Nothing really matters.

You cannot objectivally prove your statement, placing it on the same level as theology.

>>2061303
Actually I can.

You matter anon

File: 1481002619426.jpg (24KB, 394x458px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 394x458px

>you are 100% going to die and not gonna remember any of this shit

Anyone can see

>>2061323
>Actually I can
>

>>2061420
You see, I don't care what you think. Neither do you.

QED

Nihilism = pessimism. It's just a half-full/half-empty-type argument.

>>2061430
Fuck, he just won.
If nothing matters, let's have sex.

>>2061231
Anyone can seeeeee... nothing realy mateeeeersssss..... to meeeeeeeeee...

>>2061805
Why didn't you respond to me senpai? >>2061380
:^(

>>2061805
>>2061813
(Fuck it.)

Anyway the wind bloooooows!

MAMA MIA LET ME GO

>>2061231
sophomoric

File: Screen Shot 2016-12-08 at 21.39.50.png (247KB, 1304x740px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 1304x740px

>>2061231
>>2061323
>>2061361
>>2061430

Reproduction matters.

The purpose of every organism on this planet is to reproduce.

In nature, the males of many animals fight each other to the death for the privilege of mating with the females. That's how important reproduction is to them. They are willing to fight to the death for it.

Humans are exactly the same. We have that exact same instinct to fight to the death for the privilege of mating with the most attractive females. Even in our developed society now, what does every many want? Oh yeah, to be rich, powerful, and to fuck all the hot females. Sure, he doesn't want to RAISE kids - no man does, that's a woman's job. But fundamentally he wants to impregnate females.

Yes today's society is fucked up and a lot of successful people don't have kids because their egos are inflated and they have bought into "progressive" lies, like how being a "nice" person is the most important thing, and having children is "bad for the environment" or some other self-righteous BULLSHIT. Look at pic related though, many still do.

Watch a nature documentary about gorillas and how they fight each other to the death to become the silverback - the alpha male who gets the privilege of mating with the females, while the beaten, subservient males only watch and masturbate (true story). Then you will realise that procreation is the #1 priority in the life of every single organism of the planet.

>>2062086
*What does every man want

My mistake

>>2062086
>As I read this post I am in bed recovering from the vasectomy I just got
>Thinking about how I will never have to put up with kid bullshit
>SMUG.JPG

It's a good feel bro

>>2062086
>committing the naturalistic fallacy THIS hard

>>2062086
>beaten, subservient males only watch and masturbate
>gorillas are cucks

Gonna need some sauce on there m80

>>2061231
>Nothing really matters.
If only.
Sadly every little shit detail matter in some shitty way.

>>2062105
desu congrats on mutilating yourself. You are a real man.

File: silverback.jpg (326KB, 765x512px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 765x512px

>>2062105
Knowing that you've literally sabotaged your biological purpose? Wow yeah must feel real good

I'm more virile than you and I didn't even have to do anything lol :)

>>2062111
Look, I don't care what you do, I'm not saying that you have a moral or ethical duty to procreate, I really don't give a fuck

I'm saying as a matter of EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY. From an objective standpoint, the purpose of every single organism on the planet is to procreate.

>>2062121
I'm sure I read the masturbation thing somewhere, anyway here's evidence of their social structure from wikipedia:

>Gorillas live in groups called troops. Troops tend to be made of one adult male or silverback, multiple adult females and their offspring.[32][33][34] However, multiple-male troops also exist.[33] A silverback is typically more than 12 years of age, and is named for the distinctive patch of silver hair on his back, which comes with maturity. Silverbacks also have large canine teeth that also come with maturity. Both males and females tend to emigrate from their natal groups. For mountain gorillas, females disperse from their natal troops more than males.[32][35] Mountain gorillas and western lowland gorillas also commonly transfer to second new groups.[32]

>Mature males also tend to leave their groups and establish their own troops by attracting emigrating females. However, male mountain gorillas sometimes stay in their natal troops and become subordinate to the silverback. If the silverback dies, these males may be able to become dominant or mate with the females. This behaviour has not been observed in eastern lowland gorillas. In a single male group, when the silverback dies, the females and their offspring disperse and find a new troop.[35][36] Without a silverback to protect them, the infants will likely fall victim to infanticide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla

>>2062142
He's actually removed the only thing that makes you a man mate. So no, he isn't.

>>2061813
Sorry kodomo... i did not see it. I am an oldfag. My eyes are wrecked from too much pc...

>>2062086
>breederfags
The best advice I can give to any younger anons in this thread, cherish your wizardry. It is all overrated, and seeing many friends turn into failed normalfags after sex/getting gfs, I am growing more and more content with my wizardry. Sex does not give you meaning, if you aren't content without a gf, you won't be content with one, but you will add another obstacle in your search for fulfillment.

>>2062164
I mean, y'know, failure to reproduce literally means you've failed in your biological purpose. Means you're pathetic. You're not virile. You're not capable of inseminating a woman. That's how pathetic you are.

But y'know, go for it man. Sure it's a hoot.

>>2062164
Just let it happen naturally.
If you want to have kids out of a whim, or you hate the idea of having kids, place your money in that when you will have them they will be smthing twisted in the air...

>>2061919
BeeeEEEEELZEBUL Has a Hsvshsu PUT ASIDE FOR MEEEEEE...

>>2062164
this

>>2062179
>hating on yourself this hard

>>2062205
No, it's you that hates yourself, but what's sad is that you don't even realise it.

Go to the gym and lift some weights. You probably have unnaturally low testosterone.

Pushing weights raises your test a lot and you WILL feel the urge to fuck and impregnate women after that. But you're probably too much of a pussy to do that. Which is why you WILLINGLY sterilised yourself. Fucking L-O-L.

>>2062303
did you just assume my gender?

File: Baal.jpg (9KB, 220x422px)

9KB, 220x422px

>>2062200
Did someone call for Ba'al Zebub?

>>2062154
>Look, I don't care what you do, I'm not saying that you have a moral or ethical duty to procreate, I really don't give a fuck
>
>I'm saying as a matter of EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY. From an objective standpoint, the purpose of every single organism on the planet is to procreate.
How do you derive what the purpose of something is? All you did was look at what the status quo is and then said that this is according to its purpose.

That's like saying that the purpose of a rock is to stand around, the purpose of OP is to be a faggot, and the purpose of the naturalistic fallacy is to be committed.

It simply doesn't follow.

>>2062311
I assume you were the guy who had the snip

If you're a chick then your purpose is to be impregnated by a male

Circle of life nigguh

>>2062404
>How do you derive what the purpose of something is?
By studying it. Same way that scientists think the purpose of a tail is to maintain balance.

You think I'm making an ethical argument which is why you're resorting to logical fallacies which are completely fucking irrelevant here

I'm making a claim of biology, evolutionary biology really, and it's backed up by evidence.

>>2062709
But what if I was born male, but my gender is still female. I cannot give birth.

Likewise, what if I was born an infertile man/woman right from the start. Should such people simply kill themselves?

>>2062718
>But what if I was born male
Then you're male, and your gender is male

>Likewise, what if I was born an infertile man/woman right from the start. Should such people simply kill themselves?
Probably, yeah

>>2062709
>By studying it.
Be more precise.

>Same way that scientists think the purpose of a tail is to maintain balance.
Is the purpose of a tail really to maintain balance? Maybe that's just what a tail is exceedingly good at. What's the purpose of an atavism?

You could also go a level higher and claim that its purpose is to preserve the biological functioning of the thing it's attached to, just like how you could claim that the purpose of humans is to preserve a macro-ecosystem - or go the other way and claim that the purpose of a human is to preserve the functioning of the microbes residing on them.

What's the purpose of a rock, what's the purpose of a river, what's the purpose of the magmatic core of the Earth?

>>2062748
But if it is biologically programmed and determined -- and thus infallible -- why haven't such people killed themselves then?

In fact, why is there not a government program that kills such people for them? Why do their parents let them live?

Please answer.

>>2062752
Please stop making this a philosophical discussion when it isn't one

It's a biological discussion, so the only thing that is relevant here is biological fact. If you can give me facts that support a theory of evolutionary biology that living organisms have a purpose in their life other than procreation then please give it.

Ideas of purpose and function ARE meaningful in biology. Yes sure we know that organisms aren't designed with a purpose in mind, they are selected by nature. So penises weren't created with the purpose in mind of them being used to inseminate a female. But that is still their purpose. It's what they're used for, and it's why they exist. If they didn't have that purpose/function then eventually they wouldn't exist (just like most other biological features we've had that no longer serve a purpose, like the human tail, which no longer exists. The appendix is like the only useless thing that has stuck around, and even that will most likely disappear over many thousands, perhaps millions of years)

Do you get it now? This isn't a philosophical argument. It's a biological argument. Forget that I ever said or suggested that you "should" procreate. I mean, I do think that, but I'm not going to make a philosophical argument for it because I cannot be fucked.

Biologically, the ultimate purpose of any organism is to procreate. Of course organisms have other needs that come first, e.g. eating and staying fit, strong, healthy. But the ultimate purpose of any organism's life is procreation. We see it throughout nature. Organisms go to extreme lengths to procreate. They fight each other to the death to procreate. Reproduction is in fact one of the defining, necessary characteristics of life (under the most common definition). So yeah.

>>2062836
If it is strictly biological and absolutely not philosophical at all whatsoever, then what purpose does it have in this thread? Would it not be more appropriate in /sci/?

>>2062756
The desire to procreate is biologically programmed.

The impulse to kill yourself is a relatively rare one, probably because if we had evolved to all have an impulse to kill ourselves then we wouldn't be here as a species anymore.

>In fact, why is there not a government program that kills such people for them?
Hitler tried to make one didn't he? I think he did. It's very likely that previous civilisations did this as well. Although I'm sure they would have tried to make use of them in some capacity, because there's no point killing someone if you could use them for something useful - e.g. enslave them and make them work on your farm, something like that.

>Why do their parents let them live?
Dunno. Because they're deluded people who want to give themselves a purpose. Can't face the fact their child is effectively useless from a biological standpoint. Plus killing people is sort of frowned upon so they probably don't want to incur the penalties. Otherwise they might well put such children out to pasture. Unless, as I said, they could find a practical use for them, like physical work or whatnot.

>>2062860
So if these infertile people who cannot reproduce and cannot be killed, are instead sent to work, what are they working for, precisely, if they cannot sire offspring?

We are now back in square one.

The beauty of the human mind is that it allows one to resist his biological purpose to satisfy one that is fabricated from ideals. By the way this is in response to the guy going on about reproduction being the objective purpose of creation. I agree with you because as you said, it is a truth that is beyond ethics. However what you are doing is attributing additional worth to that biological purpose which is undue.

A man is successful for pursuing what he understands is right. Biology is irrelevant to the pursuit of success so for you to call those who choose not to reproduce 'less of a man' is comical. In fact it seems to me contemptible to be so submissive to one's biological drives that, like a beast, one abides by them blindly without consulting the higher faculties available only to men. Is one who chooses not to reproduce less of a man than one who does so because he feels he has no choice since biology demands it? That you are limiting yourself by your thinking is only amusing, but that you insult and condemn others for acting as they see fit is pathetic. I hope you are just young or trolling, it would be shameful if a grown man can be so ridiculous.

>>2062857
Hm. Okay I'll change tack - instead of avoiding the naturalistic fallacy like a pussy I'll just face it head on.

I reject it as a fallacy. I do think, in this case, that the way that nature is - and critically, the biological facts about YOURSELF - mean that you ought to procreate. You should procreate, because of the fact that procreation is essentially the ultimate purpose of every living organism on the planet, given everything we know about living creatures, their behaviour, their biology, etc.

There you go.

>>2062869
For fuck's sake man I'm just saying that procreating is your #1 priority in life like it is for any organism on the planet

Failing that, you can give yourself another purpose, sure. Like charity or whatever.

From a biological standpoint, procreation is still the number one priority of any organism. Observe the behaviour of animals and the lengths that they go to to procreate. Observe the behaviour of humans! We go to extreme lengths to accrue money, to improve ourselves, in order to attract a woman so that we can procreate.

>>2062897
But WHY must we reproduce for the sake of it?

Is that not the act of a cancer cell -- to reproduce mindlessly?

We do NOT know what we know about living creatures, their behavior, their biology, etc. just by only reproducing. We would only have known to reproduce.

There must be more to life, and that is precisely the problem beyond biology.

>>2062911
>But WHY must we reproduce for the sake of it?
If you're questioning it then I guess your chances of succeeding aren't that great.

The strongest, most eligible humans don't question it. They just do it. Because they want to. Because their instincts are saying they should. Because animals with strong desires to reproduce are the ones that survive.

>Is that not the act of a cancer cell -- to reproduce mindlessly?
And? Why is behaviour undesirable just because a cancer cell does it?

>There must be more to life
Put down the bong, my friend. Why "must" there be "more to life"? What are you even talking about?

This idea of a higher purpose is, I guess, a hangover from religion. And why does religion exist? Because it served a purpose from an evolutionary perspective. It allowed societies to be strong and prosperous and survive.

>>2061430
>that
>objective evidence
>you even claimed to not value something after exerting energy and time to say so
/nihilism

File: 1480308338817.png (2MB, 878x1280px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 878x1280px

>>2062909
>Observe the behaviour of animals and the lengths that they go to to procreate.

People go to great lengths to acquire heroin, because it indulges their senses. Animals have no concept of self, they are akin to heroin addicts, simply drifting in this phenomena; reacting on impulse. Man has a great grasp of cause and effect, this is the origin of all ideology, religion, science, etc. The need for meaning is a delusion; watch all those micro organisms and macro organisms move and die, and be tricked by mirrors. By applying ''meaning'' to anything, you are not seeing it as objective phenomena but rather a (to put it in terms people here can relate to) spook.

>>2063013
>By applying ''meaning'' to anything, you are not seeing it as objective phenomena but rather a (to put it in terms people here can relate to) spook.

Objectively speaking, it is observable that every single organism on Earth (to my knowledge) invests a huge amount of time, resources, exertion, etc into the process of reproduction

And certainly in the case of animals, almost all animals invest a fuckload of their time/resources/energy into procreation, and of course all compete with each other to procreate with the healthiest, most attractive, most fertile females, or sometimes just for the chance to procreate with whatever females are around.

Procreation means something to us in the same way that breathing, eating, sleeping mean something to us. And even things like getting a job, discovering things through knowledge, they mean something to us too, and only BECAUSE they translate into the most basic things - food, security from attack / natural disasters / whatever, social status / power, ability to procreate with females, etc.

Everything that we find meaningful ultimately reduces down to our basic animal needs and desires.

>>2063046
Btw yes I know there are organisms that reproduce asexually but I think they still invest time/energy/resources into reproducing that way, right? I'm sure they do. Don't think it's physically possible to reproduce unless energy and matter is invested into it.

>>2062995
>The strongest, most eligible humans don't question it. They just do it. Because they want to. Because their instincts are saying they should. Because animals with strong desires to reproduce are the ones that survive.

So from what you are telling me, that were I to see a pretty female, I MUST go ahead and rape her to carry my seed, as my instincts mandate, no questions asked?

And so should everyone else -- to senselessly rape all women and pass on their genes 24/7?

I do not think a culture would have gotten this far to this age of technology if they were as extremely dedicated to their instincts as you suggest. In fact, I do think monogamous marriage would have gone very far either.

It seems as if you only look at humans as if they were mere animals -- and although they are. But people have also done more than any other animal so far. But what propels them to such advancement -- why was the aeroplane developed, rocket ships, and space stations? To attract females to mate with? I doubt it.

There must be more, but what?

>And? Why is behavior undesirable just because a cancer cell does it?

I don't think you quite see the metaphor -- a cancer cell multiplies endlessly to the detriment of its host. If we had done just that, we would not be here. There is more.

>Put down the bong, my friend. Why "must" there be "more to life"? What are you even talking about?

No bong needed. There *must* be more because there IS more. But what, not everybody can agree on just yet, and has been the topic of philosophy since its inception.

I am talking about something similar to "higher purpose" as you allude, just something, anything, other than mere copulation as the primary need for man. Otherwise we would have remained as apes: capable of reproduction, do reproductive, is alive, but not aware of anything greater.

Based on what you've written so far, it is truly tragic to look at a mirror and see nothing more than a glorified hairless baboon.

>>2063013
I would also like to critique your youthful Darwinism. Things are more complex than you present them, and you might be aware of that, the, let's call it ''game view'' of reality is also the trapping of delusion, as is the other anons obvious insecurity-fueled need for metaphysical meaning. There are no ''most eligible'' to inherit the earth, phenomena is more complex than this. But this game view lends itself nicely to the proofs of Pavlov's experiments.

