Oh, look. Another bogus claim by an extremist conservative.
The point of sex is to create children — this is natural, normal, and good.
No, that is one of the purposes of sex. One of many. Do he and his wife only have sex when they intend to have children?
Masturbation is perfectly natural. So is every sex act I can imagine. I’d like to know which ones are unnatural or supernatural…list them for us, Chris. I’m sure it would be educational.
I don’t have procreative sex. Am I not normal? Is everyone who has sex after menopause or after sterilization abnormal? What about people who are naturally sterile?
If Rufo’s attitude is “good,” how do we account for all the oppressive, puritanical harm done to people in its name?
His whole schtick isn’t about natural, normal, or good. It’s all about control and punishing people who don’t follow his sick, sad ideology.
I’m sure Rufo would point to the Duggar’s as an answer (before sneaking off to his urologist for a vasectomy).
Oh, he’s not to blame. The people who are defying the natural order are bringing this so-called harm (which is actually just good-old Christian “tough love”) on themselves! Crime, poverty and dysfunction are character flaws that can only be remedied by religious-based morality, not “social problems.”
But you see controlling and punishing who don’t follow his sick, sad ideology ARE doing what his natural, normal, and good.
Also note that he’s not using the “G” word, despite the fact that he’s clearly making religious arguments.
I’m sure he’d immediately turn around and rant about population decline a la Elon Musk without a sense of irony.
Even aside from the issue of birth control, the church used to regard all sex which could not result in children as sinful.
This was not merely a theoretical idea – they took actual steps to enforce it. When one partner in a married couple was revealed as unable to procreate (usually men born with genital deformities) the couple was forcibly divorced.
They couldn’t force men to stop having sex with their post-menopausal wives, but they did let it be known that they considered it to be sinful. It is believed that Thomas More married an older woman as his second wife so that he could be both wed and celibate.
“interesting”(i.e. not at all surprising) that a “pro life” like Doofo fascist will not even mention how much more “problems ” are caused by pregancy, having to carry to term, giving birth , exonomic inequality due to rampant captialism, no it’s all due to DA PILL
Who says? Our genitals don’t come with instruction manuals so where do you figure that comes from?
This bullshit about single mothers pisses me off. In my experience, single mothers don’t start out as single mothers. They are women who are in a relationship with a man when they fall pregnant or give birth. Somewhere along the way the men just stop showing up. They wander off, or stop giving any support whatsoever. Occasionally their kicked out because of their obnoxious, abusive behavior.
Is Rufo going to step up and demand delinquent fathers start pulling their weight. Not a chance in hell, the whole point of tut-tutting is to let deadbeat dads off the hook, whilst controlling women. Same as it ever was.
“recreational sex is why we have so many single-mother households”
Meanwhile, in the historical world, maternal mortality was one thing that caused a lot of single-parent households. On the other hand, a lot of “nuclear” families were torn apart by genocidal religious wars, plagues, starvation, pandemics, etc. It is not at all a sure thing in history for children to have both parents. Conservatives are longing for the good old days when men were men and roaming bands of them wandered about slaughtering catholics (if they were protestant) or protestants (if they were catholics) and both sides occasionally tried to kill all the jews.
With folks like Rufo, you can tell them the facts, explain the science, and provide the data. He doesn’t care. He is propagandist and does not care about the truth or in communicating in an open and honest manner. He does care about promoting fascism and seems to really like the cruelty of it all.
“I’d like to know which ones are unnatural or supernatural…”
Mary claimed to have had sex with the holy ghost.
Quick! The naturalistic fallacy needs some Tums! Stat!
Rufo is sounds exactly like I did between the ages of 14-to-22; a uptight Catholic prude convinced that I’d be doomed to Hell if I even THINK about having sex before marriage or not actively condemning others who are.
Chris Rufo is eaten alive by Rabid Hamsters
One can dream….
Let’s hope Rufo, now a Board member of Florida’s New College, will give the student body there the benefit of his thinking, in a public address followed by a long Q&A.
Even the baseball jocks newly recruited to the 1st-year New College athletic program will surely have some pertinent questions.
@12 Those hungry hamsters would obviously have been sinners, born out of wedlock; otherwise, they’d never devour a righteous
theofascistman of god.Rufo is one of the most powerful and dangerous fascists.
I wonder if those spouting the naturalistic fallacy so frequently have ever heard about Bonobos and how they use all kinds of sex in their natural societies?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Sociosexual_behaviour
*Adjusts bow tie* It’s actually the Appeal to Nature fallacy. A common confusion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
Carry on.
Silentbob, as always, reveals his ignorance. From hisown link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy#Appeal_to_nature
It’s slightly different phrasing, no more than that. The two concepts share a common source.
(More properly, a teleological appeal — things are only proper when they serve a particular purpose)
And yes, StevoR made a good point: the point of sex[ual activity] is instinct and pleasure.
