Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
what is that pleasure for?
is there some, idk, biological purpose associated with said pleasure or do we just have a need to feel sexually good just, you know, for it's own sake?
[automerge]1759238056[/automerge]
Holy shit that fence is about to give way with how hard you're sitting on it. I'm asking if you disagree or agree, not how you personally feel about it
is there some, idk, biological purpose associated with said pleasure or do we just have a need to feel sexually good just, you know, for it's own sake?
[automerge]1759238056[/automerge]
Holy shit that fence is about to give way with how hard you're sitting on it. I'm asking if you disagree or agree, not how you personally feel about it
"Whatabout the gays 
"
The manliest this thread has ever gotten
I mean, lots of crack-heads think that the gays were invented in a lab. Sounds like tech progress to me 
I only read scientists who take LSD pills btw
What's the purpose of the need associated to get fucked in the ass ? 
Are you gonna make a baby outta your asshole ? OR IS YOUR ASSHOLE DEMANDING DICKS FOR PLEASURE ?
"The manliest this thread has ever gotten
natural law ethics does not entail going and becoming amish you fucking idiot, technological progress is a natural end for intelligent beings like humans
I only read scientists who take LSD pills btw
what is that pleasure for?
is there some, idk, biological purpose associated with said pleasure or do we just have a need to feel sexually good just, you know, for it's own sake?
is there some, idk, biological purpose associated with said pleasure or do we just have a need to feel sexually good just, you know, for it's own sake?
Are you gonna make a baby outta your asshole ? OR IS YOUR ASSHOLE DEMANDING DICKS FOR PLEASURE ?
Hey, it makes them feel pleasure, pleasure is an end in of itself right so it's good
It is cooked what their reasoning entails when you take it to their logical conclusion. Just like Monster Zolo said a relationship is moral as long as it's between two consenting adults + is not physically harmful, even though there are incestuous relationships that would meet this criteria from time to time
It is cooked what their reasoning entails when you take it to their logical conclusion. Just like Monster Zolo said a relationship is moral as long as it's between two consenting adults + is not physically harmful, even though there are incestuous relationships that would meet this criteria from time to time
"Whatabout the gays "
The manliest this thread has ever gotten
I mean, lots of crack-heads think that the gays were invented in a lab. Sounds like tech progress to me
I only read scientists who take LSD pills btw
What's the purpose of the need associated to get fucked in the ass ?
Are you gonna make a baby outta your asshole ? OR IS YOUR ASSHOLE DEMANDING DICKS FOR PLEASURE ?
"The manliest this thread has ever gotten
I mean, lots of crack-heads think that the gays were invented in a lab. Sounds like tech progress to me
I only read scientists who take LSD pills btw
What's the purpose of the need associated to get fucked in the ass ?
Are you gonna make a baby outta your asshole ? OR IS YOUR ASSHOLE DEMANDING DICKS FOR PLEASURE ?
We don't drink alcohol
Play video games
Smoke cigarettes
Gamble
Fuck multiple women/men
Etc.
And I imagine if we did do any of that, Ryo would also protest against all of that since he hates anything that's unnatural and "just done for pleasure"
you use nature = in the wild, I use nature = essence of a thing
homosexuality occurs in the wild, but it is contrary to the essence of human nature because human sexuality is ordered towards heterosexual actions not homosexual ones
if you want to argue it's natural because chimps do it, that is YOU appealing to nature, and chimps do many fucked up things that we would not say is okay
homosexuality occurs in the wild, but it is contrary to the essence of human nature because human sexuality is ordered towards heterosexual actions not homosexual ones
if you want to argue it's natural because chimps do it, that is YOU appealing to nature, and chimps do many fucked up things that we would not say is okay
i literally said appealing to nature is fallacious, and presented an EVEN IF IT WAS NOT scenario.
So you basically mean it as "common", because thats exactly how you explain it, despite disagreeing with the other guy saying it means "common". interesting, to say the least.
but well, yeah, that definition of natural is definitely not one many use, so i thought of the more regular usages of the term.
this is the only respectable position of people who are against homosexuality on religious grounds
[automerge]1759238433[/automerge]
techncially, any time where people have sex knowing the woman wont be pregnant, that can be due to her natural monthly cycle or infertility or using condoms or whatever.
are you one of these condoms = evil peeps?
[automerge]1759238433[/automerge]
techncially, any time where people have sex knowing the woman wont be pregnant, that can be due to her natural monthly cycle or infertility or using condoms or whatever.
are you one of these condoms = evil peeps?
Except we don't smoke cigarettes, drink or play videogames just for pleasure, the pleasure associated with these things is associated towards a specific end (usually to relieve the mind)
as long as the pleasure fufills one end without violating another, it is licit
video games relieves the mind, without violating any other natural end
having gay sex might relieve you, but it is violating a natural end of the genitalia which are ordered towards heterosexual-reproductive ones, not homosexual-sterile ones
[automerge]1759238475[/automerge]
Blocked clown
as long as the pleasure fufills one end without violating another, it is licit
video games relieves the mind, without violating any other natural end
having gay sex might relieve you, but it is violating a natural end of the genitalia which are ordered towards heterosexual-reproductive ones, not homosexual-sterile ones
[automerge]1759238475[/automerge]
God is in the closet 
Blocked clown
so you won't ban smoking cigarettes which can fuck your lungs beyond repair but you'd ban homosexuality for being a "violation of the natural use of genitalia"?
Again why is it that we can even have gay sex in the first place without any repercussions?