>>2062086
>MUH REPRODUCTION
Reproduction was just the most pragmatic form of surviving mother nature and it is nearly worthless now. Survival is the goal by which reproduction is an extension.

>>2063046
>>2063052
Anon... That reductionist thinking is rooted in what? Perhaps you should think about it whilst you're not busy fulfilling your ''imperatives''.

>>2063061
>So from what you are telling me, that were I to see a pretty female, I MUST go ahead and rape her to carry my seed, as my instincts mandate, no questions asked?
That's your choice, obviously there is the practical concern that she might get an abortion. And you might go to prison, which might hamper your chances to sire any more children - then again it may not, if you're allowed conjugal visits. Chicks dig bad boys y'know.

>And so should everyone else -- to senselessly rape all women and pass on their genes 24/7?
That's exactly what humans did before society existed. Just like all other animals.

Well, I'm pretty sure not all animal sex is rape. Reading the wikipedia article about gorillas that I quoted before, it says how women often invite the males for sex. But I am certain rape happens as well.

The take home point is this - spread your seed in whatever way is best. There are obviously many benefits to getting a job, marrying a girl, etc. You can raise your children, you can increase their chances of future survival through your parenting. Just spread your seed in whichever way works man.

>But what propels them to such advancement -- why was the aeroplane developed, rocket ships, and space stations? To attract females to mate with? I doubt it.
Why do you doubt it? That's exactly why people do those things. To get money, and to gain status, both of which will enable them to attract a woman and have children.

>Based on what you've written so far, it is truly tragic to look at a mirror and see nothing more than a glorified hairless baboon.
That's exactly what we are though.

Sure, we're ADVANCED apes. We're still apes.

It's remarkable that we've developed things like airplanes, sure. Just because of how advanced they are. But our goals and motivations are still, fundamentally, exactly the same as those of any other organism. We will never escape our animal natures, because animals is exactly what we are.

>>2063078
>Reproduction was just the most pragmatic form of surviving mother nature and it is nearly worthless now. Survival is the goal by which reproduction is an extension.

That's an interesting idea. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps if science makes it possible for people to live forever, they won't want to have children anymore. They'll just want to ensure their own continued survival rather than that of a new generation.

That's not a reality right now though, is it? So I don't see how you think reproduction is "nearly worthless now" - it is still the mechanism by which we ensure our survival.

>>2063081
Biology. Biology is what it's rooted in. If you think my theory of evolutionary biology is wrong then please do present an alternate one.

>>2063109
Explain Tesla, explain Newton...

You are projecting your reductionist view of reality as to secure your sense of not being wrong. Which is a base thing in thought. As I said before, your way of thinking is not as objective as your observations make you believe. Conditioning, influence. You're breezing through with blinders on.

>>2063127
>it is still the mechanism by which we ensure our survival.

No it's now. You'll be dead. Offspring are a net benefit while you're alive.

>>2063061
Also
>There *must* be more because there IS more.
Proof?

I don't know if you're familiar with the "dualism/physicalism" debate in philosophy, but it's essentially the debate between whether the human body, and consciousness, are purely explained by physical phenomena alone (physicalism), or whether there is a "something else" as well (dualism) - e.g. a soul, a spirit, whatever.

I'm a physicalist. Like you might be able to tell. I think that consciousness, emotions, everything about humans, are all ultimately explainable by physical phenomena. Which is what science seems to explain, in my opinion. I don't think there is any need to propose some sort of supernatural entity like a soul or a spirit in order to explain the human body. Science does it just fine. Consciousness and emotions are caused by electrical impulses and chemicals in our brain, as well as the physical constitution of the brain itself.

>>2063127
There's that reductionist thinking again. We could say that our conversation here is rooted in biology, which it is. But again, you fail to see the details, or rather, the bigger picture. You're telling yourself that your opinion on the ''purpose'' of life is rooted in biology? Please reread my posts if you care, I don't think I could add anything to make my arguments clearer.

Only Will matters.

>>2063139
>Explain Tesla, explain Newton...
Explain what about them?

They are human beings that existed (probably, if historical sources are correct and not fallacious), and they discovered things in science. Don't see what you're getting at here?

Sure no human being can ever be purely objective but we can make observations about the world in which we have a high degree of confidence of their objectivity.

E.g. gravity. We're pretty sure that gravity objectively exists. Right?

>>2063153
Sure some people have children just so they have people to care for them when they're old, but the ultimate reason to have children is because you're passing your genes on.

>>2063175
Tesla and Newton are notorious "wizards" in that they have so much, while being essentially celibate.

Really, they are shining examples of why you're not currently making sense based on what you're saying. If you read up on any of them, they had no interest whatsoever in reproduction and built upon their work because that is what mattered to them.

>>2063175
>but the ultimate reason to have children is because you're passing your genes on.

No it's not, that's a delusion. I'm surprised that you hold such a plebeian, for the lack of a better word, observation. You will be dead, your genes mean nothing, you experience nothing. Yes people may think they have children to keep their lineage going, but that's because of various influences. In practice it was to form gangs basically. Think about it, it's very simple.

>Explain Tesla, explain Newton...
Explain what about them?

Oh, so you're on the spectrum. Perhaps you put yourself there. Either-way, both those men died virgins. They did what they did; not out of these base reductions you keep talking about, but for abstract reasons. And this is the true nature of things, it is complex, too many variables to things. What you're doing is not actually being objective, but parroting ''objectivisms'' and doing what the religious do; reduce reality to one meaning.

Anyway, it's getting too late where I live. This will be my last post.

File: 1460411603533.png (39KB, 675x391px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 675x391px

>>2062995
>>
>The strongest, most eligible humans don't question it. They just do it. Because they want to. Because their instincts are saying they should. Because animals with strong desires to reproduce are the ones that survive.
This is what all the retards PUA miss btw. They think that for women, the life is all about the sex and that the sex is ultimately about having babies.. whereas For women, sex is opposite of having babies.
Betas like them try to contrive a world where they are necessary and turn this necessity into a duty and then the fulfillment of this duty into pride, because they have nothing else. All they want is to impress some woman, then making her moan with their cock, their tongue and their fingers.
They talk about genes and survival, but they do not even know what they want to survive. These betas are the men with the most spooks in them.

>>2063220
Hit me with them digits family

>>2063156
science does not exist, at best you have formal models created by what you call scientists, models which by the way are not about truths, because math is not about truth, but truth values at best.

>>2063156
I think that things are absolutely all ultimately explainable by physical phenomena for the purposes of talking about it, yes: building things, developing things etc. basically anything practical in the physical worldly realm.

But I also think that it's accurate to say that they're just interpretations of physical phenomena, and that there might be something greater that cannot be completely shared, only experienced, or thought about in solace individually. It can be fostered, but not given -- only earned. I can talk all day about it and sound like a nutcase, which I kind of am admittedly, but such talk isn't welcome or really belong here and I generally prefer to keep it to myself.

>>2063220
Artfag reporting in.

Whatever I get, I will draw a dystopian cityscape where that is the dominant ideology.

>>2063242
>Paleo-National-Primitivism

Well, there goes the cityscape idea.

>>2063242
>Paleonathionalprimitivism

oh that's too easy, just draw a tribal village in a jungle or something.

Rerolling for you.

>>2063205
>>2063213
>they had no interest whatsoever in reproduction and built upon their work because that is what mattered to them.
Well then they are idiots, just like homosexuals and transsexuals and anybody who choses celibacy, or not to procreate, is an idiot

They don't disprove what I'm saying in any way whatsoever

>>2063213
>No it's not, that's a delusion. I'm surprised that you hold such a plebeian, for the lack of a better word, observation. You will be dead, your genes mean nothing, you experience nothing. Yes people may think they have children to keep their lineage going, but that's because of various influences. In practice it was to form gangs basically. Think about it, it's very simple.
Well all of that is factually incorrect.

The reason every organism on the planet procreates is to pass its genes on.

That's biological fact.

>>2063213
>They did what they did; not out of these base reductions you keep talking about, but for abstract reasons.
Again, that's factually incorrect.

If you want to pose other motivations then give me a reasoned argument for why they exist. Every single one of them will be reducible to social status, food, security from danger, etc. Things you need to survive. I will show you so please, do give me your terrible arguments as to what "abstract reasons" you think exist, and why they're not reducible to our ultimate animal needs (they are).

>This will be my last post.
Lol, pussy can't even defend his terrible fucking arguments.

>>2063220
I have no idea what the flying fuck you are trying to say

>>2063228
................................................................................................but we still come up with scientific theories that we have a high degree of confidence in don't we

Please don't give me the whole Humean scepticism crap because it's really not relevant to the current argument. At least it's not what we're arguing about. And I'm not going to argue about it.

Please don't give me the whole Muh Biology crap because it's really not relevant to the current argument. At least it's not what we're arguing about. And I'm not going to argue about it.

>>2063257

Hold up now nigga. So Tesla was an idiot? So all of this is you SUBJECTIVE reasoning. You are not being objective my man. You cant cope with the fact that you propagating them genes of yours means nothing? How much time do you spend watching gorillas fuck so you can see purpose from it? kek.

>>2063284

Hurrr hurh ruh ru hhururu rur rud duuur dur udu ruuduurh huuduuur udhuruudh h hhhhruu d uuruud du ud ur uudruu drudu rudr du rud ru dru dududuuuuruuruuruurururururuururrr

I still have seen no better theory of evolutionary biology in this thread than the one I have explained

Ergo none of you have refuted my point

Lolzers

>>2063308
We're not discussing evolutionary biology though, we're discussing why people do things.

And again, "muh biology" means nothing because evidently as others have pointed out, tons of people have done stuff without procreation in mind, some not even wanting to procreate to begin with.

Calling them "idiots" doesn't invalidate them either.

Please don't give me the whole Muh Biology crap because it's really not relevant to the current argument. At least it's not what we're arguing about. And I'm not going to argue about it.

>>2063306
>So Tesla was an idiot?
Yeah he was. Procreation is the purpose of any organism's life. It's your number one priority. He obviously decided to forego that priority and do some stupid science shit instead. Idiot. Well, his loss.

>You cant cope with the fact that you propagating them genes of yours means nothing?
Except it's the only thing that means ANYTHING. If you don't procreate then your genes don't live on. In which case, you may as well have killed yourself the moment you were born.

Sure you can have an impact on the lives of others, but that doesn't benefit you does it? The thing that benefits you is to fuck women and spread your seed.

Life is a competition to impregnate the most attractive females possible. Just like it is for all other animals.

>>2063308
I guess you are a monkey. Good luck f.a.m.

>>2063324
What do you gain from procreating? Let's say that youre a rich man with everything a man could need, but you simply don't want to reproduce. Are you then a failure? Who decides this? Youre not the objective arbiter of reality bruh.

>>2063325
kek

monkeyfag btfo

>it's another appeal to nature thread

The definition of intellectual bankruptcy and moral desperation.

>>2063308
Your """"theory"""" puts bacteria on a pedestal. After all, they've achieved their "purpose" more than any other life form, they're the most widespread life on this Earth. What could be greater than a bacterium? You know what's also great? Houseflies. Sure, they live for like 3 days, but just look how quickly they breed. It's all about breeding, nothing else matters, we should just be slaves to our dicks and rape as many women as we can find. The more women we impregnate, the more fulfilled our purpose is. Genghis Khan was the greatest man to ever walk the planet Earth, he may have destroyed civilizations and killed millions but at least he spread his genes.

>>2063345
he's probably a young man,hopped up on PUA shit, let him destroy himself

>>2063359
You know the real irony of this thread?

He'll never get laid either with such shitty opinions

it's like pottery

>>2063324
Have you reproduced? Or do you just fuck for the pleasure, thus destroying your own ideology

>>2063316
>tons of people have done stuff without procreation in mind, some not even wanting to procreate to begin with.

That doesn't mean that procreation isn't the number one priority of an organism's life. That just means those people were stupid and wasted their lives.

They probably chose science because at a young age they were pushed around by tougher kids and they lost any hope of becoming tough, strong and virile. Resigned themselves to the belief that they wouldn't be able to compete.

If they had made different decisions though, e.g. if they had decided to go to the gym and train hard, then they would have changed their chances.

As I said in this thread already, you should hit the gym. Pump weights. It will increase your test which will increase your sex drive and your desire to have children. Science, nigga. You could take any human being on the planet, put them on a course of training, give them some confidence, and they will want to fuck every chick out there (apart from the ugly ones). As I say, science.

>>2063375
You're wasting your life RIGHT NOW by posting ITT.

Go outside, find the nearest fertile woman, knock her out, and rape her. Then repeat until you are out of semen. Repeat until you are dead. That is the height of existence.

>>2063381
this

why does he even reply

he is literally going against his ideology the longer he's down here

>>2063325
>>2063344
Well yes, humans are apes

>>2063340
>Are you then a failure?
Of course

>Who decides this?
Nature

>Youre not the objective arbiter of reality bruh.
But nature is, bruh

>>2063345
>The definition of intellectual bankruptcy and moral desperation.
It's actually the truth, and I *STILL* haven't received an argument grounded in evolutionary biology that disproves what I'm saying?

Instead you're all just whinging about how I'm not objective. I'm not saying I'm objective, I'm saying nature and reality are objective. And my argument is based on facts about nature and reality. No one else has come up with an argument based on empirical facts about nature yet.

>>2063345
>Genghis Khan was the greatest man to ever walk the planet Earth, he may have destroyed civilizations and killed millions but at least he spread his genes.
Yes, he was. Fuck I would give a right arm to fuck as many women as he did.

Why the fuck is killing people a bad thing? It's bad for the victims. Why is it bad for Genghis? It's not, he was successful as fuck and fucked loads of bitches. Real nigga.

>Your """"theory"""" puts bacteria on a pedestal. After all, they've achieved their "purpose" more than any other life form
Any organism that is alive today is obviously doing something right to have survived millions of years up until now. So yeah I think bacteria do deserve their place on a pedestal, just like any other currently existing life-form.

>>2063359
>>2063366
>ad hominem
HOOOOOOO BOY

We really have sunk to the depths haven't we. Kek. Just shows you can't disprove what I'm saying and you know it, lol :^)

>>2063370
>Or do you just fuck for the pleasure, thus destroying your own ideology
That doesn't destroy anything about what I'm saying... and I don't see how you think it would

Did I ever say you shouldn't have recreational sex? I am just saying that procreation is the number one priority of any organism, because it is.

File: N.Tesla[1].jpg (1MB, 2563x3348px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2563x3348px

>>2063375
Nigger, Tesla could have had all the pussy in America riding his electro-dick. But he didn't give a fuck.You on the other hand had to TRAIN HARD and go to the GYM. While tesla ate PIZZA and fed PIGEONS.

You spend your ENTIRE life obsessing over pussy while tesla's ashes are resting COMFORTABLY in a bronze ORB.

>>2063415
see >>2063381

GO HAVE SEX RIGHT NOW

BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY

GO RAPE SOME LITTLE GIRLS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA IF YOU HAVE TO, THEY DON'T HAVE BIRTH CONTROL OR ABORTIONS THERE

YOU ARE WASTING VALUABLE BREEDING TIME

GO GO GO

File: this_is_a_10_out_of_10_to_monkeyfag.png (1MB, 640x834px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 640x834px

>>2063415
>Well yes, humans are apes

Stopped reading right there

I found you a wife for you to spread your genes and achieve the height of humanity senpai

>>2063381
>>2063392
>he is literally going against his ideology the longer he's down here

Explain how?

>Go outside, find the nearest fertile woman, knock her out, and rape her. Then repeat until you are out of semen. Repeat until you are dead. That is the height of existence.

That's one way of doing it, but there are good reasons not to:

1) There's a high chance that such a woman would abort any resulting pregnancy, thus defeating the purpose
2) You'd get slung in jail, which I suppose wouldn't be the end of the world if you were allowed conjugal visits, so you could get other bitches to come visit you and you knock them up too

But if you think you could make it work then go for it.

So again, you haven't disproved my assertion that procreating is the number one priority for any organism. You've come up with a juvenile argument of "lol why aren't you doing it now then" which doesn't at all question the validity or truth of my claim. As I explained, there are good, solid reasons why someone might choose a different reproductive strategy to the one that you are proposing. They probably fancy that their chances of reproductive success are higher by using a different strategy. That doesn't do anything to show that procreation isn't the number one priority of any organism, does it?

