Saturday, 10 December 2016

Sexbots ARE a part of the answer

A reply to Sexbots Aren’t The Answer To Feminism

"A robot that looks like a woman but isn’t a woman is just a fake woman for men who don’t like women."

Rubbish. In a state where feminists have made heterosex a crime for men, it's the only safe way for a man to do anything other than crude masturbation.

"Imagine a future where masses of men divorce themselves from the world and have sex with robots instead of people."

It would only be men in feminist countries.


 "Maybe children would all be conceived through artificial means by then and raised by the government."

 This is what feminists proposed back in the 1960s as their goal, yes. Have a read of the feminist literature of that time, they are quite open about it.

 "If not, humanity would die off."

 No, Western Civlisation would fall. Feminism has no power outside the West, and they have kids like crazy in Islamic countries.

 "Machines Can’t Replace People"

 No, but they can replace people who are dangerous. In a feminist society, every woman can accuse any man of being a rapist, and probably win the case unless the man has a lot of money.

 It's self-defense to use a bot instead.

 And it's interesting that no-one raises the same arguments against the use of sex toys by women.

 "Sexbots don’t just demean women."

 They don't demean anyone. Sextoys are not voodoo.

 " they demean men in thinking that men are nothing more than base animals only interested in carnal desires"

 Uh huh. Did dildos do that to women?


  “[M]ost blokes are fine with a pizza and a wank,” Milo wrote, and “[M]en are just as happy beating a video game as they are solving the riddles of the universe.”

Largely true - few men are philosophers. That has always been the case.

  "Men are happy being worthless losers "
 
  And few women are philosophers - yet it's only men you regard as worthless by your standard?
 
 


" Humans live for so much more than that."

No, a few do, most don't push themselves and regard their life as good if they aren't hungry etc.

The masses of humanity do not care about such matters, which is probably a good thing because we would starve in short order if farmers lost themselves in existentialism rather than dealing with crop dusting.


 You keep looking at the exceptions and imaging they are the norm; they are not, never have been, and it's unlikely they ever will be. Communism requires everyone to have such a  lofty nature, and communism fails every single time because we do not have that disposition.

 Facing reality rather than enjoyable delusions is the first step to being a philosopher. Practise what you preach, sir.


No comments:

Post a Comment

Please try to avoid logical fallacies!