>>28207216
You are posting frogs on the internet. I bet you even have a 'Pepe the frog' folder.

You deserve to be made fun of, because you simply ARE inferior. You're of as much value to everyone else as a gnat.

>>28207216
>is there a difference between a practice and an existential predicament?

Yes, obviously.

>>28207236
But you'd support laws to make the best people have more sex, right? That's a consistent belief and not the topic of this thread.

>>28207247
but in both it's a practice, they're still just choosing not to have sex with us or be our girlfriends

>>28207260
What does eugenics have to do with you jerking off to anime and playing video games all day?

>>28207291
Nothing, and I don't play video games or jerk off to anime. Tell me what the moral difference is between a woman choosing not to have sex with me, and legislation that makes it illegal to have sex with me.

>>28207307
The outcome is the same, i.e. you never getting laid.

Not sure where you draw an equivalence in morality, however.
Explain to me how they're morally equivalent. And no, saying the outcome is the same and that therefore it constitutes the same moral inequity, is not a valid argument

>>28207307
One is a choice on behalf of the agent (the female who refuses to have sex with you) and the other is an state-sanctioned imposition transferred onto you, always-already debarring you from a potential sexual relationship.

There is nothing similar about them

>>28207368
They're both some entity deciding that I shouldn't have sex, obviously if it was just one person I might be able to find another person to have sex with, but chronic virginity is basically society saying that you shouldn't reproduce. We live in a representative democracy, so the state doing the same doesn't make much of a difference, because in both causes at least a majority wants me to never reproduce. If it's a non-democratic state then I don't see a moral difference either because they're both similar collective institutions.

>>28207391
What makes state-sanctioning different from the colelctive decision by society that I should be a virgin?

>>28207404
You are renouncing all personal responsibility for your being a virgin. Tons of ugly guys have sex.

You could have sex yourself, just go pay a whore if you're so damaged that you cannot function in a social setting.

>"I have a RIGHT to reproduce!"
No.

>>28207427
That's not what we're talking about here. If I don't have a right to reproduce then how is eugenics wrong?

>>28207427
So if people don't have a right to reproduce why are people against eugenics?

>>28207411
There is no 'collective decision', i.e. a homogeneous intentional decision to deprive you of the capacity to have sex.

>>28207443
There is in all practical terms because nobody has had sex with me yet.

>>28207437
Because Hitler did it.

Seriously, that's it.

>>28207453
Read up on the role of intention in ethics.

>>28207471
Socrates btfo that like 2000 years ago. Nobody does the wrong thing on purpose.

And anyway, the intention is still for me to not have sex with them.

Technically, yes. Effectively, not really.

>>28207488
>Nobody does the wrong thing on purpose.
Plenty of people do.

>And anyway, the intention is still for me to not have sex with them.

In the one case you have individual agents who consciously and autonomously choose not to have sex with you. It is subject to their own whims whether or not they can overlook your imperfections and inadequacies. There are plenty of ways to remedy those.

In the other it is the state which decides what is undesirable and it's the state that deprives you from being able to get laid.

Also, you are perfectly capable of having sex even if you're an anime-watching video game playing manchild who browses /r9k/. Just pay someone.

>>28207535
>Plenty of people do.
No, nobody wants anything bad to happen. Everything bad that anyone has ever does comes from a misconception of what bad and good really are.

>>28207535
>In the one case you have individual agents who consciously and autonomously choose not to have sex with you. It is subject to their own whims whether or not they can overlook your imperfections and inadequacies. There are plenty of ways to remedy those.
>In the other it is the state which decides what is undesirable and it's the state that deprives you from being able to get laid.
>Also, you are perfectly capable of having sex even if you're an anime-watching video game playing manchild who browses /r9k/. Just pay someone.
If you don't want the eugenics program to stop you from having sex, all you need to do is meet its needs as well. You always talk about how it's autonomous, conscious etc, but does that actually mean anything? Again how is it any different from being state-sanctioned?

>>28207572
>implying Plato's conception of "The Good" isn't nonsense

>how is it any different from being state-sanctioned?
One is a constitutional offense and the other isn't.

>>28207608
I mean in MORAL terms how is it different. If you think you know better than Plato as well you'll need to do a lot of explaining.

It's different because there is no law saying you can't have sex, there are just a bunch of women who have decided they don't want to have sex with you. I don't understand why you think it's the same. All society has determined is that people should be able to decide whether they want to have sex with someone.

>>28207649
still nobody can explain why whether it's a law or not matters

>>28207627
>I mean in MORAL terms how is it different
If it's state-sanctioned then it's a violation on your rights as a self-determining individual in a 'free' society.

In the other case -- because having sex is not a moral right -- there is no violation when women choose not to have sex with a partner that they find undesirable. Because, again, sex is not a right.

>>28207660
Where do rights come from? Why isn't sex a right? If you're self-determined but you can't violate the rights of others, how is that limit on your self-determination any different than a limit put there by the state?

>>28207683
Sex isn't a right because if it was a right, you'd be removing the right of bodily autonomy from the people who are forced to have sex with you. Not getting raped is more important than having sex.

>>28207683
Social contract theory. Start with Rosseau

>>28207700
If we make it law that everybody has bodily autonomy, why don't we wind up in a situation where nobody has it? Why is it even a good thing to have?

>>28207705
This was a good response, thank you I'm not being sarcastic.

>>28207720
rosseau was a moron
start with hobbes and locke

>>28207734
this was a good one too I'll learn about all of them at some point

>>28207714
>If we make it law that everybody has bodily autonomy, why don't we wind up in a situation where nobody has it?
Why would we? The point of the law is so that people do have it.

>Why is it even a good thing to have?
Because not being able to control what happens with your own body is dehumanizing and traumatic.

>>28207752
>Why would we? The point of the law is so that people do have it.
Because it seems like if we limit individual freedom by law, we don't have individual freedom anymore but collective rights, or benefits that we say we get from the law.
>Because not being able to control what happens with your own body is dehumanizing and traumatic.
So that's more important, even if it's a bad thing you're choosing to do?

the only solution is making sex a commodity i.e robo waifus. I think the future is bright for the sexually frustrated

>>28207783
Yes, that is the point. You have freedom up to the point that it violates someone's basic rights. It is more important that people not be raped.

>>28207812
So rights are what you get when you agree to be in a society, and if you don't agree to the society's rules you're an outlaw? It seems like it'd be easy to get a crappy deal if people collectively decide to tolerate bad actions by the state or others that could be avoidd if they knew better.