ITT: Dark history to everyday objects

>>845811

It wasn't just that he was gay, it was his experiments into construction of hydraulic penises that really got him into hot water.

Being gay doesn't make him more interesting. I'd be more interested in a film where a computer is the main character than I was in a film where a homosexual fell in love with a computer.

>>845827
>Being gay doesn't make him more interesting


And it wouldn't. The fact his gayness let to betrayal and abuse by his own country does.
It really is one of the more biting tragedies I know of. A mind so brilliant and capable ruined by something so petty.

>>845845
>cybernetics

Wut

>>845845
>Computers and cybernetics have contributed to the feminization of society

Debatable and irrelevant.

>to point out to you that homosexuality is hardly normal
A man loving another man, hairy butt fucking and all, is fine with me.

>>845845
>Computers and cybernetics have contributed to the feminization of society. It really is more tragic that I have to point out to you that homosexuality is hardly normal.

What the fuck am I reading?

>>845865
>Cybernetics is a transdisciplinary[1] approach for exploring regulatory systems, their structures, constraints, and possibilities. In the 21st century, the term is often used in a rather loose way to imply "control of any system using technology;" this has blunted its meaning to such an extent that many writers avoid using it.
Do you even read Wikipedia?
>>>845868
>Debatable
Why? Just look around you. Feminism wouldn't have a hold like it does on the mind of the Western man if it weren't for the cybersystems that are possible only because of Turing's work.
>is fine with me
All right, but what makes this a particularly biting tragedy? It doesn't even seem to fit with the definitions of 'tragedy' I'm familiar with.

>>845811
i saw the imitation game too. not a fan of cumberbatch but good movie.

>>845811
>Those fiat stimulus bucks you're holding
>The ones Obama gave you
>They were invented by Keynes
>Keynes was gay
>GAY
>You not have AIDS from using fiat stimulus bucks

>>845868
This, how can a man who detests women and only loves men be criticized of the feminization of society when he abhors femininity?

>>845877
well then burn your computer if you're so afraid of feminists altering your mind through cybernetics

>>845887
I'm not afraid of them, I've accepted it. I just think it's worth pointing out. What's tragic, here, is >>845845's feeling that every homosexual who has ever been maltreated by society has been the central player in a tragedy. In fact, that isn't the case--homosexuals are far from universally upstanding citizens, and in many cases it makes perfect sense to demand that they restrict their urges. The same is true of straight people. The difference is that straight people care about children as something other than a status symbol or a charity case. Homosexuals, almost every one I've known, don't care about the future. Most of the homosexuals I know resent people who have children. They simply aren't invested like a biological parent can be. Most data I've seen indicates that sexual deviancy and mental health don't go together as often as LGBT activists want you to think. There are good reasons to want homosexuals to stop being so fucking strange.

>>845906
>>>845845 (You)
Meant to be >>845838

>>845845
>>/pol/

>>845845
>muh masculinity

>>845920
>>845915
I'd like to see a good counterargument because this isn't a position I enjoy holding. I'm genuinely concerned for the future, if hatred of breeders becomes the norm as a consequence of cyberneticized socialization.

File: 1455836588038.gif (2MB, 196x300px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 196x300px

>>845877
>f it weren't for the cybersystems that are possible only because of Turing's work
Same can be said for ISIS or Donald Trump's campaign. Like I said, completely irrelevant.

>what makes this a particularly biting tragedy?
Are you fucking daft?
Turing was the spearhead who broke the german Enigma machine in WWII, greatly contributing to the victory of his British government. And for the simple fact he liked dick, they forced him to choose between chemical castration or prison. Through the chemical castration, he grew breasts and eventually killed himself.

>>845845
>implying norms are real
>implying homosexuality isn't accepted by the majority in nearly every first world country
>claiming computers feminize people

>>845877
>"Do you even read Wikipedia?"

>>845924
You know people don't turn gay right?

No amount of conditioning is ever going to make people not want to have children. It's hardwired into us.

>>845929
>Like I said, completely irrelevant.
So Turing is relevant, but the impact of his work isn't?
>And for the simple fact he liked dick, they forced him to choose between chemical castration or prison. Through the chemical castration, he grew breasts and eventually killed himself.
Yeah. I'm aware of who he is. I don't see the tragedy. I see a guy getting fucked over by a government that cared more about its long-term prospects than about his contributions to science. Sad, sure. Tragic, well. I dunno about that.
>>845932
>>Implying norms are real
There isn't even debate about whether or not norms exist, the question is how much they should be enforced by society on itself. The rest of your post is garbage. I've at least pointed out historical trends, you merely say "BUT PEOPLE LIKE GAYS NOW" and don't even consider the fact that this is a premise in my argument.

>>845929

maybe he shouldn't have liked dick then, faggot

>>845924
Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
>computers is why gays and straights don't like each other

>>845951
>literally being autistic about semantics
This is why this board sucks ass

>>845941
>You know people don't turn gay right?
Is that 100% true? What do you even mean by "turn gay?"
>No amount of conditioning is ever going to make people not want to have children. It's hardwired into us.
Again, is that true? I know dozens of people who don't want to have children and plenty of people who think it's cruel for anyone to have children. Antinatalism isn't just a meme, people buy into it.
>>845953
Read again:
>Computers and cybernetics have contributed to the feminization of society.
Gays and straights don't even dislike each other. This isn't my claim. My claim is that gays are just as phobic of straight people as straight people are of gay people, and that this phobia--precisely because it's so marginal--is a danger if it is adopted by the whole of society.