>>2063415
Yes we can't prove to you how indoctrinated by your own bullshit you are. I believe its called cognitive dissonance.

Nature isn't a metaphysical God thing you fool. Its an abstract concept made up by humans to describe certain phenomena.

People tend to not trust idiots that boast of their amoral stance concerning killing. Ghengis was a baller, ill give you that, but hes dead and his descendants mean nothing.

>>2063442
Literally every post you make ITT makes you more and more hypocritical.

>abortion

Save up some money. Go to sub-saharan Africa. Ambush and rape every woman you see. You should build up a fair amount of rape babies this way.

>you mean I actually have to practice what I preach? uhhhhh no!

Fuck off.

File: Screen Shot 2016-12-09 at 02.53.35.png (1MB, 2526x1320px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2526x1320px

>>2063420
>You spend your ENTIRE life obsessing over pussy while tesla's ashes are resting COMFORTABLY in a bronze ORB.

And he has no progeny, while I, hopefully, will.

>>2063425
Read this right here: >>2063442

>>2063426
Yes humans are apes. Sorry I have to counter your childish babble with scientific fact, bruh.

>>2063455
>you mean I actually have to practice what I preach? uhhhhh no!

That doesn't matter. The point is, he thinks that the ultimate purpose to life is procreation. He's a simple dude with simple thoughts. But thats the way he wants to keep things.

>>2063451
>indoctrinated
Then surely you should be able to show me a factual account of evolutionary biology that disproves mine?

What's that? You can't?

Huh, funny that.

>People tend to not trust idiots that boast of their amoral stance concerning killing.
Ad hominem again? Awesome. Or perhaps the genetic fallacy? Both I think.

>Ghengis was a baller, ill give you that
See? You agree with me! You know that I'm right! Society tells us there's "more to life" because otherwise we'd all start fighting with each other again for the hottest females. That's our true nature. That never goes away. The reason we exist in the current state of society is because some weak humans decided they'd rather work for stronger humans and have a chance of possibly finding a girl to marry and procreate with, than get killed straight away by the tougher humans. Pussies, I guess.

>hes dead and his descendants mean nothing.
Hahaha. His descendants are likely still alive today you moron.

>Zerjal et al. (2003)[7] identified a Y-chromosomal lineage present in about 8% of the men in a large region of Asia (about 0.5% of the world total). The paper suggests that the pattern of variation within the lineage is consistent with a hypothesis that it originated in Mongolia about 1000 years ago, and thus several generations prior to the birth of Genghis. Such a spread would be too rapid to have occurred by genetic drift, and must therefore be the result of selection. The authors propose that the lineage is carried by likely male-line descendants of Genghis Khan and his close male relatives, and that it has spread through social selection due to the power that Genghis Khan and his direct descendants held and a society which allowed one man to have many children through having multiple wives and widespread rape in conquered cities. All male line descendants of Genghis Khan were all allowed to have numerous wives.[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_from_Genghis_Khan

>>2062086

The contemporary meme of "the meaning of life is to fuck, brah", which is so popular among normies, and which has both culture and biological feels/imperatives at its back, is yet false. Why?

Because it is simply the latest first-world iteration of a story that people use to make sense of the world, a metanarrative. First it was gods, later God. Later the purpose of history is to go through a series of struggles which will inevitably result in the generalized equality of men, or somesuch. A bit later, the Henry Fords of the world bastardized science in order to explain Gods and Clods, and thus the non-rigorous meme of social darwinism. The most recent iteration to which I refer is just an update of this popular bastardization of science to fit convenient cultural conceptions about where meaning comes from.

But still why, or why not? Because suppose on the one hand that you are a conventional theist. Then in this case, your existence has a mysterious meaning quite apart from "just fuck, brah": you have a /purpose/, a meaning of some kind deriving from a god, and commonly a later reward, or delayed gratification, which gives people the story-structure to slug it out during fleeting life. In this case, you have no need of such a disgustingly hedonic explanation of meaning, even if it happens to be true in some sense.

Now suppose on the other hand that you are an atheistic, scientistic, materialistic philosopher, and consequently dismissive of god.Then even in this case, as anyone with intellectual honesty can admit, we are all just animals puttering around without any grand purpose or intrinsic meaning. And so, even in this case, /there is no meaning in/ "just fuck, brah".Our scientistic view has allowed us to perceive the truth that it's all just organism self-trickery and chemical brain-dumps to motivate behavior and so on.

The point being that the supposed deep meaning in "just fuck, brah" has just been nuked for the lazy, wrong bullshit that it is.

ITT an anon confuses the science behind reproduction as philosophy, which isn't what the science behind it supports at all because one field science and the other is philosophy

The best part? He'll demand to be proven wrong, when he can just look up why an appeal to nature is a fallacy

he WILL reply to this post

>>2063455
See, the reason you are becoming perturbed (which you are) is because you think I am posing a threat.

Your masculine sense of self-preservation, pride, desire to procreate is kicking in. You are starting to think "is this guy more virile than I am?" (I never claimed to be, by the way. I'm only making a claim about nature, not about myself.) You're feeling threatened, you're doubting your confidence in yourself. You are doubting the pact that you have made in society, the one that says "let's all be fair to each other because it ensures the survival of all of us, and if you want to procreate, then you have to get a good job and attract a woman to have children with you - that's the legal way of doing it". You're a man, so naturally if you think anybody might BREAK that pact, then you are angry. You are perturbed. You are annoyed. Because somebody might unfairly get to have more children than you - unfair because they have broken the rules that you have imposed upon yourself, when you signed up to the rules of society (which most people do).

Which is natural. Because, as I say, procreation is the first priority of organisms. Which you still haven't given me any good reason to doubt, have you?

>>2063471
Thank you. I am glad someone sees where I am coming from.

The fact is every single one of us would impregnate all the hottest bitches in the world if a) there was no competition, b) there was no chance of arrest, c) we didn't have to raise the children ourselves (critical point that one), etc.

Every dude wants that. Even gay dudes - they're just straight dudes that lost confidence in themselves.

>>2063503
It means nothing to Ghengis himself, he's dead.

>Ad hominem again?
No, just a fact


>See? You agree with me! You know that I'm right! Society tells us there's "more to life" because otherwise we'd all start fighting with each other again for the hottest females. That's our true nature. That never goes away. The reason we exist in the current state of society is because some weak humans decided they'd rather work for stronger humans and have a chance of possibly finding a girl to marry and procreate with, than get killed straight away by the tougher humans. Pussies, I guess.

Go read more history.

>Then surely you should be able to show me a factual account of evolutionary biology that disproves mine?

it's your own subjective interpretation and projection of meaning on a thing that is meaningless, you are what you believe, well, to yourself at least. I can't help you see the truth if you do not already have the capability to understand it.

>>2063544
>Your masculine sense of self-preservation, pride, desire to procreate is kicking in. You are starting to think "is this guy more virile than I am?"

holy shit I burst out laughing, who the fuck thinks like that?

my god, you are one insecure fuck, aren't you?

christ, that's why you lift weights, you're compensating for something haha

>>2063522
>>2063533

I will try and read the long ass post in a sec

But I read enough to say you're both wrong

Procreation is the ultimate purpose of any organism's life. Put a hot, fertile bitch in front of a man, tell him that there will be absolutely NO strings attached if he impregnates that bitch there and then. He won't have to raise the kid, or pay for it. The kid will get raised by the bitch, with no work on his part. Unless he is tormented by emotional issues relating to his own inadequacy, he will impregnate that bitch 10 times out of 10. Human nature niggah.

>appeal to nature is a fallacy
I'm not saying procreation is good, I'm saying that procreation is the number one priority of every organism, which is a claim of empirical fact - it's not a normative assertion, an assertion of value, like you think it is. So you're wrong. Lel.

>>2063568
>I'm not saying procreation is good, I'm saying that procreation is the number one priority of every organism, which is a claim of empirical fact
>the number one priority
>priority

There's that word again. I don't think you know what it means.

Animals don't have priorities -- they just do as they please and live by instinct. Instinct, fundamentally more than procreation is rooted more towards self-preservation.

Take that same man in that room, and tell him that bitch will try to kill him instead. He'll kill the bitch back if his life depended on it because he wants to live more than procreate. I guarantee it.

So, this means that self-preservation is the ultimate of humanity, which is a given. Not reproduction. This is true science, as an organism WILL "prioritize" self-preservation over procreation.

You couldn't be more wrong, lmao

>>2063522
>And so, even in this case, /there is no meaning in/ "just fuck, brah".Our scientistic view has allowed us to perceive the truth that it's all just organism self-trickery and chemical brain-dumps to motivate behavior and so on.

Basically what you're doing is you're saying that the word/concept of "purpose" is meaningless, because every purpose we give ourselves is just... brain chemicals?

Right... that doesn't mean that word doesn't have a meaning does it?

"I want to go to university, for the purpose of getting a good job"

"I want to marry this hot bitch, for the purpose of making babies with her"

We all know what a fucking purpose is, it's a fucking motivation, and motivations are observable in nature as much as they are in us. Animals are motivated by food. A lion hunts a gazelle for the purpose of eating its insides, for nourishment.

You haven't provided any sort of argument to show that my theory of evolutionary biology is wrong. It might be simplistic (I'm not an evolutionary biologist - if I met one they could probably say what I'm saying in much more eloquent terms, but I'm sure they would admit there's SOME truth, or in fact a lot of truth, in what I'm saying), but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

File: stefan.jpg (32KB, 750x400px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 750x400px

>>2063552
>just a fact
I wouldn't call it a fact. Not everybody has such high standards of morality as you. Perhaps you should meet a wider diversity of people.

>Go read more history.
That's the biggest example of not being an argument I've ever seen.

>it's your own subjective interpretation and projection of meaning on a thing that is meaningless, you are what you believe, well, to yourself at least. I can't help you see the truth if you do not already have the capability to understand it.
Nope, just found an even bigger example.

"I can't help you see the truth if you do not already have the capability to understand it." - hahahahahahaha what a crock of shit

"I'm too incapable to make a convincing argument so I'll profess my obviously apparent superiority instead"

>>2063559
So, essentially, you admit that you have no argument to say that I'm wrong?

Exactly as I thought.

>>2063618
>"I can't help you see the truth if you do not already have the capability to understand it." - hahahahahahaha what a crock of shit

Could you be taught to ride a bike if you had no limbs? But maybe I'm not being clear enough. I think this guy explained it well.>>2063594


>I wouldn't call it a fact. Not everybody has such high standards of morality as you. Perhaps you should meet a wider diversity of people.

Did I say killing was morally wrong? No, but that most people would trust you less if they knew about your amoral opinions.

>That's the biggest example of not being an argument I've ever seen.

Your dumbing down of human history to ''Ug fuck, Ug kill'' warranted such a response.

>>2063594

The willingness with which parent organisms die in order to defend the lives of their child organisms is a compelling counterargument to your proposed hierarchy of "self-preservation first, reproduction second". but all this is far secondary to the the young anon's budding learning, and initial rejection of anything that upsets his scientistic normie "just fuck brah" worldview. He even uses conventionally colorful metaphors in adolescent language "I want to marry this hot bitch (marry, is that what you really want to do to her?) babies babies etc" to try to reinforce his point like we aren't older than him and haven't thought of these things and personally lived them in our own brains and in our own dicks.

File: ljoZ8Uw.jpg (30KB, 402x604px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 402x604px

What the fuck has this thread turned into? I just wanted to post a fat cat.

>>2063594
>Animals don't have priorities -- they just do as they please and live by instinct.
Well that's exactly where you're wrong, kiddo, because if a lion is eating a gazelle and it suddenly sees a big threat - a rival pack of lions coming to attack it, for example - it will run away.

Guess what that's a demonstration of? PRIORITIES.

The priority for survival trumped the priority of eating in that scenario.

>Take that same man in that room, and tell him that bitch will try to kill him instead. He'll kill the bitch back if his life depended on it because he wants to live more than procreate. I guarantee it.
Ah look you basically made the same sort of analogy. Novel. You agree with me and you don't even know it (or don't want to admit it, more likely)

>So, this means that self-preservation is the ultimate of humanity, which is a given. Not reproduction. This is true science, as an organism WILL "prioritize" self-preservation over procreation.
Then why do moose, gorillas, kangaroos, and many other animals fight each other, sometimes to the death, for the chance to procreate with females?

Sure, sometimes they pull out of such fights, but often they will lay everything on the line.

I think you would agree with me that reproduction is still a very high priority for animals, right? Okay, perhaps it is second to self-preservation... if only because preserving yourself will give you a chance to fight another day. It is still an incredibly high priority, which animals risk their health, sometimes their lives for.

>>2063692
>The willingness with which parent organisms die in order to defend the lives of their child organisms is a compelling counterargument to your proposed hierarchy

That only happens if you've reproduces in the first place.

It would look like this: Self-preservation first, reproduction second, REVERSE if with children i.e. reproduction first, self-preservation second.

But fundamentally first and foremost, self-preservation is the utmost first of an organism.

>>2063701
>Guess what that's a demonstration of? PRIORITIES.

No, that was just a demonstration of instinct. The instinct to live.

>You agree with me and you don't even know it (or don't want to admit it, more likely)

No, I'm very clearly saying self-preservation first, everything else is secondary (unless you have children, which tend to reverse the order, but only under that rule).

>Then why do moose, gorillas, kangaroos, and many other animals fight each other, sometimes to the death, for the chance to procreate with females?

Here's the thing: They didn't expect to die :^)

No animal, no organism, generally wants to die. They may actually die, but they do it thinking that somehow, some way, they will be the one to live. That is why they fight.

>>2063657
>Your dumbing down of human history to ''Ug fuck, Ug kill'' warranted such a response.
But that's what the history of all animals is.

>>2063692
>The willingness with which parent organisms die in order to defend the lives of their child organisms is a compelling counterargument to your proposed hierarchy of "self-preservation first, reproduction second".
Very good point.

>but all this is far secondary to the the young anon's budding learning, and initial rejection of anything that upsets his scientistic normie "just fuck brah" worldview. He even uses conventionally colorful metaphors in adolescent language "I want to marry this hot bitch (marry, is that what you really want to do to her?) babies babies etc" to try to reinforce his point like we aren't older than him and haven't thought of these things and personally lived them in our own brains and in our own dicks.
I'm 25 years old, I have a philosophy degree (three years of agonising over arguments, thinking I was going to reach some sort of truth at the end of it - only to realise it's really just pointless pseudo-intellectual twattery and that science is the only way to establish fact), and I've had my own successes and failures with chicks

Maybe you're older than me, but I'd say I'm probably smack bang in the middle of average age on 4chan, or perhaps a little higher

I also hate to say "I have a philosophy degree" as if that makes me smart - it doesn't, but I'm just saying I'm not completely fucking clueless like you seem to imply

>>2063711
Animals do not fear death, they fear pain, they don't actually ''think'' as we anthropomorphize it.

Animals will fight each other in order to get access to a hole to fuck, a lot of animals exhibit bisexual behavior. There is no ''purpose'' in spreading you genes, it is the result of them fucking around.

>>2063725
>Animals do not fear death, they fear pain, they don't actually ''think'' as we anthropomorphize it.

You're right, but ultimately pain and death are closely related, at least to an animal. They might feel as if any little bit of pain could lead to their lives ending, which is why it's probably such a hassle getting them to sit still for an injection.

>There is no ''purpose'' in spreading you genes, it is the result of them fucking around.

I agree, "spreading your genes" really just seems like a byproduct of having accomplished self-preservation long enough. But above all, that goes out the window if their life is threatened.

>>2063698
Sorry for hijacking your thread mang. Appreciate the cats tho

>>2063711
>It would look like this: Self-preservation first, reproduction second, REVERSE if with children i.e. reproduction first, self-preservation second.
Yeah that seems reasonable.

>But fundamentally first and foremost, self-preservation is the utmost first of an organism.
Eh, maybe you're right, but reproduction is still a really fucking big priority. Maybe I did skip over self-preservation - I guess I'm saying that for any healthy animal, which is not under any immediate threat of attack or whatever, reproduction is their highest priority.

Your view is very similar to mine though, really. Unlike the people who were trying to argue that because Nikola Tesla didn't procreate, that means reproduction isn't always a priority for humans... I would say that if Nikola Tesla had believed in himself, and had attractive bitches available to him (who were available for little to no effort on his part), then he would have had children like anybody else.

>No, that was just a demonstration of instinct. The instinct to live.
But in both of those examples, both the human and the line prioritised instincts didn't they? Because the lion still had an instinct to eat.

Humans might have the ability to consciously self-reflect on priorities, but that doesn't mean we are unique in prioritising certain needs over others in certain situations.