Quite obviously, non-human animals don’t fuck each other specifically for the purpose of procreation; they do it because it’s a thing that they feel is the thing to be done under certain circumstances.
(Same as human animals, actually :)
I’d like to point out that one of the driving factors for the rate of single mothers in the US, particularly among minorities, is due to the rate at which black men in their 20s and 30s are disproportionately incarcerated.
<MaximumGrouchiness> @17, @18: I object that both of you committed logical error of using Wikipedia as a “definition source” regarding formal logic, argumentation, law, or favorite colors. </MaximumGrouchiness>
Just. Don’t. Especially if your name is “Galahad.” Or “Robin.”
Jaws, heh.
As it turns out, I used the Silentbob’s very own adduced link (but a specific part of it) to mock the straightness of that pretentious tie (jiu-jitsu!) but made no recourse to Wikipedia regarding the ontological appeal. So, no, only one of use indulged in that “logical error”, as you jokingly put it.
[African or European?]
Right. No dominance games, nosiree! Perish the thought!
So… Here’s what a military analyst posted recently:
(Obs, I rate him)
What will happen in year three of the war?
Anders Puck Nielsen
[oops. Wrong thread]
@ 18
Idiot.
Listen you brain dead buffoon: The Naturalistic fallacy and Appeal to Nature are TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT things. Here’s a non-Wikipedia source you utter assclown:
https://plato.stanford.edu/ENTRIES/moral-non-naturalism/#NatFal
An example given is drinking beer which is “good” according to the Naturalistic fallacy, but “bad” according to the Appeal to Nature fallacy (beer not being “natural”) .
Do you get it now or do I do I seriously need to draw you a fucking diagram?
Silentbob, heh. Your obsession with me is very stupid.
Heh. You seriously need to draw me a fucking diagram.
(Promises, promises!)
Ok. Bored, so I took a look at that entry.
“Assuming that being pleasant is a natural property, for example, someone who infers that drinking beer is good from the premise that drinking beer is pleasant is supposed to have committed the naturalistic fallacy.”
Heh heh heh. Poseurs pose.
“An example given is drinking beer [Assuming that being pleasant is a natural property, for example] which [someone who infers that drinking beer is good from the premise that drinking beer is pleasant] is “good” according to the Naturalistic fallacy, but “bad” according to the Appeal to Nature fallacy [no actual example being given] (beer not being “natural”) [no actual example being given].”\
Come on, Bob the Unsilent. Diagram, please! Seriously!
[Ok, ok. enough for now. Still, it is fun]
Morales, that’s a very pathetic admission of defeat X-D
But it’s cool. We’ll take it as read from now on you understand
“we like beer without God telling us to, therefore it is good”
(Naturalistic fallacy)
and
“beer was made by man not God, therefore it is bad”
(Appeal to Nature fallacy)
are two completely different things – not semantically different, but utterly different. Glad to have helped compensate for your severely lacking education. You’re welcome, bud.
You 2 are amusing but seriously can we go back to adulting now ?
@20 you’d think a fascist like Doofo would a) deliberately ingore such transparent facts and b)be utterly incapable of ethical reasoning
systenic racism does not exist, the patriarchy does not exist, and so on. It is almost “remarkable” how such figures can make it the center (or one of the centers) of their “agitatiton” to deny such things, implicitly or explicitly and at the same time display every aspect of supporting such conditions
My grandmother in law had something to say about single mothers. She said “In my day they were called widows”.
A lot of husbands died during the second world war. Funny how the modern era has found new and exciting ways to hate women.
On another note one can reasonably assume he hasn’t read, or has dismissed as irrelevant, much of his holy book. Even Paul said married couples should give intimacy generously to each other. To be fair, he also said “These mushrooms are great. My hands are huge. The bad clouds are chasing me with evil music. Wurble schlerp.”
Supernatural sex is when both (or all) partners are hovering about five feet above the bed.
@Akira McKenzie , you have my sympathy. My mother was the uptight rigid religious prude and she made my adolescence a hell . Carrie’s mother mixed with Nurse Ratched!
About “reasons for things”.
Some bones in the human ear were originally parts of the jaws, during our career as fish. Those bones were never intended to be part of a hearing apparatus. Thus we are being… sinful? ….whenever we hear something??
Jim Phynn @35
At my best I could only manage about 4 feet must have been because I don’t believe in the supernatural.
Top be frank, supernatural sex does sound quite kinky.
*To
37 Birger
Since the god in this scenario is omniscient and omnipotent (though refuted by the bible itself) those bones were always intendent for human hearing. What is unnatural or not is always just determined by the believers own feelings about the matter.
No. It’s pointing out that the article you cited does not say what you think it says.
(Still waiting for that diagram)