>>845924
What we categorize as homosexual behavior has been widespread throughout human history. Look at any culture and you can find examples of males having sex with one another. Most frequently, this comes in the form of pederasty, which was widely practiced in ancient Greece, China, Rome, India, Persia, Mesoamerica, Central Asia... fuck, it would probably be easier to name cultures that didn't practice pederasty in some form or another than to list the cultures that did. Personally, the only ones I can think of off the top of my head are the Jews.

It wasn't until the reign of Justinian that all same-sex acts were punishable both for the passive and active partner, where as previously only the passive partner faced punishment. However, even after Justinian's decrees what we now term homosexuality was still widely practiced throughout the Byzantine Empire. The Turks as well were huge faggots, they could not keep their hands off a good boipussy, and this was the case for the Arabs as well.

Even today in Afghanistan and Pakistan, pederasty is widely practiced in the form of the Bacha Bazi, young boys raised as women and used primarily for sexual gratification. In fact, the kidnapping and enslavement of young boys deemed attractive is widespread in both the aforementioned states.

What I'm trying to get across is that homosexual behaviors have been common throughout human history. Certainly throughout human history.

>>845951
>Sad, sure. Tragic, well. I dunno about that.
A man who was one of the great hero of his country was betrayed by it. This is a very common theme in Tragedy.

Either way, which is this even an argument for you? Fucking christ.

>>845958
>WAAAHHH WORDS MEAN WHAT I WANT THEM TO MEAN AND NOTHING ELSE
>>>/b/

>>845951
>BUT PEOPLE LIKE GAYS NOW
but that's literally what makes something normalized, making it a perfect counterpoint to the premise that "gays aren't normal". That's literally all a norm is. It dosen't really matter what you think; if the majority of the populace ran around kicking puppies, puppy kicking would be normal.

>the question is how much they should be enforced by society on itself
>should
Go read Hume or Stirner or something instead of sitting on the internet acting as though there's a way people "should" be.

>>845965
Second "human history" should be "recorded history".
Muh bad, kinda drunk.

>>845968
>Punished Turning
>A smart gay denied his homeland

>>845965
But my claim is
>Computers and cybernetics have contributed to the feminization of society.
It isn't
>Gays didn't exist prior to the invention of computers
The very fact that feminism became so much more popular after WWII should be enough to support my claim. You people are just not autistic enough to get it.

>>845978
Implicit in my argument is that computers do no more to feminize modern society than a ritualistic relationship where males from the age of 12 to 16 were fucked in the ass by older men did to feminize the Ancient Greeks.

>>845968
>>845951
oh and
>but the impact of his work isn't?
If you think the impact of Turing's work is defined by feminization, you're nurturing some strange ass angle of history that I can't even begin to comprehend.

>>845971
>but that's literally what makes something normalized, making it a perfect counterpoint to the premise that "gays aren't normal".
But that isn't what normality is. Normality isn't a matter of consensus, it's a matter of fact. First world countries are hardly normal places.
>Go read Hume or Stirner
No, I don't think that's an argument. You clearly have your ideas about how people 'should' be. For example, they 'should' be allowed to act on their gay urges.
>>845984
Was that kind of thing common in mid-century America prior to the introduction of large-scale computing?
>>845986
It's one thing computers have done. I'm not talking about the others right now.

>>845969
You shouldn't greentext yourself senpai

>>845995
>Was that kind of thing common in mid-century America
No, nor is it common now after the introduction of large-scale computing. Homosexuals make up a statistically insignificant portion of US households. I think the number was something like 800,000 homosexual couples, taking into account both male and female homosexuals, compared to 56 million married heterosexual households and 7 million unmarried heterosexual households. Meaning homosexuals make up about 1.25% of U.S. households.

>>845995

>Was that kind of thing common in mid-century America prior to the introduction of large-scale computing?

Correlation does not imply causation, my friend. There are other factors that lead to the feminization of America.

>>845995

>You clearly have your ideas about how people 'should' be.

but doesn't equality mean that you don't have ideas about how people should be?

>b-but that means you think people should be equal

yes it does, but isn't that just semantics?

>>846015
Hardly common today, too. One might even say it's abnormal. One might even say that the expansion of communication technology's power and expansiveness has made it possible for modern Westerners to get more worked up about not offending the LGBT community than medieval Christians did about stoning it.

>>845995
>Normality isn't a matter of consensus, it's a matter of fact.
Prove that claim then. What makes what you whimsically choose to define as normal a "factual statement"?

You're prescribing your own beliefs to things; these are just thing which originate form the observer. They're your own feelings, whether you recognize them for what they are or not. It doesn't have anything to do with the objects you're observing. Something reliant on the observer rather than the object is by-definition subjective and nothing more. You've tricked yourself into thinking you're an authority.

