"i can do what I want" is not a positive moral guideline

yes it is

"You can't tell me what to do, it's immoral"

It is the rejection of moral guidelines

So?

Moral guidelines of who?

the person Reeing about being told what to do.

If you're rejecting, say, Stalin's moral guidelines

Then it's good

Unless you are Stalin 😛

Then it is bad

Well ye ofc

and that is where it all falls apart because the "Morality" of it is completely subjective.

If morality is subjective then you are probably a linertine

Linertine?

Wtf

Linertine

What the fuck is that you faggot

Lol libertine

Stupid autocorrect

Meme - Yet I came across in that as a "puritain"

Do you believe that strong sexual morals should be enforced using social but not necessarily government pressure?

If not then the test probably needs to be adjusted

This whole mess comes from the fact that at some point Eurofag intellectuals decided that man should be the one to dictate his own moral rules instead of following an assumed to be divinely mandated rule set. What that almost immediately lead to (though intellectually it took time to crystalize like that exactly) is the idea that every person's moral compass is inherently valuable and trying to societally "infringe" upon the alleged moral code of any given person is inherently evil. Thus you get the obvious situation wherein pedos are demanding pedo rights and, just in general, """""minorities""""" become the whole point of political debate. No one even thinks to propose that said minorities might just be wrong.

We have lost fear of consequence (of God, social rejection)

It's no longer an issue of the rules themselves, just the fact that they are *someone's* rules

no one asks weather the rule itself is good

because we don't even acknowledge that category as valid

The west is too afraid of another 30 years war I guess

fear of consequence is the whole control mechanism of social justice activists - what are you talking about?

but this is an obvious bandaid

Those types impose their code upon others

no society can remain coherent without a set of rules being at least somewhat clear and enforcable

and some rules are downright antisocial in and of themselves

society is not easy to have

it requires somewhat specific behaviors being wholesale banned

also, morals are highly subjective, only the very most basic of them are universally agreed upon and could be considered objective

They are puritanical to an extent but also reject any conception of objective morality and are entirely libertine when it comes to the choices people make that could potentially harm themselves

this statement u just made is at the root of SJWism

Were we able to trust the moral judgment of those around us, we wouldn't seek to formalise rules

that and anthropological meliorism