If it were that bad for us surely our bodies would reject having something in our ass like that lol. Just like our bodies are conditioned to resist heat by sweating for example
Again why is it that we can even have gay sex in the first place without any repercussions?
If it were that bad for us surely our bodies would reject having something in our ass like that lol. Just like our bodies are conditioned to resist heat by sweating for example
It's not an appeal to nature, you are using the definition of nature as = in the wild, I am using it in the teleological/philosophical sense where it is a synonym for essence
i don't mean it as "common"
the nature of a thing is it's essence, this includes
-it's essential qualities that define what it is
-the final ends that it is directed towards
to the degree that the final end of a thing is approximated entails it's being good, so for example the final end of our eyeballs is to see, if they see well they are good eyeballs
the end of our reproductive organs are reproductive ends, so them committing inherently sterile actions like gay sex is a failure in it achieving it's end, making it unnatural and thus evil
i don't mean it as "common"
the nature of a thing is it's essence, this includes
-it's essential qualities that define what it is
-the final ends that it is directed towards
to the degree that the final end of a thing is approximated entails it's being good, so for example the final end of our eyeballs is to see, if they see well they are good eyeballs
the end of our reproductive organs are reproductive ends, so them committing inherently sterile actions like gay sex is a failure in it achieving it's end, making it unnatural and thus evil
Fun fact: the U.S. government considered creating a bomb that would turn enemies gay, making them sexually attracted to each other during a fucking war and create confusion.
This idea was scrapped as being ludicrous. The fact that some even thought that homosexuality can be manufactured and transferred is stupid and hilarious.
This idea was scrapped as being ludicrous. The fact that some even thought that homosexuality can be manufactured and transferred is stupid and hilarious.
We are told we are too slavish, too snobbish, to be placed under free institutions ; but we say that because we are indeed so slavish we ought not to remain any longer under the present institutions, which favor the development of slavishness.
We see that Britons, French, and Americans display the most disgusting slavishness towards Gladstone, Boulanger, or Gould. And we conclude that in a humanity already endowed with such slavish instincts it is very bad to have the masses forcibly deprived of higher education, and compelled to live under the present inequality of wealth, education, and knowledge. Higher instruction and equality of conditions would be the only means for destroying the inherited slavish instincts, and we cannot understand how slavish instincts can be made an argument for maintaining, even for one day longer, inequality of conditions; for refusing equality of instruction to all members of the community.
Our space is limited, but submit to the same analysis any of the aspects of our social life, and you will see that the present capitalist, authoritarian system is absolutely inappropriate to a society of men so improvident, so rapacious, so egotistic, and so slavish as they are now.
Therefore, when we hear men saying that the Anarchists imagine men much better than they really are, we merely wonder how intelligent people can repeat that nonsense.
Do we not say continually that the only means of rendering men less rapacious and egotistic, less ambitious and less slavish at the same time, is to eliminate those conditions which favor the growth of egotism and rapacity, of slavishness and ambition?
The only difference between us and those who make the above objection is this: We do not, like them, exaggerate the inferior instincts of the masses, and do not complacently shut our eyes to the same bad instincts in the upper classes.
We maintain that both rulers and ruled are spoiled by authority; both exploiters and exploited are spoiled by exploitation; while our opponents seem to admit that there is a kind of salt of the earth --- the rulers, the employers, the leaders --- who, happily enough, prevent those bad men --- the ruled, the exploited, the led --- from becoming still worse than they are.
There is the difference, and a very important one. We admit the imperfections of human nature, but we make no exception for the rulers. They make it, although sometimes unconsciously, and because we make no such exception, they say that we are dreamers, "unpractical men."
.
A quote from Are We Good Enough, about the problem with wanting the state to regulate the masses in that way
We see that Britons, French, and Americans display the most disgusting slavishness towards Gladstone, Boulanger, or Gould. And we conclude that in a humanity already endowed with such slavish instincts it is very bad to have the masses forcibly deprived of higher education, and compelled to live under the present inequality of wealth, education, and knowledge. Higher instruction and equality of conditions would be the only means for destroying the inherited slavish instincts, and we cannot understand how slavish instincts can be made an argument for maintaining, even for one day longer, inequality of conditions; for refusing equality of instruction to all members of the community.
Our space is limited, but submit to the same analysis any of the aspects of our social life, and you will see that the present capitalist, authoritarian system is absolutely inappropriate to a society of men so improvident, so rapacious, so egotistic, and so slavish as they are now.
Therefore, when we hear men saying that the Anarchists imagine men much better than they really are, we merely wonder how intelligent people can repeat that nonsense.
Do we not say continually that the only means of rendering men less rapacious and egotistic, less ambitious and less slavish at the same time, is to eliminate those conditions which favor the growth of egotism and rapacity, of slavishness and ambition?
The only difference between us and those who make the above objection is this: We do not, like them, exaggerate the inferior instincts of the masses, and do not complacently shut our eyes to the same bad instincts in the upper classes.
We maintain that both rulers and ruled are spoiled by authority; both exploiters and exploited are spoiled by exploitation; while our opponents seem to admit that there is a kind of salt of the earth --- the rulers, the employers, the leaders --- who, happily enough, prevent those bad men --- the ruled, the exploited, the led --- from becoming still worse than they are.
There is the difference, and a very important one. We admit the imperfections of human nature, but we make no exception for the rulers. They make it, although sometimes unconsciously, and because we make no such exception, they say that we are dreamers, "unpractical men."
.
A quote from Are We Good Enough, about the problem with wanting the state to regulate the masses in that way