>You clearly have your ideas about how people 'should' be. For example, they 'should' be allowed to act on their gay urges.
It's in no way, shape, or form how I think you should be. It's not that I think you "should" be what I consider a decent human being, I just personally would rather have you not behave like a degenerate.

>>846030
>the d-word comes out
Top zozzle

>>846044
>Normality isn't a matter of consensus, it's a matter of fact.
Still waiting for evidence which supports this quote.

>>846049

Biology, faggot. Penis was made for going into vagina to make chilluns.

>>846025
>but doesn't equality mean that you don't have ideas about how people should be?
I don't object to having opinions about how people should be. I believe all people are de facto equal and that de jure equality is a nice idea. I don't undestand what kind of point you're trying to make in this post, though.
My point is that you're throwing the is/ought distinction at me as if it only applies to my position and not yours. I'm the one making descriptive claims here. Let me reiterate.
>Computers have contributed to the feminization of society through the widespread adoption of mass communication technologies by the state and by actors in civil society, in coordination with a gradual increase in the power of feminist groups, and groups which benefit from the docility of males, over the course of the second half of the 20th century.
Really, what I'm doing is claiming that telecommunications technology, activism, politics, and social structures are related while focusing on the intersection of one agenda with one bit of technology and a single political era stretching from Turing's construction of the Enigma Machine through today.

>>846044
humans exist solely to co-create each other

what good are people that cannot spawn more people?

>>846064
1. That definition of meaning is reductionist and retarded
2. Homosexuals can reproduce, but chose not to. No different than a willfully celibate straight man

>>845845

Have you ever had a rational discourse with anyone outside of /pol/? Sorry the world isn't the circlejerking hugbox you're used to.

>>846078
humans at their core are mammals and their only purpose to exist is to reproduce and keep themselves safe from extinction

nothing personal against gays but on the animal spectrum they are degenerate sorry

>>846030
>You're prescribing your own beliefs to things; these are just thing which originate form the observer.
Literally coming from the person who tells me that, because half of first-worlders seem to think homosexuals can fuck in private, it's something we should just call normal.
>It's in no way, shape, or form how I think you should be.
You think I should think people are equal.
>I just personally would rather have you not behave like a degenerate.
I don't think that's true, I think you want people to behave like degenerates. I think you think that people *should* object to the kind of degeneracy you object to and support what you support. The fact of the matter is that you haven't offered a good reason for me to accept your conception of normalcy, and you're doing a bad job of using the is/ought argument. It's clear that you have beliefs about how I should act, at least in relation to the continuation of our society or species. Whether or not you (or anybody) admits to the use of 'ought'-based vocabulary, ultimately, this is all holding us back from doing more important things. I dare you to complain about semantics at this point, after you've done such a hamfisted job of abusing the is/ought notion. You're acting as if you don't want me to act a certain way because you want to look like you're better than the guy complaining about feminization on 4chan.
>>846085
Do you have an argument?

>>846029
Yeah, homosexuals are a fringe population of human society with a trait that significantly harms their evolutionary fitness. I don't think anyone can seriously contest that. I'd even concede that thanks in large part to the media and the internet, people today tend to overestimate the population of homosexuals (and other minorities, Blacks especially) by as much as 20 times their actual number (or 2 to 3 times their actual number in the case of Blacks).

However, a tendency towards over-attribution and consistent over-representation does not entail a feminization of society. This merely indicates a societal fascination with the weird, which is very typical of liberal societies. I'd cite orientalism, which grew so popular among the 19th century decadents, and the mystery cults of ancient Rome as previous examples of this trend.

>>846061
>Biology, faggot. Penis was made for going into vagina to make chilluns.

>Implying things were created with intent
Still waiting on evidence.

>>846064
Humans do not exist "for" anything.

>what good are people that cannot spawn more people?

Yeah Steven Hawking has made zero contribution to society man, let's throw his wheelchair ass into the dumpster because he can't get laid. Trailer park hics who spray their semen in every last neighbor they have are the real heros, they totally don't weigh down society at all.

>>846093
Cool story bro
Thankfully I try to rise above basic animal instincts

>>846096
>However, a tendency towards over-attribution and consistent over-representation does not entail a feminization of society.
See >>846063

>>846107

anal sex with a man is above animal instincts?

>>846095
>You think I should
I litteraly said I didn't a post ago

>Whether or not you (or anybody) admits to the use of 'ought'-based vocabulary, ultimately, this is all holding us back from doing more important things.
Right, because complaining about gays for the sake of your own comfort is one of the finer things in life.

Face it anon, I asked for evidence and you can't provide. You just feel like somethings "normal" so you decide to say it is. You haven't been able to counter that whatsoever, and even went as far as to just dare me not to use it like it's a "cheap move" or something. "Y-You can't use scissors! Scissors is cheap and you have to use rock because I'm right and I have to win!"

A-bloo-bloo-bloo, anon. Cry me a river.

>>846098
>evidence
Put your penis inside a vagina and tell me it doesn't feel good.
>Humans do not exist "for" anything.
Sauce?
> let's throw his wheelchair ass into the dumpster because he can't get laid
A more fitting thing you could have said would be "Let's offer him a wheelchair and spend lots of money trying to do him some good," believe it or not. Don't act as if Stephen Hawking is a charity case.

