What does Holla Forums think of conservative morality?
Is is still 'worthwhile' in a world where we have birth control, women can earn as much money as men by working, and masculinity is kinda pointless (ie men aren't fighting other tribes or kingdoms any more)??
I don't think so
Other urls found in this thread:
c
u
c
k
Morality is just a meme
stop trying to mine my data YOU JEW
Alright then, conservative attitudes
Or conservative modes of behaviour
...
Birth control isn't immoral per se, if it is being used by a monogamous couple who can't afford to raise a new child each year. If it is being used to facilitate a lifestyle of hedonism and sleeping around, that person is contemptible. A whore is a whore, doesn't matter what current year it is.
Not really a moral issue but a question of gender roles in society.
That's such a generalized statement that I'm not sure what you're getting at.
What? the earth its filled with nigs and asians.
Again, what? the only rich women out there are widows.
Another "what?" nigs replaced yurops in many parts of europe.
Your 3 points are wrong and you must feel shame you tumblerite.
Wrong, if you are right then people never had children untill the washing machine was discovered and the third world is empty.
There is not such a thing like "cant afford", its just a subjetive thing without any fact behind that.
Now from a moral point of view, africa is poor because we dont castrate blacks and europe its becoming poor because we dont force whites to reproduce.
A nig has less problems raising a child than a middle class white liberal woman… check my firt point in this post for morality.
He is just another tumblerite mad at trump sperging crap in trumpchan.
I agree that the third world does not get enough birth control. Part of the problem is that we've been feeding them for decades, fully knowing of their ineptitude to practice birth control. In terms of domestic life, it is very expensive to raise a middle-class child, these are people who do not qualify for gibs for each new kid they have. When you have to pay for a kid out of pocket, unfortunately it can be quite expensive. In that regard, birth control increases the quality of life for the planned children.
So birth control is alright for women who will be your wife and bring you tendies, but not for women who want to have casual relationships with attractive single men?
I was talking mostly about the West. If you live in a third world country you should say so, but most people here live in nice countries.
And you're greatly exaggerating the extent of interracial violence in Europe. I get the impression you spend too much time on Holla Forums.
People don't want to raise their children on rice, they want to live good lives and provide for their children. They can't afford large numbers of children with a high quality of life.
Fornication and the cock carousel are immoral. Birth control often facilitates this. People need to settle down and stop contributing to the STD epidemic, fucking things up for the guy who gets the leftovers.
Cry more stormweenie
Delete this
Bitch more
commie
Correct, it's morally right to pursue happiness. It's what everyone ought to do. People who disagree want the world to be miserable, because they themselves are miserable, and desire company.
If you can't explain why it's immoral then why did you say it was? If that word is going to have any meaning we can't just use to label anything we don't like
No it isn't and you don't believe that, plenty of pedophiles groom children to fuck them because it makes them happy and their practices or their target can be so effective that the child is complicit (regardless of any understanding they have) in the proceedings.
If a little girl/boy can be tricked into providing oral sex for a pedophile is it morally right because the child doesn't mind and doesn't understand and the pedophiles happiness is increased?
Tiberius is a famous sexually deviant roman emperor who had infants perform oral sex on him, he called them his little fishes, is he morally right?
History moves in cycles, the ascent of any empire is preceded by sexual continence, the descent of any empire coincides with sexual liberation and plummeting birth rates.
en.wikipedia.org
Birth control is a non-issue, before birth control people simply abandoned their children to die from exposure or if lucky to be picked up by a family and if unlucky to be picked up by slavers or brothels. Sexual morality is not dictated by the availability of birth control.
“In our time all Greece was visited by a dearth of children and generally a decay of population, owing to which the cities were denuded of inhabitants, and a failure of productiveness resulted, though there were no long-continued wars or serious pestilences among us. If, then, any one had advised our sending to ask the gods in regard to this, what we were to do or say in order to become more numerous and better fill our cities,—would he not have seemed a futile person, when the cause was manifest and the cure in our own hands? For this evil grew upon us rapidly, and without attracting attention, by our men becoming perverted to a passion for show and money and the pleasures of an idle life, and accordingly either not marrying at all, or, if they did marry, refusing to rear the children that were born, or at most one or two out of a great number, for the sake of leaving them well off or bringing them up in extravagant luxury. For when there are only one or two sons, it is evident that, if war or pestilence carries off one, the houses must be left heirless: and, like swarms of bees, little by little the cities become sparsely inhabited and weak. On this subject there is no need to ask the gods how we are to be relieved from such a curse: for any one in the world will tell you that it is by the men themselves if possible changing their objects of ambition; or, if that cannot be done, by passing laws for the preservation of infants”.
It's still morally right to pursue happiness. It's just that pedophilia might be immoral for other reasons.
What are the qualifiers that negate ones pursuit of happiness? Happiness is a nice experience but it's neither moral nor immoral.
Define your values by the conclusions of your own independent reasoning. If your values happen to lean conservative or liberal, it's whayever. Whether you are left or right is not your identity. At best they are useful generalizations of a vast variety of beliefs. So your original question OP illustrates your confusion. The real question is what do you value?
Lots of reasons, especially hurting other people
I think it's moral unless proven otherwise. I mean people ought to pursue happiness. When they're just laying around and being depressed, they are actually being immoral
As I see it all emotional states are neutral, it wouldn't be immoral to be in a deep state of depression after the loss of a loved one. The why, not the action, does most of the moral legwork.
Why is someone happy or depressed is more morally important than the state of happiness or depression. The alternative, happy = goodness sadness = evil, just seems messy to me it's a useless starting point.
Men have asked the same thing many times throughout history. Things like birth control and women working will be washed away in due time, because our civilisation will not last in its present state.
Oh, and masculinity will never be pointless. You need it to earn yourself a good quality female, to protect your family, your country, and so forth.