>Here's the thing: They didn't expect to die :^)
>No animal, no organism, generally wants to die. They may actually die, but they do it thinking that somehow, some way, they will be the one to live. That is why they fight.
They will still be very aware of the danger, of the inherent threat and risk involved in a fight. They choose to prioritise their desire to reproduce over their desire to not get hurt. Just like we do when we fight someone - we prioritise our desire for glory, pride, social standing over our desire to not get hurt.

>>2061231
To meeeeee

>>2063220
witness me

>>2063725
>Animals do not fear death, they fear pain
True I guess

>they don't actually ''think'' as we anthropomorphize it.
I would say they think. Sure they don't have the same capacity of self-reflection as us, or the ability to think about abstract concepts (which many people think comes from language, which it probably does). But I would still say they have thoughts. Animals can be quite clever sometimes. Animals dream too. I would say that dreams are thoughts.

>Animals will fight each other in order to get access to a hole to fuck, a lot of animals exhibit bisexual behavior.
That's true.

>There is no ''purpose'' in spreading you genes, it is the result of them fucking around.
There is a purpose, from an evolutionary perspective. The purpose of fucking is to create children. That's why the act of fucking exists. And let me be clear - when I use the word "purpose" I mean it in the same way that we would say the purpose of the lungs is for breathing. Or the purpose of the heart is to pump blood around the body. I'm not saying reproduction is a divine purpose.

>>2063745
>I agree, "spreading your genes" really just seems like a byproduct of having accomplished self-preservation long enough.
But that doesn't make any sense... humans are having FEWER children now than they used to. Thomas Jefferson had six children, his father had ten. In those days big families were common - and yes that's partly because children would die from disease, and they had no contraception. But they were still producing children like bunnies, because that's what their instincts told them to do.

Any man, given the chance, and without limitations of resources / threats from other men, would sire as many children as he possibly could, right? Just look at powerful men, they often have many children. And they often father children by many women too, e.g. Bruce Willis.

"Spreading your genes" isn't bullshit. It's the explanation why animals have such a strong desire to fuck.

>>2063753
>that for any healthy animal, which is not under any immediate threat of attack or whatever, reproduction is their highest priority. Your view is very similar to mine though, really.

Sorry, but I don't consider reproduction to be all that essential either. Self-preservation still comes first even without the immediate threat of attack, as anyone can work harder to stockpile food so they won't starve (which leads to death). An excellent example would be a squirrel burying food for winter: it doesn't do it to primarily impress other squirrels, it does it for itself as other unprepared squirrels can go to hell when it's winter. So much can be reduced to nothing more than "because I'm currently in a state of self-preservation and I want to keep it that way" as brilliant people still had to make a living.

>Because the lion still had an instinct to eat

Wrong again, it just had a greater instinct of self-preservation.

>They will still be very aware of the danger, of the inherent threat and risk involved in a fight. They choose to prioritise their desire to reproduce over their desire to not get hurt.

What the fuck? Animals don't calculate danger or risk, their instincts just tell them that they're fit, ready, and will probably be the victor and thus ensure self-preservation, even if they're wrong and die. Their instincts suggest to them that reproduction is possible as a secondary after they've won, first and foremost, by being the last one alive and standing.

Why they get into the fight in the first place is probably because their instincts feel that they would win -- a lesser animal that is weak, sick, dying, would back out. Watch videos of animals fighting to see this: some submit early and give up, not worth their self-preservation. According to you, they would have gone with it anyways because of muh reproduction.

The same with war: the naive get into it because they assume they will survive somehow, biologically they have to no matter what they say.

>>2063220
roll

>>2063830
>But that doesn't make any sense... humans are having FEWER children now than they used to.

Perhaps because present conditions were not favorable enough to support both self-preservation and as much children? People are worried enough as it is with their jobs and future (self preservation at risk), children are cost, and anyone with a brain won't have as much children as they can because it might mean they will starve, and they see their children starve.

In those days, big families were common because they were generally needed for farms, a form of self-sustaining self-preservation. These days, not much farm, so having tons of children doesn't make as much sense when they won't help out as much and are just pure money sinks.

>Any man, given the chance, and without limitations of resources / threats from other men, would sire as many children as he possibly could, right?

Only if it does jeopardizes their self-preservation and if they feel like it. Not everyone is Bruce Willis. In fact, not everyone can completely guarantee their self-preservation as it is these days, unlike hollywood stars.

>"Spreading your genes" isn't bullshit. It's the explanation why animals have such a strong desire to fuck.

It's bullshit, just something to do once self-preservation is in order. Why animals have such a strong desire to fuck is a consequence of them being comfortable enough to fulfill pleasurable instincts. But the same can be said to overreating, video games -- pure pleasure as long as it's not risky.

>>2063721

I appreciate your honesty about your intellectual background, but now that you've given it up, I really do have to impugn your education itself.

I can appreciate going through what you've been through, and rejecting it in favor of more conventional views. And yet, your training, if it was worth anything at all, should have /stuck/, to some degree. You ought to have liked questioning everything on some level, or otherwise why study what you did.

Now a long snipe at tone, which is not itself substantive.

This isn't quite fair to the substance of the things that you've said either, but here it comes anyway: you have certain colloquialisms that make you sound younger and stupider. "Smack bang" is one of these, "twattery" is another. This is exactly the type of thing that younger white Americans write in order to sound smart, sage, curmudgeonly, and it just comes off awful every time. Most 4channers actually understand what I'm talking about, exactly because most 4channers have been tone-deaf like this at some point in their teen years or thereabouts, only to eventually become more self-aware. You do this often enough in your prose that it gets in the way of anyone taking you seriously in the subtance of your substantively wrong arguments, which are about how meaning itself, meaning and purpose as philosophical categories, are coterminous with "just fuck, brah", or whatever version of that you prefer. The poverty of your training is that you don't even seem to want to entertain whatever counternarratives you ought to have learned, outside of contemporary life, in order to vindicate your currently easy social view by counterposing the one with the other.

>>2064121
I agree he doesn't come across very well in this post >>2063568 -- "hot, fertile bitch" and "human nature niggah" and "lel" don't make me inclined to take him seriously -- but "smack bang in the middle" is a very common colloquialism. It's slang, but not particularly young slang or old slang. Weird thing to take issue with.

And really, your writing style is strained (and at points condescending) enough that I'm not really sure you're in a position to lecture anybody else about their use of language.

>>2061323
>Actually I can.
>doesn't elaborate on statement put forth
I bet you're one of those faggots that can't argue your way out of a paper bag

>>2064121

Not gonna read that bullshit

Not gonna respond to a bullshit four billion word ad hominem

Argue please

>>2064159

>And really, your writing style is strained (and at points condescending) enough that I'm not really sure you're in a position to lecture anybody else about their use of language.

Exactement mon ami

>>2063859
>What the fuck? Animals don't calculate danger or risk, their instincts just tell them that they're fit, ready, and will probably be the victor and thus ensure self-preservation, even if they're wrong and die.
They still have the thoughts associated with perceiving danger and recognising that as a higher priority than eating food

The prioritisation might be instinctive but it is still prioritisation

And it's the same with humans! Even if you've never been taught anything about the world, and you never developed language, you would still be able to recognise that saving your life is a bigger priority than eating food wouldn't you? Prioritisation is as instinctive for us as it is for any other animal.

>>2063885
I think you need to go to the gym mah niggah. Then you'll realise why fucking and impregnating girls is the highest priority of your life.

>It's bullshit, just something to do once self-preservation is in order.
That's not true. As I have said multiple times, animals FIGHT AND DIE for the right to procreate.

Your views suggest your test is low. Pump some iron, it will boost your test and you will have a far stronger feeling that reproduction is your greatest priority in life (behind the priority to stay alive, perhaps)

Why do men compete with each other for money, for status, for dominance? Because they want to fuck all the hottest women. It is the overriding motivation of every male's life. Men want to spread their seed, which is why men have fought wars, and have strived for greatness, because they want land and status, both of which will allow them to spread their seed more - the first because land is a practical necessity for expanding a population, and the second because status attracts fit bitches.

>>2063885
Here's another way to think about it

Life is just a bunch of organic chemicals that came about by chance, and developed the ability to self-replicate by chance

Self-replication is a defining feature of life. Something ain't life unless it has that feature.

Thus, your purpose, like that of every organism, is to self-replicate

Go to a prison, or watch a prison documentary. Look at how much people are willing to risk their safety and their lives just to prove themselves. Just to become absolute fucking alpha males that fuck everybody in the ass and get their way all the time and are virile as fuck and get to fuck/impregnate all the bitches that come and visit them during conjugal hours.

No theory of life can be complete without acknowledging these factual examples of human behaviour. Humans just want to spread their fucking seed as far as they possibly can. Like every other animal and organism. That's all there is to it.

Anybody who says there's "something more" to life is a cucked pussy who denies reality because they don't have the stones to compete for fit bitches. If they were to admit to themselves that inseminating bitches is actually the only important thing in an organism's life, they would hate themselves for having pursued other distractions, for wasting their lives.

It's truth. Sorry you don't like it. But that's the thing about the truth, it's true whether you like it or not. Nature is a cruel bastard. That's the biggest truth of all.

>>2065115

You have to understand people have different priorities in life and not everyone shares your view that sex is the ultimate goal...

In fact, because you put sex on such a high pedastal....you should prolly get out more instead of hanging around /fit/ all day.

>>2065206
>You have to understand people have different priorities in life and not everyone shares your view that sex is the ultimate goal...
Well, they are wrong. They are mistaken. From a biological and evolutionary perspective, you have one ultimate goal, and that is to procreate as much as possible, with the most fertile, healthy, attractive females possible.

>>2062086
>Reproduction matters.
That's about it.

Consciousness is totally fake and made up inside your head.

We're all just animals that accidentally became sentient.

Now we lie to ourselves daily with ideology in order to avoid the horrible reality that we are just animals and that we are going to die.

>>2065159
>Self-replication is a defining feature of life. Something ain't life unless it has that feature.
>
>Thus, your purpose, like that of every organism, is to self-replicate
I don't understand where that "thus" comes from. I see literally no connection between the first two and the last statement.

>>2065226
>Well, they are wrong.
Why?

>>2065159
>>Self-replication is a defining feature of life.
self replication does not even exist dumdum.

>>2065237
>Consciousness is totally fake and made up inside your head.
Er, no. All animals experience consciousness.

>We're all just animals that accidentally became sentient.
Yes.

>Now we lie to ourselves daily with ideology in order to avoid the horrible reality that we are just animals and that we are going to die.
I agree with the first part, but why is it inevitable that we're "going to die"? Why don't we strive to continue living like we always have done?

This is why I'm so excited by Elon Musk's Mars ideas. He says that humanity HAS to become an inter-planetary species or we'll die. I guess he's right because eventually the Earth will perish, so if we want to keep living beyond that, we'll have to find other planets to live on.

Exciting times 2bh.

>>2065247
>I don't understand where that "thus" comes from. I see literally no connection between the first two and the last statement.
True, I was being lazy

Okay - the purpose of every organism ever has been to procreate. Therefore your purpose is to procreate too.

In fact, the concept itself of "purpose" wouldn't even exist without our animal instincts of desiring food, sex, safety. All of our concepts are ultimately grounded in our experiences, our animal experiences, since we are animals. Apes. Primates. "Purpose" means ultimate goal or ultimate reason - the ultimate purpose of hunting animals is so we can eat them and satisfy our instinctive desire to nourish ourselves. So the very idea of a purpose originates from our instinctive drives, as animals, to eat, to reproduce, to seek safety from aggressive threats (unless we stand to benefit from taking the risk of facing them), etc.

I'll answer the next bit in another post

>>2065247
>Well, they are wrong.
>Why?
Because seeking to reproduce is an objective goal of every single organism. Not just animals - all organisms.

It's funny that we are willing to talk in those terms about animals. You can imagine David Attenborough saying "here we see a young male gorilla. His ultimate purpose in life is to try and become the alpha male of the group, which will give him access to the females, with whom he can reproduce. All of the young males in this group are competing for this role. They fight viciously for this role, often causing great harm to each other with their sharp teeth causing deep gashes and wounds. But the desire to procreate is so strong, it is the thing that drives them towards this most important goal of their lives."

But as soon as it comes to humans we don't want to talk about things in these terms. The reason being that people want to keep a harmonious society. For the purpose of safety (just like animals, like gorillas, and elephants, form small groups/societies for safety, with intra-societal power hierarchies and relationships like we have). Essentially, like with animals, the strong members of the society rise to the top and have access to the females, who desire the strongest males to reproduce with. Then the weaker members of society, or those with fewer resources, who exist at the bottom, are left to fight amongst themselves, or to seek and try and climb the social ladder, in order to gain their own access to females.

This is all very basic biology/anthropology/whatever you want to call it.

Sure a human can decide they're not going to pursue procreation; maybe they're going to devote themselves solely to intellectual study, for example. But that's stupid, in my opinion. Every human has the instinctive drive to procreate. The only reason people avoid the fight for females is because they don't fancy their chances in winning. They think "if I can't win then I'm just going to not play".

>>2065372
I didn't mean cloning, although we do actually have cloning so you're wrong.

Reproduction is still the process of replicating humans isn't it?

>>2062086
>wanting to be a slave to your genes
Also
>>2062111
^this

>>2065401
>Okay - the purpose of every organism ever has been to procreate. Therefore your purpose is to procreate too.
At some point in our pre-history, the purpose of all flints had been the use as a weapon. Then, someone figured out that you can make fires with them. Just because there had been a purpose to them earlier, this purpose doesn't transfer over to be the exclusive purpose of all flints for all eternity.

>>2065431
>Because seeking to reproduce is an objective goal of every single organism.
You simply restated your earlier claim. That's not only not a good answer to a legitimacy question, it isn't one at all.

>Not just animals - all organisms.
Why do restrict this sort of thought to organisms only? Why not apply it to non-organic stable systems, like the stars? The purpose of the stars then becomes [insert whatever they're continously doing, like rotating]. The purpose of an osmosis barrier becomes to uphold osmosis, the purpose of a water surface on the edge of a glass becomes to uphold tension.

>The only reason people avoid the fight for females is because they don't fancy their chances in winning.
Think of the ancient superstar Buddha, who could've had all the women he wanted. How does he, who dedicates his life to achieving enlightenment, despite being able to get any woman he wants, fit into your equation?

The purpose of the dodo was to die out.

The purpose of the stars is to reproduce.

The purpose of my job isn't money, it is to keep having my job.

The purpose of humans is to harness the power of the sun, as we have done since the beginning of our species by eating animals that ate greens that grew through photosynthesis. Reproduction is just a means to this end.

>>2065629
>wanting to be a slave to your genes
You are already are, you don't get a choice.

Also the naturalistic fallacy is bullshit and many philosophers have rejected it. Moore is a fucking moron.

>>2065667
>At some point in our pre-history, the purpose of all flints had been the use as a weapon. Then, someone figured out that you can make fires with them. Just because there had been a purpose to them earlier, this purpose doesn't transfer over to be the exclusive purpose of all flints for all eternity.
The problem with your analogy is that the purpose of every single organism for the entire history of the world has been to procreate. Organisms that didn't procreate died out.

>Why do restrict this sort of thought to organisms only? Why not apply it to non-organic stable systems, like the stars? The purpose of the stars then becomes [insert whatever they're continously doing, like rotating]. The purpose of an osmosis barrier becomes to uphold osmosis, the purpose of a water surface on the edge of a glass becomes to uphold tension.
Because "purpose" is a human idea, and it means a motivation for action (usually. In this case it does.) Use the word "goal" instead of purpose if you like. Stars aren't motivated by things. Animals are. I suppose amoebae and bacteria don't experience motivations, but whatever.

>Think of the ancient superstar Buddha, who could've had all the women he wanted. How does he, who dedicates his life to achieving enlightenment, despite being able to get any woman he wants, fit into your equation?
He was an idiot. He obviously established a purpose for himself that he was going to lead an ascetic life and teach other people to be moral. I guess he was searching for peace, happiness, a lack of conflict. Noble intentions, but fundamentally he's still an animal like all of us are, so if you had met Buddha in his teenage years and taken him to titty bars, he probably would have turned out differently wouldn't he?

>>2065789
>Organisms that didn't procreate died out.
While that is a true fact, it has no implications whatsoever.

>Because "purpose" is a human idea
And yet you apply it to animals and tools, too. What's the purpose of a stool? Reproduction or sitting?