>>846108
The point I'm making, in simpler terms, is that what you perceives as a feminization of society is by no means unique to the period following Turing's invention of the computer.

>>846098
Stephen Hawking has actually had sex, and has had three kids.

>>845845
>Computers and cybernetics have contributed to the feminization of society.
ayy lmao

>It really is more tragic that I have to point out to you that homosexuality is hardly normal.
neither is being left-handed but we don't prosecute and sterilise people for it.

>>846117
>I litteraly said I didn't a post ago
He's pretty convinced he's talking to one person when he's actually a minority, which is rather ironic given that he's calling himself the norm

>>846114
No less than with a woman

>>846117
>I litteraly said I didn't a post ago
I don't believe you, I don't feel like going into it.
>Face it anon, I asked for evidence and you can't provide.
See >>846063, have you refuted the actual argument I'm making? I've provided arguments, a narrative, evidence-you've told me to read Hume and abused the is/ought distinction when I haven't even said that homosexuals ought or ought not be homosexuals. I've said that society will be harmed in what I feel to be an unacceptable way if a marginal group of people who hate anybody that breeds finds its worldview to be predominant.

>>846131
women spawn people

men do not

>>846121
I could spell it out again for you, or you could reread my posts. Which do you want?

File: Screen Shot 2016-01-10 at 9.16.29 pm.png (115KB, 263x268px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 263x268px

>mfw coming into this thread

>>846137
Not from the ass

>>846127
We also don't have the Supreme Court ruling that left-handed people deserve a special kind of civil union. Though, potentially, with the power of mass communication technology made possible by the work of Alan Turing, we very well could ;)

>>846096

>homosexuals are a fringe population of human society with a trait that significantly harms their evolutionary fitness

What are you implying with this? That there's a homosexual gene?

>>846118
>Sauce?
That's like asking for a sauce which disproves god anon. The burden of proof doesn't lie on me, it lies on the one claiming there "is" some objective "should," not the one claiming they don't believe in any.

> Don't act as if Stephen Hawking is a charity case.
When did I imply that? My point was that there are people who don't reproduce that are valued far more by society than people who reproduce frequently.

>>846124
At long last, an actual counterpoint, though my claim still stands. You can't pretend that people who don't have kids haven't contributed.

>>846132
>I don't believe you, I don't feel like going into it.
Then go read >>846030
>It's in no way, shape, or form how I think you should be.
That's pretty straightforward anon.

>have you refuted the actual argument I'm making?
The >>846063 post isn't me, retard.

>a marginal group of people who hate anybody that breeds
You mean the gays? You really think they're persecuting you? You know you're in a thread about Turning, right?

>>846151
but gay people don't have a special kind of civil union, they just have a normal civil union, like left handed people

>>846159
>The >>846063 (You) post isn't me, retard.
It's me, you fucking moron.
Are you literate at all? I was telling you to read a post I wrote.
>You mean the gays? You really think they're persecuting you? You know you're in a thread about Turning, right?
Do you literally have a selective memory?

>I don't like gay people because penises in butts are weird, and therefore they're objectively evil and a hindrance on the world!

>Making children who sit around and consume resources surely must be the greatest way to contribute to society!

>>846165
They certainly do have a special kind of civil union. They can't get married; marriage is only between a man and a woman. Everything in the Western tradition that actually matters in this area says so until just recently. I don't really think the matter is settled yet. I don't think it ever will be settled in favor of the whole "It's totally marriage" thing.

>>846131

I agree

any sexual activity outside of procreation is degenerate

>>846093
>only purpose to exist
fedora-tier understanding of evolution

>on the animal spectrum they are degenerate
fedora tier understanding of evolution.

>>846172
>they can't get married
Legally they can
>inb4 b-buh muh church says no
Cool. Not important to the state, though

>>846172
>>"but I-I don't call it marriage"
>SC ruling
>"I don't really think the matter is settled yet."

>>845906
>are far from universally upstanding citizens
Turing was.

>feeling that every homosexual who has ever been maltreated by society has been the central player in a tragedy
And not a single thing you've mentioned justifies the treatment they've received in history.

People who can't reproduce don't have the same priorities as those who can. What a shocker.

>>846182
>>846183
Well, it's not. It'll be challenged at some point. It may very well be the issue that causes the country to collapse. That or some other thing that only happened because of Alan Turing's work.

>>846151
>We also don't have the Supreme Court ruling that left-handed people deserve a special kind of civil union
Gays don't have a special civil union, they have a normal one.

>Though, potentially, with the power of mass communication technology made possible by the work of Alan Turing
TIL Alan Turing invented the supreme court

>>846192
>People who can't reproduce don't have the same priorities as those who can. What a shocker.
Not sure what your point is.

>>846170
>I was telling you to read a post I wrote.
I made the mistake of assuming you weren't a hypocrite, given you'd told me in that same comment that you just couldn't be bothered to backtrack to one of mine.

>Do you literally have a selective memory?
Okay, let's go check the post I was responding to:

>I've said that society will be harmed in what I feel to be an unacceptable way if a marginal group of people who hate anybody that breeds finds its worldview to be predominant.
So again, is it not the case that you think there are people who hate anyone who breeds?

