It’s irrelevant in the sense that it's a minor event with little to no impact.
At any rate, the point of such a 'class' isn’t really to teach anything but to further push the boundaries of accepted social norms It's both. Are we surprised that schools indoctrinate? The proles need to be told what to think, what to listen to, and how to dress.
Ok. But in this case I think it’s not even the single event that matters but that it comes to reinforce a growing trend. To me it can either be accepted or condemned; the two don’t meet half way.
as though any form of change amounts to ‘progress’.Right, but cheap sentimentality for the past is pretty much the conservative's analogue to this.
Liberal ‘progress’ is measured by how far they can run away from tradition or inversely how much they can get in its face (like a spoiled child really). Conservatives just observe and discuss whether something does or does not work. In this case it’s sex: better kept sacred or put on a platter for the clowns to have fun with? It’s not cheap sentimentality to question what produces the logically better result in people.
In a casual discussion someone calls modernity dysfunctional. You step in to defend it with some kind of “get with the program” type statement while at the same time appearing unconcerned.I'm defending nothing. Your assumption makes no sense, yet you refuse to question its reasoning. That's really one of the underlying points.
I just can’t understand this viewpoint as it seem to recognise the modern world as a shithole but then resorts to accepting it as the only solution.
Is it not possible that a totally functional person might find fault in the world? Society is flawed, people are flawed and the world is flawed. A healthy person acknowledges this and doesn't constantly dwell on it. Most activists (feminists in particular) tend to just be butthurt about one thing or another and use their cause to inflate themselves or transfer blame for their own shortcomings. Their thinking is pretty much dominated by confirmation bias and thus they see symptoms of their cause in everything around them.
I can’t relate to this. Conservatives follow a certain path to yield certain results and they base this on whether it works in the long run (call it tradition?). Liberalism might also seem to do this (it seems to do a lot of things), but then you have to question whether it would even exist without tradition to rebel against. With extremes aside, these are two completely contrasting forms of activism (if indeed that term could even apply to conservatism).
By this reasoning, love could develop out of a one night stand? I doubt it.
I don't follow you, are you questioning whether love can develop (in any one party) from a one night stand? Are we using some particular extended definition of love here? Because if not, this is common.
Love meaning a single-minded and lasting devotion between male and female. I imagine it’s pretty hard to achieve that or think of her as a great mans daughter when she willingly gives herself to a guy she hardly knows. Unfortunately this Brave New World type scenario is fast becoming the normal situation in the west and with dire consequences.