>so if you had met Buddha in his teenage years and taken him to titty bars, he probably would have turned out differently wouldn't he?
Palace life in ancient societies is basically 24/7 titty bars, except that you also get to fuck the women, if you desire so. So, he had the titty bar and didn't turn out differently.

>>2065831
>Palace life in ancient societies is basically 24/7 titty bars, except that you also get to fuck the women, if you desire so. So, he had the titty bar and didn't turn out differently.

Well, he's just an idiot then.

Who would choose a life of asceticism over a life of luxury, sex, copulation, making inseminating lots of women if they had both lives available to them?

No one. He was probably choosing between noble asceticism and some other shittier life.

>>2063220
I need a new ideology...

File: 1481173752868.jpg (331KB, 753x707px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 753x707px

>>2065850
>Who would choose a life of asceticism over a life of luxury, sex, copulation, making inseminating lots of women if they had both lives available to them?
Him. Plenty others, too. Dostoevsky and Pushkin come to mind.
No one. He was probably choosing between noble asceticism and some other shittier life.
He was a hilariously rich prince.
>Well, he's just an idiot then.
It's almost as if human agency cannot be reduced to reproduction. Shocking, I know.

Also, even if it could, as some anons have already pointed out, no obligation could be derived from it. The jump from "the desire to reproduce is a significant motivator of human/animal conduct" to "reproduction is the purpose of all life" is a leap of faith. There are no moral implications to that 'analysis'.

>>2065901
>He was a hilariously rich prince.
Source?

I found this and it says his dad was a chieftain or oligarch, but doesn't say that HE was wealthy.
>The evidence of the early texts suggests that Siddhārtha Gautama was born into the Shakya clan, a community that was on the periphery, both geographically and culturally, of the eastern Indian subcontinent in the 5th century BCE.[34] It was either a small republic, or an oligarchy, and his father was an elected chieftain, or oligarch.[34] According to the Buddhist tradition, Gautama was born in Lumbini, now in modern-day Nepal, and raised in the Shakya capital of Kapilvastu, which may have been either in what is present day Tilaurakot, Nepal or Piprahwa, India.[note 1] He obtained his enlightenment in Bodh Gaya, gave his first sermon in Sarnath, and died in Kushinagar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha

>There are no moral implications to that 'analysis'.
There aren't meant to be. But if you don't reproduce you're stupid. I'm not saying it's morally good to reproduce. I'm saying it's IN YOUR INTEREST to reproduce, like it is for every single organism ever.

>"reproduction is the purpose of all life"
For every organism on the planet, reproduction is the biggest ultimate goal of their lives. Only staying alive with food and oxygen is ahead of it as a priority.

Anybody who doesn't reproduce is a fucking idiot.

>>2065937
>Siddhartha was brought up by his mother's younger sister, Maha Pajapati.[78] By tradition, he is said to have been destined by birth to the life of a prince, and had three palaces (for seasonal occupation) built for him. Although more recent scholarship doubts this status, his father, said to be King Śuddhodana, wishing for his son to be a great king, is said to have shielded him from religious teachings and from knowledge of human suffering.

>When he reached the age of 16, his father reputedly arranged his marriage to a cousin of the same age named Yaśodharā (Pāli: Yasodharā). According to the traditional account,[which?] she gave birth to a son, named Rāhula. Siddhartha is said to have spent 29 years as a prince in Kapilavastu. Although his father ensured that Siddhartha was provided with everything he could want or need, Buddhist scriptures say that the future Buddha felt that material wealth was not life's ultimate goal

>At the age of 29 Siddhartha left his palace to meet his subjects. Despite his father's efforts to hide from him the sick, aged and suffering, Siddhartha was said to have seen an old man. When his charioteer Channa explained to him that all people grew old, the prince went on further trips beyond the palace. On these he encountered a diseased man, a decaying corpse, and an ascetic. These depressed him, and he initially strove to overcome aging, sickness, and death by living the life of an ascetic.[79]

Literally the same article, did you even try reading it? He isn't even the best example. What of Dostoevsky, who lived humbly as possible despite being a high noble? Of Marcus Aurelius, who spent his whole life in military camps in Germannia instead of fucking literally anyone he wanted? Again, almost as if procreation/hedonism aren't the sole motivator of human behaviour.
[cont.]

>>2065937
>I'm saying it's IN YOUR INTEREST to reproduce, like it is for every single organism ever.
This is incorrect. It is in the "interest" of genes to propagate, This can be achieved in a number of ways, for example, protecting the offspring of a close family member. But if we're talking evolutionary biology, then we should also talk about psychology, in which people often also sacrifice themselves for close social associates or "the herd" in general. These are successful strategies that improve the fitness of the overall gene pool, and continue to exist for that reason.

You have a limited understanding of how diverse evolutionary strategies actually are and are extrapolating that limited understanding far beyond what is reasonable.

>>2065984
>His father, said to be King Śuddhodana, wishing for his son to be a great king, is said to have shielded him from religious teachings and from knowledge of human suffering.

So basically he was just a stroppy teenager rebelling from his parents, what's new.

As I said, he's a fucking idiot, because procreation is literally the only thing that matters in your life.

>Again, almost as if procreation/hedonism aren't the sole motivator of human behaviour.
Sure, food is one as well.

Altruism isn't one though. All altruistic acts are reducible to selfish desires. Status. Respect. Making a living (e.g. working for a charity). Getting people to like you which can be very useful.

Every single organism is selfish, every single organism wants to procreate - your stupid examples of stupid people don't disprove that do they? They don't disprove the fundamental nature of organisms do they?

People only agree to be a part of a society because it serves THEM. You're just a fucking idiot.

>>2065937
>if you don't reproduce you're stupid. I'm not saying it's morally good to reproduce. I'm saying it's IN YOUR INTEREST to reproduce, like it is for every single organism ever.
In what way is reproduction in my interest?
>For every organism on the planet, reproduction is the biggest ultimate goal of their lives. Only staying alive with food and oxygen is ahead of it as a priority.
It is an instinct, and manifests itself as will (desire), and by extension an important motivator for beings. How does that make it the purpose of life?
>Anybody who doesn't reproduce is a fucking idiot.
Why? For not desiring what you desire? For not making something important to you the purpose of their life? You seem like the idiot, anon.

>>2066022
This is getting tedious, as you still haven't even tried proving that reproduction is in the interest of the individual.
>All altruistic acts are reducible to selfish desires.
>Every single organism is selfish
What of those who sacrificed their life for a concept? Zealots, patriots, martyrs? What did they 'gain' from that?
>every single organism wants to procreate
Even those celibate by choice?
>Every single organism...
>your stupid examples of stupid people don't disprove that do they?
Actually, they do. Because if it is the case for 'all organisms', why do these 'stupid people' exist? Face it, those "stupid examples of stupid people" shit all over your overly simplistic view of human behaviour.
>You're just a fucking idiot.
You sound angry.

File: Fr.Maximilian_Kolbe_1939.jpg (29KB, 525x680px)

29KB, 525x680px

>>2066022
>All altruistic acts are reducible to selfish desires.
Counterexample: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_Kolbe

100% relevance:

I had a girlfriend that made me sick of sex, never thought it would happen but she wanted it so much I couldn't or didn't want to keep up anymore. She was beautiful and not too nuts.

I haven't had sex in about 1.5 years now. Am I on the mage path?

>>2066022
>So basically he was just a stroppy teenager rebelling from his parents, what's new.
The "new" is him renouncing material desires, having been convinced of their inadequacy, despite having near-unlimited access to objects of his desire.
>As I said, he's a fucking idiot, because procreation is literally the only thing that matters in your life.
And why is that so?

>>2066079
What a legend.
>He is the patron saint of drug addicts, political prisoners, families, journalists, prisoners, and the pro-life movement.
>patron saint of drug addicts
Y tho?

>>2066089
>I haven't had sex in about 1.5 years now. Am I on the mage path?
Wizardhood can't be achieved if you've had sex even once. I'm sorry, but it's over.

>>2065115
>The prioritisation might be instinctive but it is still prioritisation

Again (((priority))) implies a queue of some sort. Instinct overrides it entirely, which is why it flees instead. There is no (((priority))) in the animal kingdom.

>Your views suggest your test is low.

Quality ad hominem, brute, but I am not interested in your foolish ways.

>Pump some iron, it will boost your test and you will have a far stronger feeling that reproduction is your greatest priority in life (behind the priority to stay alive, perhaps)

I go to the gym regularly, and my doctors from my last checkup confirm that my test is fine. Are you suggesting the use of steroids? Pathetic.

>Why do men compete with each other for money, for status, for dominance? Because they want to fuck all the hottest women.

No, it is to further maximize their level of self-preservation. Wrong again, as usual.

>Men want to spread their seed, which is why men have fought wars

No, most are conscripted or drafted i.e. involuntary. Entire movements were made AGAINST war by protesters. Why? Because they want to live, and continue secure self-preservation. Wrong once more.

>>2065159
>Thus, your purpose, like that of every organism, is to self-replicate

What? What kind of leap in logic is that? That's not how it works at all. How does X and Y immediately say "YOUR PURPOSE IS THEREFORE" Z? Laughable.

>Go to a prison, or watch a prison documentary. Look at how much people are willing to risk their safety and their lives just to prove themselves

No, they display dominance as a from of defense, to ensure they do not get beaten into submission. It is a form of self-preservation.

>Humans just want to spread their fucking seed as far as they possibly can.

You keep hoeing that, but you fail to address any real points. Sad.

>Anybody who says there's "something more" to life is a cucked pussy

Ad-hominem, quality argument.

>If they were to admit to themselves that inseminating bitches is actually the only important thing in an organism's life, they would hate themselves for having pursued other distractions, for wasting their lives.

Listen here, I have no interest in reproduction but I've donated sperm for money. Still technically a virgin, but my sperm was high-quality enough to be worth good money since I come from a good family. By your logic, sex should be eliminated and everybody in the modern world should utilize sperm banks. It would be eugenics.

The only truth here is you're still an idiot lmao

>>2066005
>>2066034
>>2066070
>>2066079
>>2066097
>>2066268
>>2066323
Not gonna read all this bullshit, I'm bored now

Procreation is the purpose of every single organism on the planet

I don't know how to make this any clearer

Go to a gym, pump some weights, feel the testosterone surging through your veins and you will see exactly what I mean

If you are just a gimpy nerd tapping away on a keyboard then obviously you're not going to know what I'm talking about. Go and experience the world and you'll realise I'm fucking right you fucking nerds.

>>2066089
Find a new girl mang. And make sure you're the one in control of the relationship. Be a fucking man.

>>2066707
>"I've given up: the post"

top kek

at least TRY and refute the points made. Evidently you can't lol

Go home /fit/, you're not intelligent enough for this board

>>2066707
>DUDE LIFT WEIGHTS LMAO
Bro-philosophy: the thread

>>2066707
Decisionism: The Post

You could make a good priest, if all you want to do is just repeating "it is like I say it is because it is like I say it is", but don't get into theology, because then you'd actually have to justify your position properly.

>>2066928
that's why he's just a petty gym rat

probably a steroid peddler too

DUDE YOU NEED TO THESE GAINS TO LIVE YOUR LIFE LITERALLY DEPENDS ON IT

>>2061231
>Nothing really matters.
>To me.

Could've stopped the whole thread right there man.

>>2066721
There is no such thing as intelligence on this site

>>2066976
hence, why you're here

>>2066989
You too friend

>>2067072
yup

>>2063220

>>2064159

He deserves to be condescended to, though, which was clearly my rhetorical point. Both because what he's arguing is actually wrong, and because he's communicating it in poor, cringey prose, as you've just agreed.

>>2066721
>at least TRY and refute the points made
Nobody has managed to refute my assertion that procreation is the purpose of every organism on the planet. So why should I read the same bullshit crap that is repeated again and again?

>>2066890
You should. The only rational thing you can do in your life is to procreate as much as possible (or, I suppose, go for a quality over quantity approach, but still, I would say sheer quantity is probably more logical), and for most people, that means getting buff.

It doesn't have to though. If you're rich then you should be able to get chicks just fine without resorting to athleticism.

>>2066928
>>2066937
I'm not even a gym rat these days, just a cyclist who does push ups

>>2067292
>Both because what he's arguing is actually wrong
Prove it then?

>>2067536
>Nobody has managed to refute my assertion that procreation is the purpose of every organism on the planet.

Wrong. Read up.

>So why should I read the same bullshit crap that is repeated again and again?

Because the only bullshit crap that is repeated again and again is your idiocy and lack of proper arguments.

>>2067536
>Prove it then?

Get to reading :^)

>>2067549
>Wrong. Read up.
Nobody has, just some stupid counter-examples that literally don't mean a thing.

>>2066089
I know the feel brat.

>>2067566
>Nobody has, just some stupid counter-examples that literally don't mean a thing.

Prove it.

Pro tip: you can't

>>2066707
You are literally an endlessly repeating phainomenon.

File: 1461981346426.jpg (20KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 306x306px

>>2061303
>>2061420
>>2062086
>>2064340

>Objectively proving some philosophical concept on the microscopic human level
>important in the big scheme of an entropic universe

>big scheme of the universe
>important

Nothing really matters.

This is the first redpill, not to Nihilism, but to achieve the next level of enlightenment.

>enlightenment
>important

File: seals fighting for mates.jpg (326KB, 1024x683px)

326KB, 1024x683px

>>2067580
>>2067585
>>2067603

If procreation wasn't the ultimate purpose of an animal's life, why would animals fight to the near-death for it?

Here's some male seals fighting for mates (according to the photographer: https://www.flickr.com/photos/onourtravels/4181792480 )

>>2067603
controlled nihilism is something that really protected me from situations with no meaningfull ending or in faulty situations you are too powerless to attack. You just kinda shut down.

>>2067633
>If procreation wasn't the ultimate purpose of an animal's life, why would animals fight to the near-death for it?

Already answered earlier. You did not read.

Repeating the same thing again and again does not make it true.

>>2067536
I don't really care to argue like the rest of the people here, but as far as logic goes; how about this:

So from your observation of the phenomena of life replicating itself; you extrapolate that the only logical purpose to life is what is observed?

The appeal to nature fallacy goes like this:

That which is natural, is good.
N is natural.
Therefore, N is good or right.

That which is unnatural, is bad or wrong.
U is unnatural.
Therefore, U is bad or wrong.

But you claim that your argument does not fall into this fallacy because it is an objective and logical observation of phenomena.

But perhaps by deriving a logical modus operandi from said observation, and claiming that it is the right way and that if anyone does contrary is in the wrong, or as you put it ''an idiot'', you do end up commuting a logical fallacy: appeal to nature. So do you not then simply end up deriving a subjective meaning to life?

>>2067633
I have been in barfights for gals and i still think you are a tiresome and very nervous and deluded lad. Stop having influences that produce you stress either in the reality level or the cyberspace one.

>>2067633
>If procreation wasn't the ultimate purpose of an animal's life, why would animals fight to the near-death for it?

Does the Universe care if a mosquito species becomes extinct?

>>2067536
>Nobody has managed to refute my assertion that procreation is the purpose of every organism on the planet. So why should I read the same bullshit crap that is repeated again and again?
"It is an instinct, and manifests itself as will (desire), and by extension an important motivator for beings. How does that make it the purpose of life?"
You didn't try giving an answer. It was proven that there are other wills/desires not derivable from the desire for procreation. So even if you could say that the ultimate desire is the purpose of life (and that in no way need be), procreation is *still* not the ultimate desire for a large enough number of people (as proven by their behaviour, to which you have called those people idiots, refusing to face that, if your model of human behaviour produces such a number of deviations, it is obviously false.) to call it the purpose of human life. Ignoring arguments doesn't refute them. Besides, you're the one who keeps repeating an assertion without ever substantiating it.
>The only rational thing you can do in your life is to procreate as much as possible
Again, how is that rational? I keep asking you that, and you keep repeating it. If one has no desire for such things, why "ought" he follow your values?

>>2067662
We literally cannot know that.

>>2067650
He WILL reply "b-but it's not an appeal to nature fallacy if muh science supports the completely different field of evolutionary biology :DDDDDD"

>>2067650
I would also like to add an anecdote that I saw in a documentary once.

A very primitive tribe--- I forget where exactly --- has a tradition where whoever brings a certain amount of game from the hunt, gets to have sex that night. Now what the men did was give some of their game to other men with less game, thus everybody ended up having sex that night, and every night.

My point with this is that by reducing anything to it's bare minimum, you miss out vital information. Life is more complex than you present it. And to not be confused as an ideological shill, I'll just say again that I simply don't see real logic to your arguments.