>>846198
>well it's not because I say so
Whatever you say senpai lmao

>>845845
Fuck off cunt, the guy cracked enigma and did us a great service in the war
Sage for bait

>>846198
>It'll be challenged at some point.
>Scalia is dead
>Republican primary voters can only put up palin-teir candidates
>Implying even the furthest left social movements will be challenged in the next decade

It is marriage anon, that's a debate which has already been settled. Your prayers will go unanswered. The best you can do is go shoot up a gay wedding.

>>846171

Being a homosexual male by definition means you have a hedonistic aspect that is a big part of your lifestyle. Your fucking identity is that you like dick if you announce yourself as a homosexual. Don't pretend it isn't. Taking dicks up your ass or vice versa is a purely hedonistic sexual drive. Procreation on the other hand is seen as a means of expanding the population by bringing new people into the world. Gays are disgusting fags that only seek to promote their self-interest.

File: MEME.jpg (64KB, 424x399px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 424x399px

>>845845

>>846206
Nor did I see the point of your bringing it up in the first place.

>>846229
>he slowly gets less and less civil as he gets BTFO more and more

>>846181

evolution isn't proven beyond a doubt in any case, but I'll bite

the only objective biological purpose for your existence is to spread your seed, yes

>>846229
>hedonistic
What's the problem?
>implying a homosexual's homosexuality is the only part of their identity
>implying straight sex isn't hedonistic
>implying wanting a family isn't hedonistic
>implying wanting to live isn't hedonistic
like just kill yourself my man, stop giving into the pleasure of life

>>846181
>humans aren't mammals
Redditor-tier understanding of humanity.

>>846207
>hypocrite
We could throw this back and forth all day if you want. I think you're just bad at following directions.
>is it not the case that you think there are people who hate anyone who breeds?
Are you implying that no such group exists? I personally know people who claim to get angry whenever they hear about someone having a child. I personally know dozens of people who claim not to want to have children. I'm honestly more concerned about blatant anti-natalism catching on.

>>846245
>I have to bite to assume evolution
Just fucking leave already

>>846229
>Het. christians are good ol' boys, they dindu no sex for pleasure

>>846251
>mamals have purpose
Redditor-tier evasion of his point

>>846255
You're acting like people are getting their dicks chopped off for wanting kids. OP kinda suggests the opposite anon.

>>846246

Fedora detected.

>muh chemicals in the brain maaan
>everything is just dopamine n sheeeit

A homosexual makes being a homosexual a vital part of their identity. A male does not announce he is a heterosexual, he just is. How is wanting a family hedonistic? How is wanting to live hedonistic? Are you retarded? Back that shit up, you cuck.

>>846257

The actions of certain members don't invalidate a doctrine, you autist.

>>846257
>Coming out as heterosexual = coming out as homosexual, in terms of social consequences
>Everyone who disagrees with me is wrong because everyone who disagrees with me is a religious
you're completely wrong here

>>846259
Again, I'm not doing that. My opponents are inflating my claims. The most inflammatory statements I've made were about the definition of tragedy and the definition of marriage, with some extra slippery sloping for good measure. I don't think this is actually going to happen because I think my opinion is common enough that people will democratically prevent it from happening. I'm just trying to do my part in that process.

>>846263
>homosexual makes being a homosexual a vital part of their identity
Because homosexuals are an abused minority.

>>846263
>accept these things becUse I say they're true
Lol

>>846269
What does that have to do with anything pertinent to his point?

>>846245
There is no biological purpose. Before you call me autistic or pedantic or whatever, this is relevant because you were saying that homosexuality is represents degeneracy from a purpose.There can be no deviation from any purpose because there was no purpose to begin with.

This is usually called the naturalistic fallacy. It's funny because I usually hear it from vegan hippy types.

I find it strange that you would disparage gays for what you see as a competitive failure while also disparaging information technology, which gives societies which use it a huge competitive advantage over those that don't. By your standards would pre-information societies be degenerate?

>>846263
> How is wanting to live hedonistic?
Is life a pleasure?
Do you want it?
If it's pleasure you want, it's hedonistic. If you don't want to be hedonistic, kill yourself.

>muh chemicals in the brain maaan
but you're the one who's acting like biology indicates a natural moral order anon, I'm not the one playing the chemicals card

>>846282
>There is no biological purpose.
You keep saying this, but what evidence do you have?

>>846286
>Is life a pleasure?
lol no, what kind of definition is that? Even if we admit that 'pleasure' is a predicate of life, it's wrong to assume that anybody would identify the two of them.

>>846290
>There is no almighty god
>You keep saying this, but what evidence do you have?
What is "burden of proof"?

>You
>implying it's one person who keeps saying this

>>846293
So life isn't pleasurable then, anon?

>>846140
I'll break this down point by point.

>Computers have contributed to the feminization of society through the widespread adoption of mass communication technologies by the state and by actors in civil society, in coordination with a gradual increase in the power of feminist groups,
This began well before the onset of the 20th century. Perhaps its modern incarnation can be traced to A Vindication of the Rights of Women, a treatise written by Mary Wollstonecraft in 1792. From roughly the Age of Enlightenment up to today we see a consistent increase in the number of "Women's Movements". This peaks in the late 19th century when the women's suffrage movement was in full swing.

