is REASONABLE should overrule someone trying to exploit or push a law beyond the intents. Rules lawyers should never overcome our common sense. This is one of the reasons our laws should be written specifying intent and purpose instead of trying to spell out each and every technicality possible. Technicalities are too easy to skirt. Intent and purpose are much harder.That’s an interesting statement. Because what you said above about sex is what was said about some other things once upon a time ago, which now govt is involved in. You see where this is going?
Agreed. This article is another leading indicator that people will expect government to go further up Maslow's Hierarchy in meeting their needs. The "basic necessities of life" will no longer be sufficient in contradiction to what the progressives here say. They're already starting to advocate for more beyond that as their focus is shifting from "basic necessities" to "income inequality" which is a matter of relative status...
For supposedly being those that want to make too many rules, it's the liberal democrats that want to legalize sex work and legalize some drugs while de-criminalizing others - letting adults choose what they want to do with their lives.
Next time some conservative tells me I'm way too much for restrictive rules, let adults make their own choices, I'll ask them how they feel about legalizing sex work and some drugs and see how they respond. It will be predictable.
So, do we believe it reasonable to call sex a necessity? Is it reasonable to ask government to provide it for you if you can't find it on your own? Is some lout's desire to fuck more important than the rights and freedom of the person we might have to force to fuck them?
Hint: No, to all of the above.
No. Absolutely not. If you can't get somebody to *** you that's not society's fault.
Should it be legal to acquire with money in a fully regulated framework? Yes.
No. Most people have hands, you can do the work yourself if you need release.
There is an argument for human-to-human contact in general being a necessity, but you don't have a "right" to it if you have bad hygiene or are generally just a shithead, and can't get people to cuddle with you.
I am for legalizing prostitution, assuming it is heavily controlled and safe for the workers (and clients).
It IS one of the dumbest questions ever, but the answer is YES. You have a right, whether you're right- or left-handed -- to make Mother Palm and her Five Sisters do whatever they want to you.This is probably one of the dumbest questions I've ever seen.
No.
That's not sex, that's masturbation. The answer to the OP is no. Sex requires a second, willing party.It IS one of the dumbest questions ever, but the answer is YES. You have a right, whether you're right- or left-handed -- to make Mother Palm and her Five Sisters do whatever they want to you.