File: Screen Shot 2016-12-10 at 01.14.30.png (1MB, 1160x1432px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1160x1432px

>>2067656
Doesn't mean I'm wrong does it?

>Your idea is wrong because it produces stress
Not an argument. The truth is the same no matter what your feelings about it are.

>>2067662
No, but do mosquitos do everything they can to survive and procreate, just like every other organism? Yes.

>>2067708
I did not say that your idea produces stress but that you are stressed. I used to be like you. Fixed. It will pass with time and experience.
Now that you have the pro-tip go and do something cool and chill out. Your chances for reproducing will greatly increase!

>>2067708
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_suicide

lel

>>2067727
Those animals are just idiots.

I'll just conveniently ignore any valid counter-point, and continue to repeat a blatantly invalid statement because I am actually incapable of argumentation. You are boring me so I will not respond. Smack bang in the middle.

File: Screen Shot 2016-12-10 at 01.29.58.png (1MB, 1140x1114px)

1MB, 1140x1114px

>>2067698
>Now what the men did was give some of their game to other men with less game, thus everybody ended up having sex that night, and every night.
Altruistic acts exist, of course - look at charity - but all of these acts are fundamentally explainable by selfish motivations. It makes no sense for an animal to care about anybody else's needs, unless doing so would serve its own needs.

>I simply don't see real logic to your arguments.
1. Every single living species on Earth prioritises procreation as the most important thing in its life besides staying alive. This is observable from studying animal behaviour, and seeing how much energy animals invest in trying to procreate, often engaging in dangerous fights, potentially risking their lives, to do so.
2. We are a living species on Earth.
C. Therefore, we prioritise procreation just as much as other animals do.

Obviously if you don't accept premise 1 then you won't accept my argument

And I can't prove premise 1 by a logical argument can I? It's not an a priori assertion, it is necessarily an a posteriori assertion, an EMPIRICAL assertion.

As Hume said, empirical knowledge is always subject to doubt - you could see a million apples and they're all red, so you conclude "all apples are red", right before you see a green apple, disproving your conclusion. Hume said all empirical knowledge is like this. Also I guess this is just Cartesian scepticism that I'm talking about here.

But we still accept empirical knowledge don't we? We can never prove it beyond all possible doubt - we just draw conclusions based on a massive amount of evidence. How do I know gravity is going to obtain tomorrow? Maybe all my shit is going to float off into space.

All I can do is give you evidence of animals prioritising procreation very highly. Perhaps I am failing in this thread because I am asking you all to go and find that evidence yourself, when really I need to be showing it to you myself if I want to convince you.

>>2067727
>In 2009, 28 cows and bulls mysteriously threw themselves off a cliff in the Swiss Alps over the span of three days.[5]

Guess there was some pussy at the bottom?

>a Newfoundland dog had been acting less lively over a period of days before being seen "to throw himself in the water and endeavor to sink by preserving perfect stillness of the legs and feet".[1] Every time he was rescued he attempted to do this again before he finally held his head underwater until death.[1]

Idiot dog.

>When threatened by a ladybug, the pea aphid will explode itself, protecting other aphids and sometimes killing the ladybug.[1]

Is this aphid dumb or a genius?

File: Screen Shot 2016-12-10 at 01.36.45.png (2MB, 1106x1404px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1106x1404px

>>2067725
>Your chances for reproducing will greatly increase!
The fact that you think that's important to me proves my point doesn't it?

A bigger point - how come on 4chan, which is where disaffected young males congregate, we spend all our time ribbing each other for being "cucks" and "betas"? Because we're trying to put each other down, we're trying to assert ourselves as eligible males, trying to prove to each other that we're capable men that women would be attracted to. Incredibly common behaviour among males.

>>2067742
>blatantly invalid
"Invalid" can only refer to an argument mate

My assertion can only be true or false, it can't be "invalid". "Invalid" just means an argument which doesn't logically follow.

Here's the logic of my argument here - >>2067752. The argument is modus ponens. Which is valid. So the only way you can attack what I'm saying is by attack the truth of premise 1. So please try and do that, if you think you can.

>>2067727
Of course. Animals, like us, commit suicide. Because they get incredibly frustrated when their chances of procreation are hampered. Same with us.

>>2067752
>Altruistic acts exist, of course - look at charity - but all of these acts are fundamentally explainable by selfish motivations.
And again you maintain this notion. I have already asked you - what of those who consciously sacrificed themselves for religion, fatherland, a loved person, liberty, reason, for any kind of entity or idea? How exactly did they 'benefit' from death? Almost as if procreation is not necessarily the primary motivator in humans (besides, I'd call self-preservation a much more dominant motivator in human behaviour, yet different motivators were often enough chosen over self-preservation itself) and can therefore (even if you accept your blatantly false notion of "ultimate desire==purpose") not be the purpose of human life. Almost as if not all human behaviour is reductible to desire for procreation or material possession. And yet again you have just chosen to ignore these points.

>>2067752
Yes, I agree with the premise of psychological egoism. And I agree with you on your observations. But I would argue from this, that every animal prioritizes what feels good. Why does sex feel good? As I was reading the thread, I saw that the bisexual behavior of animals was pointed out. And this reminded me of a test that was done, wherein they took a bunch of goats, both male and female, and hid half of their body behind a well. Then they brought in a male goat and basically gave it free range to fuck whatever it wanted. After a while they concluded that the male goats chose what they fucked randomly. If procreation was a priority, they would fuck the females on a larger percentage.

>>2067781
I'm not that anon, but anyway:

Conditioning is the answer. People that sacrifice themselves for abstract reasons, such as religion or ideology are still being selfish. Or to put it in clearer terms; they see a benefit to it. They think it is right, and to them it feels good. And of course they have been conditioned to believe certain things and feel certain things, and be more likely to react to certain stimuli in certain ways.

>>2067752
>1. Every single living species on Earth prioritises procreation as the most important thing in its life besides staying alive.
>2. We are a living species on Earth.
Several problems. (1) deals with observation in animals, which have often enough been inconsistent with human behaviour. And that's where (2) fails, as it rides on the notion that we have already accepted (1) for humans, which is, as I have said, inconsistent with their behaviour. You cannot make a Modus Ponens argument from these notions, as (2) presupposes (1) applied to humans, which was on numerous examples listed in this thread proven false. Furthermore, it deals with generalization (Let's say, for the sake of argument, that most humans do prioritize procreation as primary after self-preservation. What of humans who don't? Either they are not human or humans are do not necessarily prioritize procreation, and there your argument fails, as it now must address individual humans instead of feigning objectivity), which is inadequate given the difference between persons. And then it ascribes value to unsubstantiated "normal" human behaviour, as if it follows naturally.

Was this supposed to be a joke?

>>2067800
Which is completely acceptable to me, as it is not selfishness in the sense that procreation guy proposes. His notion of selfishness deals solely with procreation, self-preservation and greed for the material. And this is none of those, once again proving his model of human behaviour false.

>>2067804
My rhetoric really suffers in early morning hours.

>are do not
*do not

File: Screen Shot 2016-12-10 at 02.01.14.png (936KB, 1146x1132px) Image search: [Google]

936KB, 1146x1132px

>>2067781
This guy has answered it succinctly and correctly so I'll just refer you to his answer: >>2067800

>>2067782
>And this reminded me of a test that was done, wherein they took a bunch of goats, both male and female, and hid half of their body behind a well. Then they brought in a male goat and basically gave it free range to fuck whatever it wanted. After a while they concluded that the male goats chose what they fucked randomly. If procreation was a priority, they would fuck the females on a larger percentage.
I am guessing in nature the male goats usually fuck the females goats though? Same with most animals - yes homosexual behaviour does happen, e.g. gorillas sometimes engage in it, but the vast MAJORITY of sexual behaviour is heterosexual. Same with humans isn't it?

And why is that? Because nature has selected for animals that have heterosexual sex. It's selected for the ones that reproduced.

I don't really buy your idea that "every animal prioritizes what feels good". Sitting around masturbating feels good. But animals seek to procreate. Even if there is a danger in doing so. And even if they have not felt sex before, so don't know what it feels like. They have an instinctive biological urge and desire to try and procreate.

File: Screen Shot 2016-12-10 at 02.02.42.png (1024KB, 1134x1014px) Image search: [Google]

1024KB, 1134x1014px

>>2067826
By the way I hope you are all paying attention to the pictures because they constitute the empirical evidence that supports my argument.

>>2067826
>This guy has answered it succinctly and correctly so I'll just refer you to his answer:
Not really,
>>2067814

File: Screen Shot 2016-12-10 at 02.09.57.png (1MB, 1152x1072px)

1MB, 1152x1072px

>>2067781
They did it because society encourages people to be selfless.

They wanted honour in death. It's called delayed gratification my nig. Except they never get the gratification. Apart from the warm feeling in their stomachs before they die. Same psychological principle though.

Can't believe I'm arguing this fucking point because most people come to the realisation of psychological egoism by the time they're fucking 15.

>>2067847
>They did it because society encourages people to be selfless.
Why do you think that is?

>>2067829
>because they constitute the empirical evidence that supports my argument.
I'll repeat this once more, and then I'll leave you to be retarded.

(1) These prove that procreation is a significant instinctual motivator for animals, that is, can be used with reasonable dependency to predict their behaviour. These do not prove any notion of "purpose". A feather is falling. Gravity is an important "motivator" in its "behaviour", Is gravity the purpose of feather?

(2) These cannot be imposed on humans, as the notion of procreation as the primary motivator of human behaviour drops upon closer scrutiny. Humans are often lead by value they ascribe to abstract concepts, and passions which do not have relation to reproduction (art, music, literature, playing), and are, for that reason not reductible to it.

(3) Even if reproduction was a primary motivator of most people (which I am not arguing), why should those people who do not consider it as important care about it? You call them idiots. What makes them idiots?

>>2067847
So you yourself say that they are not lead by reproduction or self-preservation as their dominant motivator. Which is precisely what I am arguing.

>>2067814
He derives purpose from observed phenomena. ''All life reproduces, thus the meaning of life is to reproduce''. I think that's his main argument, as clear as day. And I only disagree with his extrapolation of meaning. Not the observation itself. I think all of this neurosis presented in the thread can be solved with the simple reasoning that ''meaning'' comes from cause and effect. Think about it for a moment. People here are arguing why anything is done. The answer is right there. It is done because X happened. The animal kingdom has been simplified too much in this thread. But yes, all life ends up reproducing because it reproduced unless it didn't. Why it reproduced: it felt good. People are getting flustered because they think what he's saying is: ''If you don't reproduce you're a loser'', this attacks their ego, or rather they see it as an attack. This itself doesn't prove anyone here right. But it proves that people are not truly objective, nor rational.

All of this is very dull. Here's a quote by Schopy.

"Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills"

File: Screen Shot 2016-12-10 at 02.20.07.png (928KB, 1142x1016px) Image search: [Google]

928KB, 1142x1016px

>>2067864
Valuing selflessness allowed our society to be stronger and that's how we (Europeans) conquered the entire world

And why do humans participate in society at all?

Oh yeah because it gives them protection from threats like predators, thus increasing their chances of surviving and procreating

You know it's true my man.

Look at pic related.
>Serious and sometimes dangerous fights break out among the males of some species during mating season, and the black rhino has the highest mortality rate resulting from such contests of any mammal.

See? They risk their lives for the right to procreate because procreation is the most important thing for any animal (besides basic survival I guess, so basically for every animal that has met its basic needs of survival, its highest priority is to try and procreate isn't it?)

>>2067752
>every single living species on Earth prioritises procreation as the most important thing in its life besides staying alive.

Wrong. They continue to priorise staying alive, or self-preservation. Anything else and everything else, is entirely optional, which includes procreation.

There is now a very big hole in your argument, and so your ship will sink.

>All I can do is give you evidence of animals prioritising procreation very highly.

So you admit to cherry picking? Lmao.

>>2067765
>"Invalid" can only refer to an argument mate. My assertion can only be true or false, it can't be "invalid". "Invalid" just means an argument which doesn't logically follow.

And your argument DOESN'T logically follow. It is false, and has been continually proven so.

>The argument is modus ponens. Which is valid. So the only way you can attack what I'm saying is by attack the truth of premise 1. So please try and do that, if you think you can.

Done. Read up :^)

>Because they get incredibly frustrated when their chances of procreation are hampered. Same with us.

No, it is because many suffer from actual diseases, not simply sexual frustration, Ghost of Sigmund Freud. Chemical imbalance in the mind -- not in their genitals.

>>2067826
>And why is that? Because nature has selected for animals that have heterosexual sex. It's selected for the ones that reproduced.

Wrong. Nature does not (((select))) anything. What happens, happens. The rest is a result of continued consequences of chance. This is why procreation is no purpose, and you continue to be very clearly and obviously wrong.

>>2067829
>By the way I hope you are all paying attention to the pictures because they constitute the empirical evidence that supports my argument.

You can dump your entire image gallery, but they are not proof. Proper sources and citation is in order if you wish to go in that direction, otherwise you WILL parrot the same predictable tantrum as usual.

>>2067883
People are getting "flustered" because an incredibly oversimplified version of nature that is not actually representative of reality is being used to justify some proposed philosophical truth that is actually pretty baseless once you start looking into it. Shit like that is why we have social darwinism and all the nonsense that followed, because a bunch of people didn't actually understand evolution and wanted an easy justification for their actions.

>>2067891
>Valuing selflessness allowed our society to be stronger
So, in other words, you are saying that encouraging selflessness was a viable way of benefiting what we might call the "herd"?

>>2067883
>He derives purpose from observed phenomena
Which is his mistake.
> I think all of this neurosis presented in the thread can be solved with the simple reasoning that ''meaning'' comes from cause and effect
>A causes B
>therefore B gives A meaning
I don't see why I should accept such an arbitrary statement.
> People here are arguing why anything is done.
People here are showing that poster that he cannot apply observations on animals to humans, ascribe value to them, call that value universal and expect to be taken seriously.
>Why it reproduced: it felt good.
I'm not a biologist, and this is kinda irrelevant and beside the point, but I think that instinct is the guiding principle of animals, instead of pain/pleasure. Could be wrong, though.
>People are getting flustered because they think what he's saying is: ''If you don't reproduce you're a loser'', this attacks their ego, or rather they see it as an attack. This itself doesn't prove anyone here right. But it proves that people are not truly objective, nor rational.
There is really no reason to suppose such a thing. Thanks for the quote, I guess.

File: Screen Shot 2016-12-10 at 02.28.22.png (1MB, 1146x1118px)

1MB, 1146x1118px

>>2067895
>Anything else and everything else, is entirely optional, which includes procreation.
But it's not is it? Every single male of a species will attempt to procreate. Because we all have exactly the same instincts. It is completely non-sensical to suggest that some males are born with this instinct and others are not. Where's the evidence for that?

I'm not arguing with you anymore because you're deliberately being a moron

>>2067876
(4) Even if procreation was the dominant motivator in all humans, that is, if it was ingrained in the very essence (or, less mystically, the definition) of human-ness, you could still in no way, for the previously cited reasons, say that it is the purpose of human life. Basically, (1) applied to humans.

>>2067923
>Every single male of a species will attempt to procreate

Already wrong. Two examples are once again, Tesla and Newton.

>"b-but they're just idiots! Exceptions to a rule! It doesn't count!"

Except it does, because they too were human, and countless tons of other people across history went down the same road. Innumerable animals as well ended the same way. No amount of cherry picking stock pictures can disprove of this.

Since they had not reproduced, their genes and descendants are no longer here. That's it. There's no (((purpose))) or anything. What happened, happened, and then this happened.

The only thing -- and only absolute -- between animals is that they naturally follow self-preservation. But procreation? Not all.

> It is completely non-sensical to suggest that some males are born with this instinct and others are not. Where's the evidence for that?

It actually isn't. Nature is inconsistent, imperfect, and unfeeling. It does NOT follow any kind of (((purpose))) or (((priority)). To believe otherwise is truly non-sensical. The evidence is all around if you read up on the lives of these people, and if you actually bother to look it up instead of being spoonfed.

>I'm not arguing with you anymore because you're deliberately being a moron

Oh, the irony.

File: Screen Shot 2016-12-10 at 02.38.13.png (783KB, 1172x992px) Image search: [Google]

783KB, 1172x992px

>>2067910
All males are born with the same instincts aren't they? Apart from low test faggots I suppose. Their lack of testosterone means that those primal reproductive instincts aren't brought out.

In which case they're failures. They'll die out like they're supposed to. And only the strongest will survive.