>and groups which benefit from the docility of males,
If we take the number of men in proportion to women arrested each year in the United States for violent offenses to be a good indicator of male aggression, and if we accept that aggression is a key proponent of masculinity, then we can determine this:

Arrest for violent offenses have declined by 16.1% over the course of the last ten years.
As of 2014, men comprise 79.8% of those arrested for violent criminal offenses and women 20.2%.
In 2005, men comprised 82.1% of those arrested for violent criminal offenses and women 17.9%.
In 1995, men comprised 85.1% of those arrested for violent criminal offenses and women 14.9%

Meaning that over the course of the last 20 years, the total change in percentage of men committing violent criminal offenses is 5.3%, or 0.265% per year. In other words, it's statistically insignificant.

>over the course of the second half of the 20th century.
This is by no means unique to the 20th or 21st centuries. The Roman Empire, Sassanid Persia, the Abbasid Caliphate, and Song China all serve as examples of period when feminism and femininity, at some point and to some degree, were in vogue.

>>846001
I think you mean
>who are you quoting?

>>846290
It's impossible to find evidence for something that doesn't exist, which is why the burden of proof is usually on the one claiming that something is present.

>>846297
What does God have to do with this? That isn't an argument.
I don't know where you got that implication from.
>>846299
Not universally. Something can be desirable without being pleasurable.

>>846093
People don't exist for any purpose. The universe couldn't care less if humanity went extinct.

>>846310
>What does God have to do with this?
I was comparing the negative you were asking people to prove to another commonly used.

>Something can be desirable without being pleasurable.
So you desire life?
Do you follow that desire?

File: 8719358.jpg (36KB, 453x456px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 453x456px

>>846290
Not that anon, but you could actually call all sex degenerate.

>2016
>only passing on half of your genes when you reproduce
>plebs

pic related

>>846299

What do you even mean by "pleasure?" Many people find varying different things pleasurable.

>>846155
There might be, but that's not what I'm claiming. That statement entails the claim that homosexuals are less likely than heterosexuals to reproduce, which seems fairly obvious.

>>846302
>began
I said "contributed"
>5.3%
Seems significant to me. That's a decrease, as opposed to an increase. How far back does available data go?
>This is by no means unique to the 20th or 21st centuries.
They had CNN in Rome? Like, the actual infrastructure that makes the modern news corporation what it is in this day and age?
Anyway, all those examples serve my arguments. Western civilization is now at a point when femininity is in vogue; this has been facilitated by modern industry and telecommunications technology.

>>846328
What do you mean by it, anon?

>>846317

>The universe couldn't care less if humanity went extinct.

1. you're presuming to know with certainty what the universe is and what it is not
2. you're a fag

>>846330
>seems significant
>"I have never taken even an introductory statistics course"

>>846330
just out of interest, can I ask what you mean by femininity?

>>846333
>still claiming a negative needs to be proven as a means of dodging the fact that he can't provide evidence for a positive

>>846332

Everything is done for "pleasure" which is really just your brain tricking you since chemicals in the brain influence your various states of mind and how you act.

>>845845
Obviously this is leftist bait to make their opposition look stupid

How are there people who're so convinced that pleasure is bad? "Don't fuck your spouse unless you're contributing to society, goy." That's exactly what it means to get cucked by a spook.

>>845951
>I see a guy getting fucked over by a government that cared more about its long-term prospects
Yes, Alan turing's gayness sure was a black cloud over the future of Britain.

I really hope you die of leprosy.

>>846319
>I was comparing the negative you were asking people to prove to another commonly used. That might give you the false impression I'm making an argument based on divine command theory, though, so I don't want to have to do that.

>So you desire life?
To an extent.
>Do you follow that desire?
Sometimes.

But I think we should define 'life' at some point, anon, or else I'm going to be confused. Are we talking about the experience that a person has while in the world? Or are we talking about the collection of all living things? If you're asking me if I want to go on living, the answer would have to be yes, I would like to go on living. This doesn't mean I object to the concept of death in general, though, I'm just inclined to want to live. As are most people.

>>846354
>MUH PROCREATION

Why are people even debating the idea that the feminisation of society stemmed from Turnings work?
Do you think Turning could see the future? No, of course not. The guy just invented a machine to break the enigma code, as requested by the millitary. He had no way of foreseeing your supposed future. The guy who invented dynamite thought it would be primarily used for mining, you can't blame him for people who died because of its use in warfare.

>>846352
>Everything is done for "pleasure"
Okay, I'l use your definition
By that definition, everything is hedonistic

>>846353
>implying people who presuppose values aren't actually that stupid

>>846336
That's right ;)
How far back does the data go?
>>846338
Tbh I don't know. This has gone on longer than I expected it possibly could.

>>846363

Do you think he's turning in his grave?

>>846358
> I think we should define 'life'
No no, you can feel free to do that yourself anon.

>>846363
Because they have a political agenda. That should be obvious from the number of people that were offended by my comment about civil unions.

>>846358
>want to live
>doing as you want
>somehow not hedonistic

>>846377
Do you have your own definition? Nobody is stopping you from offering one. In fact, I said "we" precisely because I want you to.

