Poplar?

I’m curious what you work as? Sysadmin?

Doubt it. People would still post revenge porn, unconsensually filmed stuff or leak e.g nudes that were meant for each other and not the public. Because the motivation there is not money, it would be to humiliate, for example.

It seems people in the comments here missed the “with wives” part. Generally speaking, your wife is not going to be terribly pleased with you ogling or getting off to other women. And violating that is what makes these men count as weird.

What better ways are there to manage access to it?

Looks just like mine! I find it adorable when he chants the 15 muted praises for the bound ones. His little eyes rolled back, mouth drooling ☺☺☺

Whatsapp is E2E encrypted isn’t it.

This

When with Turks don’t forget to refer to baklava as your favorite greek desert.

Would be nice if you could mark this nsfw, it’s pretty disgusting.

Hahaha how original and not playing on something totally made up.

Another original joke: My gender is attack helicopter!

So if we arent open to understanding something as important to being human as gender, why not toss out all other fields that also study human social lives. Bye to anthropology, sociology, etc.

SMH they snuck trans agenda past us

This is the definition Ive found people use when they bring up cultural relativism. Whether informally with stuff like “you cant judge them, its just their culture” or when more fleshed out. As far as I can tell, no, ethicists for and against cultural relativism are discussing something quite in touch with reality.

The author is an important figure in metaethics, its much more likely theres something you missed than him being wrong about a basic definition in a field he is an expert in.

I’m not really sure what to reply with.

“Skywalker theory” (so far identical to error theory) isnt what the post or the discussion is about. The meme is pretty clear it is about cultural relativism and clear about what it means by cultural relativism.

If you want to bring your own objection to moral realism, sure, but it makes little sense hijacking the definition to mean something entirely different and being unhappy this wasnt what the term others were using meant.

Cool down.

You are thinking of nihilism (specifically error theory it seems - that there are no moral facts and people are wrong for thinking there are) because relativism (whether relative to subject or culture) doesnt deny that there are moral truths, just that they are only correct for the individual or culture that holds them.

Cultural relativism: The view that an act is morally right just because it is allowed by the guiding ideals of the society in which it is performed, and immoral just because it is forbidden by those ideals.

Ethical subjectivism: The view that an act is morally right just because (a) I approve of it, or (b) my commitments allow it. An action is wrong just because (a) I disapprove of it, or (b) my commitments forbid it.

Same book as the other comment of mine you replied to.

So, no, I didnt get it wrong. And the consequences I pointed out do follow from cultural relativism.

Sure but what Matt is suggesting would mean we can hold something completely wrong, even an absurd one as a moral framework so long as we use it properly.

If that result is absurd, that probably just means you think cultural relativism is bullshit.

I can share a link to get the book, the context is quite short.

When I asked if slavery was right for them, I wasnt trying to describe their attitudes. I am saying that a consequence of thinking cultural relativism is true is that you must admit that they were correct in the attitudes they held (because their culture agreed it was right).

I shared that quote to show that OP seems to know what moral relativism is, and their objection is something actual ethicists point out. I dont see what its got to do with how many people in the comments here are relativists.