In response to a post about a PUA/Game practitioner who compares women over 25 to milk that’s gone off, a commenter named Energomash drops the following small brown pellet of “wisdom” in the Man Boobz comments thread:
So what? He has a point. Young women are more attractive, whats misogyn [sic] about that?
andemilybites notes the most important aspect of Energomash’s comment:
You guys, Keyboardsmash is too alpha to even finish his wo.
auggziliary points out what is particularly wrong about the PUA featured in the post:
acting like a human being’s only worth is sex, and they can only have sex when they’re “ripe”, and that women(and only women) are the equivalent of objects that are “used up” is incredibly dehumanizing. He didn’t just talk about their youth, he talked about how they were “used” by someone else. It’s not like a woman is some disposable, 1 time use sex toy, and that’s her only worth.
Fade continues the thought:
He didn’t say young women more attractive (it’s bs to state your opinion as fact anyway, though) he said older women are WORTHLESS and also compared them to food… The PUAs seem to care more about getting sex than respecting other human beings.
Energomash doubles down:
I’ve read some feminist blogs and they always criticize the ‘objectification’ of women. I think from a philosophical viewpoint this doesnt make much sense.
1: Humans do not posses any intrisic value.
2: If you value a person because he/she is human, you don’t value what makes them special. You don’t value any specific characteristics like intelligence, personality or looks! You value an abstract entity and not the actual person.
Fade again demonstrates how decent people think:
wow. I think that is a really cruddy way to try to justify being an asshole. Also, I think humans DO possess intrisic value, sorry. I can value my brother as a human AND because he’s smart and funny and we play fight a lot. Those aren’t contradictory
Ally also dissects Energomash’s position:
I contend that humans have intrinsic value, but you don’t need to think that humans have intrinsic value to see why objectification is fucked up. Utilitarianism can also support the moral case against objectification very easily.
As for your second point, I don’t think you understand what it means to value someone as a human being. It is the same as valuing the person hirself – what you specify is merely valuing a human being because of hir attributes, which is the exact opposite of seeing someone as intrinsically valuable. Valuing a person has nothing to do with liking certain aspects of that person and everything to do with seeing that person as an end in hirself.
More philosophy follows, and then (thanks to chibigodzilla) this happens:
Robot 1: What is it to be HU-man?
Robot 2: To be HU-man is to have certain emotional dispositions towards that person or object.
Robot 1: What is EE-motion?
Robot 2: HU-man emotions cause them to react in a certain way to that person or object.
Robot 1: I am glad I have no such EE-motions. To react in a certain way to a person or object sounds most troublesome.
Robot 2: Affirmative.