>>846382
>All hedonistic theories identify pleasure and pain as the only important elements of whatever phenomena they are designed to describe.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/hedonism/
Have you ever read a book?

>>846382
what if i want to cut my foot off? is this hedonistic?

>>846378
>im just a good boy troof teller, it's those damn degenerates who're doing it

>>846394
I intended to rustle jimmies, I admit it. There are 13 responses to my most controversial post. There is one potential refutation of the central argument I'm making. There are a lot of people who think I'm blaming Turing for turning America gay when I'm doing nothing of the sort.
I voted for Hillary.

>>846394

>dey can't be no troof bruh, so derefor we gotz to setl dawn on muh nihilism and demograzy cuz dats wat we superyor men gots to do prais sterner

File: lmao yanks.jpg (41KB, 372x285px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 372x285px

>>845845
>cybernetics has feminized society

what the fuck

>>846330
>Seems significant to me.
You missed this part at the top
>Arrest for violent offenses have declined by 16.1% over the course of the last ten years.
Taking into account that violent crime is declining to begin with, a change of 2.3% isn't high enough to be statistically significant. Males commit the majority of violent criminal offenses, so of course when the number of violent criminal offenses declines the proportion of men committing those criminal offenses will decline more rapidly than the number of women committing those criminal offenses.

And records go back as far as 1935. However, we don't have easily available digitized reports from that period. The report from 1950 indicates that 89.6% of those arrested for all crimes (not just violent) were men. Unfortunately the report does not break it down into convenient violent/non-violent categories. That same number in 2014 (percent of all crime perpetrated by men) was 73.3%. Indicating a 16.3% decrease, or 0.255% per year. Roughly correlating with the decline per year in violent offenses and indicating that the rate of decline has remained largely unchanged since before the introduction of widespread computing.

>ITT: Dark history to everyday objects
You got that right, OP

>>846413
We are talking high-level illuminati kabbalah shit.

Get on the Merkabah, we're invading the astral realm.

File: Black Pharaohs cover - 5 copy.jpg (366KB, 973x1475px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 973x1475px

Dark histories to modern things?

Egypt.

File: 1400078618103.jpg (370KB, 1155x852px) Image search: [Google]

370KB, 1155x852px

>>845845

What is going on in this thread at this point?

>>846414
Is that the only standard you're going by? Violence toward women? How about female representation in the workplace? Or pay?

>>846420
*evokes feedback loop*

>>846420
You laugh, but you know the IDF wouldn't use female soldiers if it weren't for the feminization of society thanks, in part, to Turing's legacy.

>>846409
>I intended to rustle jimmies
>>>>>>>>>>>/reddit/
>>846410
>we shood al be in a theocracy cuz muh bible sez so xDDd

>>846438
Go away evil dogger
>>846437
>>>>>>>>>>>>/reddit/
>>>/tumblr/

File: image.jpg (183KB, 960x638px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 960x638px

>>846438
I declare this a doggo thread

>>846426
The metric is not violence towards women, it is simply violent crime with no specific victim.

As for women in the workplace and the amount women are paid, I do not see how these relate to masculinity. Violence is typically associated with masculinity. Thus, violent crime statistics should, in theory, offer insight into the state of 'masculinity', nebulous though that term may be. It is not a perfect metric, but it is at least good enough to show that if masculinity has been declining, it has been declining at a fairly constant rate for more than half a century at this point. Since well before the introduction of wide spread computing.

>>846438

go away evil dogger

>>846437

A theocracy is better than a secular state. I don't see what you're getting at here.

>>846438
Go away evil dogger

>>846447
>A theocracy is better than a secular state. I don't see what you're getting at here.

Because...

>>846445
>I do not see how these relate to masculinity.
Then why do feminists care about them? I've explicitly stated that I'm talking about a phenomenon occurring at the apex of science, technology, politics, and identity.

>>846447
Iran and Saudi Arabia say hi

Yah got me bro xD

>>846409
>There are a lot of people who think I'm blaming Turing for turning America gay when I'm doing nothing of the sort.

See
>>845845
>Computers and cybernetics have contributed to the feminization of society.
Why would you bring that up if you aren't blaming Turing. What were you trying to imply?

>>846450
Do you have an argument that won't derail this thread into a theist/atheist debate? You could make one if you're careful.

File: chocolateman.jpg (100KB, 936x717px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 936x717px

>>846438
I already got immunity cat backing me up, fuck off doggo cunt

>>846459
>Why would you bring that up if you aren't blaming Turing.
Because I don't think it's all that tragic.
>Guy gets killed because he's gay
>Grows breasts
>His invention feminizes society
More comedic than anything.

>>846453
>Then why do feminists care about them?
Presumably because they relate to women. I don't really see what you're getting at with this statement. Are you implying that if feminist care about something, that something is masculine? If that were the case they'd be discussing the proportion of men in comparison to women who commit suicide.

File: 1374039504596.jpg (186KB, 662x800px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 662x800px

>>846255
Will you have children, Anon?

If you are going to lament the decisions of others as some deeper societal ill, at least be a martyr for your cause. And do it big, TLC needs another evangelical family with 19 kids needlessly consuming dwindling resources because of a hedonistic desire to spawn endlessly. Humanity wont end when the population stops growing as fast, it will end when the population consumes all the earths resources.


