Arguments for banning "sex robots"

it seems to be the foundation of feminism today.

what is it that you find complicated?

Incorrect I am using it to describe a particular ideology.

Yeah I'm not making an argument based on statistics. I haven't asserted anything you are just simply making strawman fallacies.

 

Also, your bullshit about men being used in warfare because of some "feminist conspiracy to get rid of them" is just that, bullshit.

Historically men have been recruited into war much more frequently than women because men (on average) are more physically able to do so than equivalent women are - it's a pragmatic thing, and of course in warfare, lives are relatively "expendable", but war isn't a good thing anyway (it's only good if it's necessary for keeping the peace, and even then more of a 'necessary evil' rather than a 'good').

Also, historically and present, the percentage of the male population who've actually fought in war (or anywhere) are a small minority of men - and those who fight and die in combat are often very-well respected and decorated. So basically, you're full of ****.

 

Moving the goal post is for those lacking confidence in their ability to defend a position. You are the one taking a position justifying government interference in ones private life. Your only argument is that you find it "fun". Is that all you have?

 

No, "chivalric" ideals which date back to eras before "feminism" was even a word, and in reality are mainly just romanticized aspect of fiction rather than reality for most men or women to begin with - are not "feminism".

(The majority of men today, as well as in the past have never fought in combat or "defended" a woman with physical force - men who have fought in combat, as well as the knights of yore have always been a small, elite segment of the male demographic, certainly not the "average" man).

(And are potentially contrary to feminism if taken to extremes such as potentially denying equal treatment in regards to personal merits).

So no, if your problem is romanticized chivalric notions, then you're the "feminist" here.

I've explained why all of your "arguments" are bullshit.

 

No, I think the would be positive social affects, such as encouraging positive sexual ideals rather than degenerate ones.

You're the one claiming it's a 14th Amendment (privacy) issue just like that other guy, not me - how do you rationalize that one?

 

Are you arguing with me, or agreeing with me? Hard to tell. You sound confused.

 

Are you asserting the "no victim" argument?

Or the "privacy /14th Amendment violation" argument?

If so, then I think you're arguing from a pretty radical, sexually liberal take on the 14th Amendment to begin with, and that stretching the definitions of it that much will eventually lead to it being rendered null and void by the courts.

 

never said anything about war or military. So not sure why you brought that up.

 

I'm betting that you've never "physically defended" a woman in real life or fought in a war.

So tell me where you assertions are coming from beyond stuff you've conjured up inside your own mind? Or chivalrous ideals which was always just more the stuff of romantic poets rather than "everyday life" for the majority of men presently and historically?

And no, my impression is that most women, "feminist" or otherwise, do not want to be completely dependent or unhealthily attached to a man in a relationship - maybe some healthy degree of co-dependency exists in many relationships, but most women would not want to be 100% dependent on a man (unless she and/or the man have literally nothing else of substance to offer anyone).

 

Whoa there, cowboy, stop the presses. I haven't really stated a position and you're already trying to get me to third base. You're not my type.

 

Do sex dolls nag and harass you? If not then I'll take one.

 

I agree this was part of society in areas past but it is what feminism is now as well.

I'm still not talking about warfare or combat or military at all.

this could possibly have anything less to do with what I said if you try

Since you're arguing against arguments I never made and bringing up to something that I never mentioned I'm going to assume that you have no idea what my position really is. You're just on a soapbox to preach.

 

No it isn't. A woman being completely "dependent" on a man is not "feminism". Most areas in regards to financial "dependency" on men are "proto-feminist" and have roots in archaic traditionalism before "feminism" was even a word.

"Feminism" doesn't just mean "anything you don't like".

You're just whining and making stuff up.

 

I never said anything about defending women or War

 

get another straw man fallacy as soon as you don't have any idea how to argue the points I've made and you're just throwing anything at the wall anything can stick.

 

You have not come up with a valid argument justifying government interference in ones private life.

Your thread title:

Arguments for banning "sex robots"

 

This thread is a hoot. Can't believe it's still going.

 

Prohibition fails nine out of ten times, and usually leads to more dire consequences.

 

Pretty much everything is a sex robot if you're brave enough.

 

Everything, as in children?

 

...

 

What's wrong with you?

 

Next up, arguments for banning your favorite hand and how that hand is ruining America.

 

An episode of the "Big Bang Theory" comes to mind.

 

And safe sex will require wearing a glove.
.