Their goal, though, like that of every other organism, is to try and procreate. That's what every organism is trying to do at the end of the day. It's part of nature. It's a desire that is embedded in the psyche of every single animal that exists, because millions of years of evolution caused it to be that way.

And of course non-animal organisms also procreate. Reproduction is a defining, necessary criteria of life.

The ultimate life goal of every organism is to try and procreate. You already know it's true. Random examples of humans not procreating doesn't disprove that, because as we've seen, selfless / suicidal behaviour is explained by the pressures that our modern, complex society places upon us. Our society encourages people to be selfless because that sort of co-operation has created a society which is stronger, and thus survived better, against other societies. But the reason society exists in the first place is for security, to increase our chances of survival and ultimately reproduction. Suicidal behaviour is seen in animals/humans that have limited options to reproduce - perhaps they're too small / gyno / ugly / pathetic / whatever. Therefore their life is meaningless, so they kill themselves.

>>2067923

Except we've had evolutionary pressures that have changed the biological nature of man.

Just now we are discovering c-sections are making women have smaller pelvis cavities.

With Abrahamoc religions doing shit like monogamy and arranged marriages, men didn't have to compete like animals for the past 3,000 years.

Sure there was outright cucking by many alpha males, but mutations that result in men not being sexually aggressive could pop into the gene pool because culture and morality evolved to take care of that.

File: Screen Shot 2016-12-10 at 02.39.57.png (1MB, 1152x1160px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1152x1160px

>>2067949
Read this, it answers most of the points you're raising: >>2067955

>>2067920
>I don't see why I should accept such an arbitrary statement.

Let me correct myself a bit. It's not really purpose. But phenomena. That's all I see it as. Meaning and purpose as words echo the delusion of Ideology. As in; there must be some end goal to this. What I mean is that things are just caused by things. This might be taken the wrong way, but ''meaning'' is instantaneous.

>but I think that instinct is the guiding principle of animals, instead of pain/pleasure.

As I understand it, instinct is based on pain/pleasure, and conditioned by pain/pleasure.

>There is really no reason to suppose such a thing. Thanks for the quote, I guess.

Just an observation. I think it holds true to a portion of the people here.

>>2067955
>But the reason society exists in the first place is for security, to increase our chances of survival and ultimately reproduction.
Is this the answer to my very simple yes or no question? Selflessness is encouraged by the herd to benefit the herd, yes or no? If you need a refresher, earlier you said that society may encourage selflessness in such a way that directly goes against the interest of the individual, over in >>2067847.

>Suicidal behaviour is seen in animals/humans that have limited options to reproduce
It's also seen in family protecting their young, but we'll get to that later. For now, we have a very simple yes or no question.

>>2067955
>All males are born with the same instincts aren't they? Apart from low test faggots I suppose.
>X is Y, except when isn't: the argument.

>Their goal, though, like that of every other organism, is to try and procreate.

False.

>That's what every organism is trying to do at the end of the day. It's part of nature.

Incorrect.

>It's a desire that is embedded in the psyche of every single animal that exists, because millions of years of evolution caused it to be that way.

Self-preservation is, not procreation, you dunce.

>And of course non-animal organisms also procreate. Reproduction is a defining, necessary criteria of life.

So that automatically makes it the absolute (((purpose))) as well? Quite a leap, but completely wrong.

>The ultimate life goal of every organism is to try and procreate.

Nope.

>You already know it's true.

Only you are the one defending your silly propositions my friend, and poorly at it too. I genuinely laughed at your efforts.

>is explained by the pressures that our modern, complex society places upon us.
>our modern, complex society places upon us.
>modern, complex society

Oh, but you wouldn't know a thing about that wouldn't you? According to you, it's all as simple as benis in bagina.

Going again your own point to save face, you're absolutely clueless aren't you?

File: Screen Shot 2016-12-10 at 02.48.13.png (233KB, 2154x534px)

233KB, 2154x534px

>>2067956
>mutations that result in men not being sexually aggressive could pop into the gene pool because culture and morality evolved to take care of that.
If men don't have a certain level of sexual aggression then they won't procreate, so their genes won't survive

Yes you are right that evolutionary pressures can change the biology of man, but the continued ability to procreate is CRITICAL for our evolutionary success.

Maybe we'll evolve to become a species that reproduces solely by lab growing or something weird like that. But I doubt it, because our animalistic desires to fuck women right in the pussy and get that baby juice right up in there are very, very strong.

Humans are animals bro and our animalistic nature drives everything we do. The instinctive desire to survive and procreate.

>>2067991
>Maybe we'll evolve to become a species that reproduces solely by lab growing or something weird like that.

Funny how you know nothing of sperm banks then? I can't say I'm surprised.

>our animalistic nature drives everything we do. The instinctive desire to survive and procreate.

Wrong. Not everything at all, only the most basic and fundamental needs, which only falls on the realm of self-preservation. Procreation is secondary, not first, and it will always be that way.

>>2067964
>Let me correct myself a bit. It's not really purpose. But phenomena. That's all I see it as. Meaning and purpose as words echo the delusion of Ideology. As in; there must be some end goal to this. What I mean is that things are just caused by things. This might be taken the wrong way, but ''meaning'' is instantaneous.
He is using purpose in the philosophic sense of the word and you know it. And even if he didn't, and used it in the sense of consequence, his notion that reproduction is the main motivator of human behaviour was nonetheless proven faulty so many times that I got tired by now.
>As I understand it, instinct is based on pain/pleasure, and conditioned by pain/pleasure.
I told you, I am no biologist. A counterpoint could be made that rational faculties of animals aren't sophisticated enough to maintain pleasure/pain considerations, meaning that they behave more like automata, with instinct as the driving force (that is, they lack "free will"). But of course, I'm pulling this out of my ass, so discussing it is pointless.

File: come on m8.jpg (25KB, 600x375px)

25KB, 600x375px

>>2067979
>Is this the answer to my very simple yes or no question? Selflessness is encouraged by the herd to benefit the herd, yes or no? If you need a refresher, earlier you said that society may encourage selflessness in such a way that directly goes against the interest of the individual, over in >>2067847 (You).
But why does any human agree to those rules? Oh yeah, because it serves their interest.

No human being on the planet would agree to a set of rules where they were expected to give their life UNLESS they stood to gain something from abiding by that set of rules. E.g. with the selfless soldier jumping on a grenade example - he has signed up to those rules because he wanted the glory and respect that comes with being in the military. Those things give you access to FEMALES. Sure, killing himself in the moment is ultimately not in his benefit, but he has agreed to be disciplined to perform this sort of action in the moment because agreeing to such discipline and such training brought him the real life rewards of respect, status, and most likely fit birds as a result. To give you a counter-example to this famously used, really shitty example, what about soldiers that chicken out and go AWOL, abandoning their troops? It does happen. Was their "altruism gland" not big enough? Lol.

Seriously, most people have acknowledged psychological egoism by the time they're teenagers. Come on now. Stop being a child.

>>2061343
The only good post in this thread
Thanks anon

>>2068027
>No human being on the planet would agree to a set of rules where they were expected to give their life UNLESS they stood to gain something from abiding by that set of rules.

By the way, when I say this, "keeping your life" is one of the things that you might stand to gain. For example if you're in the North Korean army. Those people don't choose to be in the army - but they agree to be conscripted because they don't wanna be killed.

File: homeslice.jpg (19KB, 321x382px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 321x382px

>>2068007
>Wrong. Not everything at all, only the most basic and fundamental needs, which only falls on the realm of self-preservation. Procreation is secondary, not first, and it will always be that way.

You're saying there's something else that drives us apart from animal nature? What is this separate thing? God? Or maybe our appendixes are actually sentient creatures that influence our behaviour? Or maybe we all have a little devil on our shoulders telling us what to do?

Occam's razor my man. If you want to argue that there's another thing, besides our animal nature, that can motivate us, then you'll have to provide an argument for the existence of that thing. What is it, and why is it not reducible to our animal instincts? Meanwhile, a convincing reduction can be given for every single behaviour we exhibit, in my opinion. Hit me with any other random behavioural example if you wish and I'll tell you how it serves our animalistic instinctive interests.

As for procreation being secondary, as I already said in this thread, procreation is the number one priority for any animal that is already in good health and nourished.

>>2068027
I'm going to take that as a yes, then. Society encourages selflessness because it benefits society.

Now, in the case of your soldier who jumped on the grenade, what was actually occurring? Was the action good, or a mistake? How does your answer change if one of his squadmates he saved was related to him? How does it change if none of his squadmates were related to him, but he has a child waiting at home? How does it change if he has no offspring, but his sacrifice allowed the battle and ultimately the war to be won?

>>2062909
reproducing is not the function, but a way to accomplish it in a roundabout manner.

survival is the function. But even that is now not so solid.

No species has ever gone as far as humans.
Maybe we need to redefine what the point of surviving is.

If it is survival, then we have already lost, as the decomposers will most likely outlive us.

>>2063061
you jumped to rape pretty quickly there.

File: 49848999.jpg (57KB, 600x404px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 600x404px

>>2061303
So? It don't matter. None of this matters.

>>2063220
ROOOOOOOLLLIN!!!

>>2068111
oh god I got trips.

I'm a
>NEODEMOCRATIC STALINIST
wtf does that even mean?

>>2068068
>You're saying there's something else that drives us apart from animal nature?

What? Whereever did I say that?

>[babble babble babble]

???

>As for procreation being secondary, as I already said in this thread, procreation is the number one priority for any animal that is already in good health and nourished.

Wrong. Saying something does not automatically make it true.

Please provide an actual coherent discussion, or really, you're better off actually posting [babble babble babble] instead. You ARE capable of coherent discussion, aren't you?

Reread with comprehension next time.

>>2065680
>>2065692
>>2065699
>>2065752
Good point. Too bad no one in this thread is reading it.

Also the other guy already said naturalistic fallacy but people are dumb and don't get it.

>>2067991

There are plenty of cases of homosexual kings and nobles who fucked men because they liked it, but they fucked women because they had to have an heir.

can i post

>>2068176
is it your purpose to post?

File: suicidal-pepe.jpg (34KB, 680x734px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 680x734px

>>2068071
>How does your answer change if one of his squadmates he saved was related to him? How does it change if none of his squadmates were related to him, but he has a child waiting at home? How does it change if he has no offspring, but his sacrifice allowed the battle and ultimately the war to be won?

You're really getting off topic here

I already said why soldiers would make such a sacrifice. People choose to join the military voluntarily because of money, status, respect, chance to procreate with females. They have agreed to undergo strict training in which they are expected to act selflessly if the time comes, because making that deal has given them money and status and the chance to procreate.

Of course sometimes soldiers are conscripted - again they're making a decision of whether they'd rather go to jail as a consequence of avoiding the draft (also they would be seen as a fucking pussy and ridiculed by everyone, which will pretty much ruin their chances of procreation), or perhaps be killed in some countries, or alternatively go to war, thus avoiding punishment and at least giving themselves of being able to have children in the future.

Why do I have to explain this to you as if you're two years old? Surely you can work these obvious fucking motivations out for yourself?

>>2068185
>People choose to join the military voluntarily because of money, status, respect, chance to procreate with females.
>chance to procreate with females
>because making that deal has given them money and status and the chance to procreate.

How does going to war automatically guarantee you a chance to procreate? Would not staying at home while all the other men are away give you a better chance of procreation because you're the one available?

How does one take such leaps in logic and fall so badly...

>(also they would be seen as a fucking pussy and ridiculed by everyone, which will pretty much ruin their chances of procreation)

People avoided the draft for all sorts of reasons, be it illness or they just weren't fit enough. Ultimately most wanted to stay because they staying at home guaranteed self-preservation, whereas to war meant risking that.

>Why do I have to explain this to you as if you're two years old? Surely you can work these obvious fucking motivations out for yourself?

Why do you continue to babble about the procreation meme as if you're two years old? Surely you can work these obvious fucking motivations, the prime being self-preservation, out for yourself?

File: deus vult.png (999KB, 1040x826px) Image search: [Google]

999KB, 1040x826px

>>2068207

Speaking of which, the Crusades were a perfect example of not fighting for Pussy.

It was fight for a place in heaven.

The First Crusade had whores following in the camp.

When they attacked Jeresulem they made the fucking camps whores go the fuck away because it was interfering with their holy work. This is documented and the writers at the time specifically said, they sent the whores out of the camp so they could spiritually prepare for the attack.

If they just wanted to get their dicks wet they could have kept the whores in the camp and called it a day.

File: you.jpg (179KB, 1200x794px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 1200x794px

>>2068146
>What? Whereever did I say that?
You said it right here my friend:

>>our animalistic nature drives everything we do. The instinctive desire to survive and procreate.
>Wrong. Not everything at all, only the most basic and fundamental needs

What else drives our behaviour then? You have categorically stated that animalistic nature doesn't drive everything. I have said that it does. You must believe there is some other source for motivation then, besides our animalistic nature? What is that source? I am saying that all of our behaviour is explained by our animalistic desires and nothing else.

>>As for procreation being secondary, as I already said in this thread, procreation is the number one priority for any animal that is already in good health and nourished.
>Wrong. Saying something does not automatically make it true.

It's the claim that I'm arguing you fucking dunce, please do learn to keep up.

As I've said multiple times, it's an empirical claim, therefore can't be proved a priori. I can only provide empirical evidence to support my claim.

I've already given my evidence multiple times so I'll just state it again. In fact I'll quote my very first post - >>2062086 :

>In nature, the males of many animals fight each other to the death for the privilege of mating with the females. That's how important reproduction is to them. They are willing to fight to the death for it.

The fact that every single animal in nature invests a huge amount of energy in trying to reproduce suggests that my analysis that procreation is the number one priority for any animal that is already in good health and nourished is pretty accurate. I think a lot of biologists would probably agree with me.

>>2068185
>You're really getting off topic here
I'm actually not off topic at all, and if you knew anywhere near as much about biology as you're presenting yourself you would probably be able to guess where I am going with this instead of restating old points.

If the answers are obvious, again, please answer the question.

File: 1461638635042.jpg (80KB, 862x582px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 862x582px

>>2068277

Explain the fucking the past 1000 years of Catholic church denying sex for its monks and Jesuits an what not?

And the Crusades weren't about fucking woment either. They could have stayed in their fucking country and fucked whores all day, but no... They were afraid for their immortal soul so they made a trip half way around the world and killed people just so they could gurantee that they would get into heaven and not fuck women.

Crusaders fucked women anyways... They had whores out the wazoo. The Crusade itself did not improve their chances of getting laid. In fact, I mentioned they ended up sending the whores out of the camp so they could do the battle unhampered by sexual lust.

File: sex vs crusading.png (755KB, 1280x830px) Image search: [Google]

755KB, 1280x830px

>>2068269
>The First Crusade had whores following in the camp.
>When they attacked Jeresulem they made the fucking camps whores go the fuck away because it was interfering with their holy work. This is documented and the writers at the time specifically said, they sent the whores out of the camp so they could spiritually prepare for the attack.
>If they just wanted to get their dicks wet they could have kept the whores in the camp and called it a day.

Clearly the best thing for their long term survival strategy was to tell the chicks to fuck off for a second while they captured the holy land and fought off those who rivalled them in the fight for survival, the mudskins

They were still fighting for their survival, of which reproduction is a necessary element. And almost every single one of those soldiers (who survived) would have tried to have kids, because most people do, because it's the ultimate life goal of every organism.

They almost certainly would have used their status as warriors to attract chicks, for example, wouldn't they? Like warriors/soldiers have done for the whole of human history. And why do they want to attract chicks? To procreate!

>>2068277
>What else drives our behaviour then? You have categorically stated that animalistic nature doesn't drive everything.

No, I didn't? I was disagreeing with "the instinctive desire to survive AND procreate" when it is mostly to survive, or to ensure self-preservation.

You've gone on a tangent, I don't know what you're talking about.

You said you had taken philosophy classes. It might have been a wiser investment to focus on reading, evidently.

>It's the claim that I'm arguing you fucking dunce, please do learn to keep up.

Likewise. I too have provided empirical evidence to support my claim, please reread all of my posts.

>I think a lot of biologists would probably agree with me.

I think even more biologists would agree that self-preservation is more important and undoubtedly consume more energy.

>>2068306

Explain this Eunuch mother fucker:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wei_Zhongxian

>>2068306
>They were still fighting for their survival, of which reproduction is a necessary element. And almost every single one of those soldiers (who survived) would have tried to have kids,

False. Many of them were monks, and would continue to be monks afterwards. They did not want children.

>because it's the ultimate life goal of every organism.

