DGG Brain Rot on Coomer Culture
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 окт 2024
- Originally Aired March 05, 2024 on @Whick-TV
Like & Subscribe. Click here to watch the full debate Has Coomer Culture Gone Too Far? | WhickTV: • Has Coomer Culture Gon...
Support & Donations:
Patreon - / counterpoints
Donations - streamelements...
____________________________________________________
Socials:
Website - www.counterpoi...
Discord - / discord
Reddit - / counterpoints
Twitter - / _counterpoints_
Twitch - / counterpoints
Political Channel - / @counterpoints7537
Debate Channel - / @counterfireaway
Media Review Channel - / @counterreviews9065
.
.
.
.
.
#counterfire #debate #counterpoints #coomer #sexism #addiction #progressive #conservative #rant #culture #beast #notsoerudite #chicken #vaush #politics
Like & Subscribe. Click here to watch the full debate Has Coomer Culture Gone Too Far? | WhickTV: ruclips.net/video/VmfH-mIDXqE/видео.html
I think team chicken fucking had the stronger arguments.
Except they couldn't remove the fact that it's a Taboo in the first place because the phrase that describes the action is already considered to be a negative.
An action that isn't promoted to be followed by all. So then people need to carve out that some people can do the action while not intentionally producing a harm.
It still don't make the negative action something that we culturally promote doing.
The same way that we would say an addiction to a substance becomes the negative. When the person can't function as a member of society because something is so much of a personal need that it becomes detrimental to the persons ability to do the thing inside of social controls.
Yup this is where y’all have come to 😅
Conor posting his own L's. Gigachad😂
Philly out here agreeing banging your chicken before you eat is morally neutral for the Win 🥇 😂
Ask her for a moral limiting principle. Just turn it back on her
She would say the only thing that makes something immoral is when an action is knowingly or reasonably removing the ability of another individual Human to have a quality of life.
Technically she's making the same argument of like digging up your own grandma's corpse after she's been buried to do something with the corpse.
She's picking a very distinct and vacuous action or object that you have to agree is morally neutral until you have more context of the intentions of the actions or the resulting outcomes of the subjects.
@@AKABattousaiso shooting my dog is morally neutral? Her argument is more like fking your grandfather than killing him and then eating him
Remember when morality was a thing, nobody is perfect but at least people used to try and not be degenerate.
Damn, watching Kayla's transformation from "reasonable psych person" to "brain-rotted debate-bro" has been fascinating. It's anyone who hangs out in the DGG sphere too much... they've become completely detached from how regular, sane people view these things.
What are these examples 😂😂
Gotta make love with the chicken before you eat it. There’s so much memes that will come from this convo
Just doesn't have the same ring to it as Dogwarts.
Problem is Conor can say a thing is wrong, but its gonna be an opinion at the end of the day.
Just because that opinion is shared by a majority, doesn't mean its correct logic in all instances.
So there has to be a different line of logic than just saying its wrong while not demonstrating what is wrong about it.
Yup! You can certainly argue against chicken fucking, but "It's wrong!!1!1!!" aint it.
Kyla you don’t have to go this far. It’s just embarrassing 🤦🏽♀️
I think im gonna throw up
The chicken/tampon argument digressed from promiscuity. As much as promiscuity is related to STDs, they're very different topics when it comes to morals. It's unfortunate that a red herring was used because I wanted to hear a perspective from Kayla saying that there's opened polyamorous relationships from different cultures and societies for hundreds of years outside Europe/west while the west is starting to progress towards being more tolerant with promiscuity. Waste of ten minutes.
I look at this coomer culture situation, I come to the conclusion that it's necessary for heterosexual men and heterosexual women to have a limited amount of previous sexual partners with the opposite sex. More specifically about 65% to 70% of sexual encounters for both men and women come from boyfriend-girlfriend relationships that last one year or two years ( and then have 30% to 35% being friends with benefits situation that temporary last 3 months to 5 months ).
@@25taylorkw Erm okay. I only saw this video snippet and didn't see the whole video. So from this snippet specifically, if you're already dating someone and you cheat, it's considered promiscuous and it's immoral in my opinion. But if two people wants an open relationship, I don't think anything is wrong with two parties agreeing. But I will question the integrity and sustainability of the relationship because people gets jealous. But again, I didn't see the convo before this clip so idk.
@@alieninvaders1188when they're talking about promiscuity they're not talking about cheating they're talking about having consensual sex with many people or just casual sex in general
She doesn't have a good argument for promiscuity not being immoral.
The term promiscuous has a morally loaded term in it already that "means" this action isn't to be encouraged, condoned, or promoted.
Imagine we are asking why it should be morally neutral to play with Fire, while encouraging youth to play with Fire outside of adult supervision. And outside of regulated uses for Fire to be naturally and technologically applied for daily uses.
Being promiscuous is including the action of disregarding cultural norms, and trying to rationalize bad behaviors as morally neutral, in an attempt to then rationalize some people thinking it's a Good behavior.
@@AKABattousai You haven't substantiated why it is immoral.
I don't care if the term we are using to describe it is morally loaded in society, talk about the thing itself don't have a meta conversation about the language we're using around the actual point.
Your "imagine" scenario is silly for a few reasons 1. nobody on the panel is arguing that people should be encouraged to be promiscuous
2. It would be adults engaging in promiscuity not children (again everyone here is against that) so "outside adult supervision" is redundant.
And 3. When you look at what "playing with fire" actually is, without injecting the loaded morality people have ascribed to it, its just using fire for entertainment which IS morally neutral. Unless you want to argue that fire dancing or fire juggling or anything like that is immoral.
The reason "playing with fire" is morally loaded is because we assume a quality if irresponsiblity to those engaging in it and we don't want people to be irresponsible with it, in which case its the "being irresponsible" which is the morally negative thing.
Is it immoral to eat pork if you don’t cook it? Yes even from the liberal harm perspective… she is conflating jurisprudence from moral acts. Whilst the two are connected, you can do an immoral act that does not impose harm on another and you can do an immoral act on another. The first is not linked to jurisprudence the other is. Her arguments don’t make any sense.
Nooooo!!! Counter nooo, there are immoral acts to yourself under naturalism. That’s why she walked you into the chicken argument.
That’s a banger
God, erodite is so smug and dumb
God damn that was a good clip. Perfect ending!
She won.🎉 😂
Personally, I'm on team chicken fucking. Your argument seemed to assign morality to personal health. You could make the argument that doing things that knowingly risk your personal health is immoral because of how it can affect others. For example, if you eat shit, you know youll probably get sick. Getting sick inhibits your ability to perform other responsibilities such as caring for your children. In this way, you are knowingly engaging in behavior with a high risk of harming others.
We would say the same for drunk driving. Its possible to get drunk and drive safely home, but you inhibit your responsibility of driving safely by doing so at great risk to the well-being of others
Is fking a live chicken immoral than fking a dead one?