It’s a biological argument. Sexual intercourse has a very specific set definition. Same as sexual reproduction. The bastardized verbiage of sex has lead to nonsensical terminology like sexual orientation, anal sex, oral sex, etc all of which are completely nonsensical when you use sex in its scientific purpose which is for intercourse/ copulation and reproduction. “Gay sex” is more akin to masturbation using other people than anything even remotely close to sexual reproduction.
'Definition' is fairly arbitrary. The best defense of your point of view is the Aristotelean argument that anything that does not satisfy the final cause (goal) of sex, which is reproduction, cannot be classified as sex.
Not necessarily, as sex itself is a dead term (Roman) which is why it’s used for biology. The conflation of sex as social slang for academic purposes shows how subverted “social sciences” are as they can’t even acknowledge the reason we use dead languages without their entire structure of definitions collapsing.
I vaguely remember in my biology classes that distinction sometimes being made among non-human animals. Sexual stimulation that wasn't procreative was termed something like "sexual play", which also would have included acts performed by animals not yet of reproductive age.
I can imagine technical reasons why biologists would want to distinguish between the two.
It's not like he actually believes being a two-pump chump is the only way to have sex. He's just chasing the hot take make number go up effect that all social media addicts chase, and you can't get away from, even here.
I don’t know what’s sadder, thinking social slang on dead languages is a good thing when it’s intentional conflation to shift the Overton window, or being so pathetically stupid you think it’s just a “word game”. What do you prefer?
It’s more so about using the Socratic method to make arguments more succinct, which AoV usually enjoys doing through devil advocacy and alternative explanations. Nothing wrong with it as it generally leads to a better structured understanding/ argument overall even if he gets sophistic at times.
Ew
Because what you said is a very Catholic point of view, though not exclusively so. It has its origins in Thomas Aquinas, and through him Aristotle.
It’s a biological argument. Sexual intercourse has a very specific set definition. Same as sexual reproduction. The bastardized verbiage of sex has lead to nonsensical terminology like sexual orientation, anal sex, oral sex, etc all of which are completely nonsensical when you use sex in its scientific purpose which is for intercourse/ copulation and reproduction. “Gay sex” is more akin to masturbation using other people than anything even remotely close to sexual reproduction.
'Definition' is fairly arbitrary. The best defense of your point of view is the Aristotelean argument that anything that does not satisfy the final cause (goal) of sex, which is reproduction, cannot be classified as sex.
Not necessarily, as sex itself is a dead term (Roman) which is why it’s used for biology. The conflation of sex as social slang for academic purposes shows how subverted “social sciences” are as they can’t even acknowledge the reason we use dead languages without their entire structure of definitions collapsing.
Definition isn't arbitrary to anyone who isn't a postmodernist.
I vaguely remember in my biology classes that distinction sometimes being made among non-human animals. Sexual stimulation that wasn't procreative was termed something like "sexual play", which also would have included acts performed by animals not yet of reproductive age.
I can imagine technical reasons why biologists would want to distinguish between the two.
It's not like he actually believes being a two-pump chump is the only way to have sex. He's just chasing the hot take make number go up effect that all social media addicts chase, and you can't get away from, even here.
I don't know what's gayer, reaching this hard for the weakest word-game own possible, or collectively masturbating about how "clever" it is.
I don’t know what’s sadder, thinking social slang on dead languages is a good thing when it’s intentional conflation to shift the Overton window, or being so pathetically stupid you think it’s just a “word game”. What do you prefer?
Well if you're going to counter the likes of Aristotle, you could offer a definition of sex of your own.
It’s more so about using the Socratic method to make arguments more succinct, which AoV usually enjoys doing through devil advocacy and alternative explanations. Nothing wrong with it as it generally leads to a better structured understanding/ argument overall even if he gets sophistic at times.
I'm not saying he's wrong. Just explaining why this is a Catholic belief.
Also why they opose birth control, because it negates the final cause of sex.