Is that your slogan or something? Catchphrases with no rhyme or reason behind them? Hilarious.

>They almost certainly would have used their status as warriors to attract chicks, for example, wouldn't they?

Wrong again. Many would have returned back to their monasteries and continued to live the religious life.

>>2068322
Oh don't bother pointing out actual valid cases, he'll just say they're idiots (just like himself).

Watch, it will happen. Like clockwork.

File: 1461638803705.jpg (178KB, 1584x1584px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 1584x1584px

>>2068306

Are you fucking retarded. The Crusades were not meant to attract chicks.

It was done out of the fear of hell and the glory of god.

These people were nobles. They had massive wealth that they litterally mortgaged off for this trip.

They disinterested themselves for the glory of god. They gave up their titles and lands just to kill in the name of god an enemy who was no threat to them whatsoever.

If they were really worried about procreation they would have stayed safe at home in Europe and just fucked all day, but they didn't.

They gave up all that shit and went to war.

Also monks and the monasteries. Sure there was some monking going on, but the monasteries had nothing to do with making Children. Quite the opposite. It was mean to further the glory of god.

Again, killing Muslims half way around the world did nothing to improve their procreation chances. In fact, it reduced it quite a bit because even if you survived the fight to fuck, you gave up all your lands and wealth just to earn a place in heaven.

File: lil b.png (719KB, 522x700px) Image search: [Google]

719KB, 522x700px

>>2068301
>Explain the fucking the past 1000 years of Catholic church denying sex for its monks and Jesuits an what not?
They were being used by the rest of society. They're not strong enough to try and compete for women themselves so they try and make themselves useful to everybody else because they'd rather at least live than die.

Why do you think so many in the church turn to kiddy fiddling? Because they still have sexual desires, but they know that actually having sex will cost them their jobs, possibly their lives back in medieval days.

Because they have sexual desires, it stands to reason that they would procreate with a woman if they had a chance to wouldn't they? And by a chance, I mean a chance without big costs, such as losing their job or life.

>They could have stayed in their fucking country and fucked whores all day, but no... They were afraid for their immortal soul so they made a trip half way around the world and killed people just so they could gurantee that they would get into heaven and not fuck women.
They obviously thought fighting the crusade was the best thing for their long term survival strategy.

>The Crusade itself did not improve their chances of getting laid. In fact, I mentioned they ended up sending the whores out of the camp so they could do the battle unhampered by sexual lust.
It's not about fucking, it's about ensuring your long-term survival, which involves procreation.

You might say "well all those crusaders would have had a better chance of procreating if they stayed home". Yeah perhaps they would have, but clearly somebody (a leader) managed to persuade them that it was in their interests to go and fight. E.g. perhaps they were convinced that Muslims would eventually come and kill them all (very possible), including their offspring. Thus it would be logical to go and kill the Muslims so they wouldn't have that threat and could instead produce babies and proliferate in peace.

File: 14224837_1006441222801399_6439299595137669556_n.jpg (62KB, 604x832px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 604x832px

Also fear of divine punishment is a real motivation factor.

Hell... It might be genetic, but people literally fear that they will go to hell if they fuck out of wedlock.

This shit is real and undeniable.

File: christianity.jpg (124KB, 480x331px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 480x331px

>>2068356
Belief in an all-knowing benevolent deity clearly proved beneficial for the survival of societies

But it is still true that all motivations fundamentally come down to our basic animal motivations - living and procreating. People chose to believe in God because they thought it would serve them in their goals to live and to procreate.

The reason I say procreating is the goal is because living is sort of pointless if you're not going to procreate, from an evolutionary perspective.

>>2068343
>Because they have sexual desires, it stands to reason that they would procreate with a woman if they had a chance to wouldn't they?

Why would they have bothered with children if they could have gone with women then, because of their sexual desires?

>And by a chance, I mean a chance without big costs, such as losing their job or life.

Again, as if molesting children was any safer alternative?

You've trapped yourself in.

>They obviously thought fighting the crusade was the best thing for their long term survival strategy.

What? Staying in Europe would have been the best for long-term survival, not going out of their way in the middle of a desert hellhole.

Explain yourself. Actually, I wouldn't be any less surprised if you didn't.

>It's not about fucking, it's about ensuring your long-term survival, which involves procreation. You might say "well all those crusaders would have had a better chance of procreating if they stayed home". Yeah perhaps they would have, but clearly somebody (a leader) managed to persuade them that it was in their interests to go and fight. E.g. perhaps they were convinced that Muslims would eventually come and kill them all (very possible), including their offspring. Thus it would be logical to go and kill the Muslims so they wouldn't have that threat and could instead produce babies and proliferate in peace.

By your logic, their instincts would have told them to stay at home anyways. They never explicitly said it was because Muslims were going to stop them from procreating, they did it for God and that is how it was written.

>>2068367
>People chose to believe in God because they thought it would serve them in their goals to live and to procreate.

Then why are priests not allowed to have sex? Why does the bible discourage adultery if it apparently is all for sex?

Go on, continue, it is more fun watching a fool fail to juggle their toys and keep trying all to fail, than seeing it done right.

>>2068343

The Crusades were not about long term survival.

These people literally thought they were going to die in the name of God and get a place in heaven because they had a fucking fear of going to hell.

Maybe you aren't religious, but there are billions of people who are and some of these fuckers would willing cut off their own dicks to serve god.

Christianity does not offer sex as a reward and in fact many of the early church leaders worried that everyone would remain celibate and there would be no Christian children to continue the faith because everyone was emulating Jesus Christ.

Eventually the Church leaders had to come out say that no only sex was ok if you were married it was necessary.

Yet we've got thousand years of people who were celibate.

Maybe you should study history, because you are ignorant.

There are people who literally cut their dicks off for Christ.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/slice_off_penis.htm

Animals in nature do not cut off their own penises.

Why are humans they only animal to willfully cut off their sexual organs?

WHY?

If genetics controlled 100% of human will, then not a single person would cut off their genitals for Christ.

File: 14068326_1765286353757356_2814974246335280439_n.jpg (36KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 480x480px

>>2068388

http://www.transchristians.org/archive/the-practice-of-self-castration-in-early-christianity

This is a good read. Had to dig around as google would return 100 articles on that Wu-Tang guy who cut his own penis off during PCP trip.

>>2068388
Genes, and importantly, influence, control human will. That man was ideologically influenced to chop his dick off. Because he saw it as a good thing to do. It has nothing to do with procreation. Man will do what he thinks is right.

File: wooden cross.jpg (110KB, 683x1024px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 683x1024px

>>2068388
>The Crusades were not about long term survival.
Yes they were. Every action that an organism undertakes is caused by its desire to survive and procreate. If you are proposing another source of motivation, e.g. a divine spirit inhabiting the body, or a devil or cherub on one's shoulder, then please provide evidence for such a thing.

All animals give a fuck about is surviving and procreating, that's it.

>These people literally thought they were going to die in the name of God and get a place in heaven because they had a fucking fear of going to hell.
Hell represents death, which is of course undesirable. Or maybe just eternal pain which is also undesirable.

Heaven represents a place where they can live, expand, proliferate freely.

Of course they'd want to go to heaven. Because all every organism wants to do is live and procreate. It's biologically determined my man. Millions of years of evolution has created creatures that have incredibly strong desires to procreate, every single one of us. Yes many of us get beaten into submission in the fight for survival, but that desire still burns deep within all of us. Take a priest to a titty bar and you will see that sexual desires, desires to procreate, exist within every one of us.

>Why are humans they only animal to willfully cut off their sexual organs?
>WHY?
Because animals do stupid things in the belief that it will serve their ultimate goal of living and procreating:

>One deer leapt from a cliff to its death so as to avoid being captured by hunting dogs.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_suicide

People/animals make mistakes. Nature corrects for those mistakes.

>If genetics controlled 100% of human will, then not a single person would cut off their genitals for Christ.
I never said they did. The environment that you live in necessarily shapes your actions as well. It's genetics + environment (and genetics are just a result of environment ultimately anyway).

>>2068410

Not sure if you are one poster, but that is what we are saying. Sometimes man does things that have nothing to do with his natural biological impulses such as sexual aggression.

He may come into conflict with his he sexual urges, but he can always just lop his own dick off.

>>2068431

The Bible and early Christians never said people would have sex and make babies in heaven.

In fact, its assumed those things do not happen in heaven because they are sinful.

You could get to be close to God, but doesn't mean you get to fuck in heaven.

I don't recall any Pope ever saying "Give money to the church so you can get fucked in heaven and make women spit out babies!"

File: 1463792619425.png (264KB, 557x605px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 557x605px

>>2068446

Muslims on the other hand...

>>2068431
>All animals give a fuck about is surviving and procreating, that's it.

Untrue. All they care about is surviving more than procreating. You are spreading misinformation.

>Because all every organism wants to do is live and procreate.

No. To live is right, but the procreation part is definitely wrong.

>Millions of years of evolution has created creatures that have incredibly strong desires to procreate, every single one of us.

Except the countless examples pointed out earlier where they weren't?

>Because animals do stupid things in the belief that it will serve their ultimate goal of living and procreating:

So cutting off your dick, the only thing that lets you procreate, is the ultimate goal to procreation? Are you even listening to yourself?

Why would you care about continuing your species? Yes you can have offspring that benefit you while you're alive. But you will die, and the continuation of your species doesn't matter. Applying morals to it or might is right Darwinism makes no sense.

File: Cross.jpg (68KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 400x400px

>>2068436
That guy is not me (the guy who keeps saying procreation is the purpose of every organism's life). I will respond to your short post though.

>Sometimes man does things that have nothing to do with his natural biological impulses such as sexual aggression.
False. Everything man does is caused by his desire to live and to procreate. Study animal/human behaviour and the overwhelming evidence is that animals/humans always act in their self-interest. The only time they act selflessly is when they stand to gain something, e.g. a soldier sacrificing himself has already gained the paycheck and honour that comes from serving. If those things were not part of the deal then he would not sacrifice himself. Think about back in the day - the only reason people signed up for armies is because it gave them shelter, food, and a paycheck.

It is nonsensical to say that there is some magic source of altruism in people. Where does it come from if not ultimately from self-interest? Is there an altruism gland that exists uniquely within humans but not within other animals? Or does God use his supernatural powers to make us altruistic but not other animals? And if humans have somehow developed an intrinsic (not learned) capacity for altruism, why do many humans exist who display no altruism at all? E.g. criminals or ruthless capitalists? How do you account for the fact that humans lie and cheat and steal, while at the same time virtue signalling and pretending they're good so they can still accrue the social benefits that come with being seen as selfless?

All animals only care about surviving and reproducing, sorry bub. The only reason we take part in civil society instead of running off into the jungle is because society presents protection from danger and lots of attractive women who are ripe for the taking, if you work hard enough to be able to provide for them. We only partake in society because we it serves our self-interest.

>>2068494

This conversation has made me want to get a vasectomy.

By doing that, what does that have to do with procreation other than I don't wan to pay child support?

>>2068494
>The only time they act selflessly is when they stand to gain something, e.g. a soldier sacrificing himself has already gained the paycheck and honour that comes from serving.

How does getting themselves killed in their self-interest? You're nonsense.

>Think about back in the day - the only reason people signed up for armies is because it gave them shelter, food, and a paycheck.

Or I don't know, they were forced into it? Do you even study history?

>Is there an altruism gland that exists uniquely within humans but not within other animals?

Not exactly a gland, but humans are capable of higher thought in ways not found in other animals, hence civilization. I see you weren't granted that though.

>All animals only care about surviving and reproducing, sorry bub.

Mostly surviving, and only the reproducing bit when it's convenient or if the time is right. You have yet to disprove this.

>The only reason we take part in civil society instead of running off into the jungle is because society presents protection from danger and lots of attractive women who are ripe for the taking
>and lots of attractive women who are ripe for the taking

Thee it is again, that jump to conclusion. Oh, if only you had chosen to jump off a cliff instead -- maybe you can procreate in the afterlife as your dogma decrees?

Answer the questions.

>be depressed
>n-nothing matters l-l-lol! i-im enlightened!
hmm yes

File: planes.jpg (62KB, 634x423px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 634x423px

>>2068512
>This conversation has made me want to get a vasectomy.
>By doing that, what does that have to do with procreation other than I don't wan to pay child support?

You are like the deer that I mentioned here, who jumped off a cliff to try and save himself from hunting dogs: >>2068431

You think that having a vasectomy would be in your interests, because you'd be able to have sex without getting trapped into paying money to raise a child, or having to stick around and raise it yourself, or whatever.

Men, naturally, have developed in such a way that we don't like raising kids. Why? Because the men who pumped and dumped are the ones who had the most children. So their genes have survived.

That's why we aspire to pump and dump without commitment.

But anyway, what you really want is kids, whether you admit it or not. You might not want to RAISE kids for the reasons I've just said, but you still want kids, because everybody does. Biology. Why do humans feel an urge, a longing to have children above and beyond just the physical drive for sex? Because we want fucking children. It's hard-wired in us.

The evidence for this fact, I think, is that SO MANY of us want kids. The vast majority. It stands to reason that we all have the same instincts, like we do for sex, for food, etc. And normally when you see someone who says they don't want kids, it's because they're generally a depressed/defeatist person who doesn't believe in their own ability, or they're just a wackjob, or emotionally unstable, etc. Or they've become consumed by hedonistic pleasure, drinking/playing video games/whatever. Therefore I think the best explanation is that these people have the same desire to procreate that the rest of us do, but for complex emotional reasons (usually relating to deep-seated feelings of inadequacy), they have decided that they do not want to take on the challenge of having children, and that they will try and entertain themselves with other things instead.

File: 018ca37f0b0a0699cce2f5d39a44415bedadbc3149629613629e06c0e3e73476.jpg (394KB, 1000x1426px)

394KB, 1000x1426px

>>2068560
Damn I meant to include a fuller explanation of the pump and dump thing.

If we pump and dump then it means we can invest all our energies in impregnating women, instead of having to stick around to raise them.

The most efficient use of a male's energy is if he focuses just on doing the pumping and the dumping. He is more likely to reproductively succeed this way (and his amount of success, i.e. number of children, will be higher)

That's why males have developed this pump and dump behaviour. It's the most efficient way of having as many children as possible, which is - as I keep saying - the fundamental goal of every organism that is healthy and nourished.

File: activate it.jpg (782KB, 1122x1600px) Image search: [Google]

782KB, 1122x1600px

>>2068560
Also, another reason to suppose that we all have the same instincts is that we all have the same brain, (well, with a slight degree of variance, but our genes are probably 99.99% the same as each other's aren't they, so for healthy humans, it stands to reason that we all have the same instincts)

And I can't stress the point enough that we all have the same instincts to breathe, to eat, to drink water, to protect ourselves from danger, to seek power/wealth/status, etc. So why would the instinct to desire children magically disappear from certain people? The more likely explanation is that the instinct is still there, but the person has been misled by ideology and thus can't recognise their own instincts, or as I say, maybe they have emotional problems, or they don't think they would be a good parent, or they think that other people wouldn't like them if they had children, or whatever.

>>2068560
>Because the men who pumped and dumped are the ones who had the most children. So their genes have survived.
>That's why we aspire to pump and dump without commitment.

How did you jump to such a conclusion?

You mention a cause and effect, and then proceeded to pull the trigger and go directly to "the effect MUST generate more cause!"

Idiot.

>because everybody does. Biology.

Not actually everybody, FYI

>The evidence for this fact, I think, is that SO MANY of us want kids.
>alot of people do X
>so I must do X as well

And a bandwagon to boot, are you checking off a "fallacy-I-must-include-list"?

>[ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem]

[ad hominem].

>>2068571
>If we pump and dump then it means we can invest all our energies in impregnating women, instead of having to stick around to raise them.

So you are for impregnating women but not raising the child, leading to unstable and dysfunctional people? Are you joking?

There's a paternal instinct too, that you've ignored. Instincts are all the same throughout, right? You said it so yourself, and if they don't have such "good" instincts then they should kill themselves. I think you would be perfect to lead by example.

>The most efficient use of a male's energy is if he focuses just on doing the pumping and the dumping. He is more likely to reproductively succeed this way (and his amount of success, i.e. number of children, will be higher)

Top kek, he seriously believes this

>That's why males have developed this pump and dump behaviour. It's the most efficient way of having as many children as possible

Not at all, you couldn't be more wrong. Maybe that's what you are -- a pump and dump child -- it's kind of sad really, how dysfunction your thought process got.

>the fundamental goal of every organism that is healthy and nourished.

lmao he said it again