For a nutjob clinging to outdated absolutist philosophies regarding social norms and values, you really ought to read about Malthus, an also equally dated theory.

>>846465
>I don't think its all that tragic
So you openly admit to being either a sociopath or autistic?

>>846467
>Are you implying that if feminist care about something, that something is masculine?
No, I'm implying that having more women in the workplace is literally-LITERALLY-an example of society becoming more feminine, and that women making more money than they ever historically have is literally-LITERALLY-an example of the feminization of society.
> I've explicitly stated that I'm talking about a phenomenon occurring at the apex of science, technology, politics, and identity.
Feminization is the process whereby female bodies and the ideas associated with those bodies' discourses become integrated into society.

>>846363
>Why are people even debating the idea that the feminisation of society stemmed from Turnings work?
I don't think society has been "feminised", in fact I think that is impossible.

If what you mean is the rise of feminism/women's liberation then it's equaly absurd. You could just as easily blame Hitler or the Spanish flu. The only connection between the two is that Alan Turing lived prior to the majority of women's liberation movements (though the process had started long before)

Thirdly the idea in the OP was that the british government was taking practical measures rather than petty ones. That would imply they somehow believed A) his work would lead to Feminism, as the OP claimed, or B) that his homosexuality would lead to feminism, which is unfounded but also not what you were referring to, or C) that they were afraid that his homosexuality would lead to other deviations from the "normal" and that the claimed connection between feminism and computers is a nonsequitur that he threw in, I don't know why.

tl;dr OP's talking shite and people are right to call him on it.

>>846455

>extremes that stray from the principle

>>846450

Because the priestly caste composed of the greatest initiates was meant to rule. Men of intelligence and wisdom unlike your everyday politicians that come from a whole host of backgrounds. A formidable elect meant to ensure that the state stays true to its eternal principles instead of flip flopping on their beliefs every time a politician sees a chance to grab the prize. A group of priests capable of keeping the control of the state out of the hands of the peasants is undoubtedly more effective than having peasants rise to the positions they hold in the modern world by simply making connections and being able to influence the masses.

>>846468
Oi, Malthusian collapse is a legitimate phenomena and An Essay on the Principle of Population was one of the seminal works of early statistics.

>>846475
>DUDE IT'S SAD, IT WAS TRAGIC
Call me autistic, I guess.
>>846468
I would like to have children. This is mostly beside the point, though.

>>846475

nice false dichotomy, you sperg

>>846492
>priests were chosen to lead
By whom? >inb4 God
What's to stop me from becoming a priest then ruining your autistic fantasy?

>>846495
>>ITS SAD, ITS TRAGIC
most of the time 'tragic' is a synonym for sad, typically implying a higher intensity of sadness. I don't know whatever esoteric definition you came up with for yourself

File: 1442265125041.jpg (2MB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x1333px

>>845811
OP, you had a interesting idea for a thread and it turned to shit. I contributed to this decay. I apologize.

I hope you find this picture pleasing,

>>846461
>Muh popery
>Muh vatican
>Muh nazi and mafiate ties
>Muh unvirtuous, politically motivated popes
>Muh inconsistent nanny state-style laws
>Muh Vatican-sanctioned mistreatment of native peoples, pagans, Jews, and Orthodox Christians
>Muh eventual disintegration of stable theocratic states from politically motivated secularism.
>Muh eventual disintegration of stable secular states from politically motivated non-secularism
>Muh church tithes and political bribes for sanctions and pardons

Any of these work?

>>846499

You have to be initiated, my friend. By their collective intuition bestowed to them upon the divine, they seek to find the next great initiates that will further lead the society onto the righteous path. If you are worthy of the task of being initiated, you will change your mind and become one with the divine. If you are unworthy, you will try and ruin the order, but you will fail. The order goes back to time immemorial and is directly influenced by the primordial men. Feel free to visit India any time, friend.

>>846499
>What's to stop me from becoming a priest then ruining your autistic fantasy?
You'd have to become one of the greatest initiates of the state's priesthood to have real power. There would be an entire power system standing in your way. You're probably an atheist, your religious vocabulary probably isn't very good, you'd probably have to study the sacred texts of the place for a while. Who knows, maybe you'd buy into it. Maybe you'd be a great initiate of whatever priesthood you were trying to join. Maybe you'd be remembered as a great reformer who paved the way for a glorious future.
Or maybe there's a caste system and you're not allowed to leave your caste, so this isn't even an option.

>>846436
turing was not a cybernetician. You don't even know what the fuck you are talking about

>>846505
>typically implying a higher intensity of sadness.
>esoteric
Maybe you've never taken a literature class. Alan Turing is hardly a tragic hero.

>>845811
>sterilized for being gay
Seems a bit redundant, don't you think?

>>846515
No one said he was

>>846511
>visit India any time
If India is the best example you have then you should stop talking

>>846513
He invented the computer, though
>>846510
>Implying any state has ever had a truly just distribution of justice
What's your perfect system?
>>846523
>>845838
>It really is one of the more biting tragedies I know of. A mind so brilliant and capable ruined by something so petty.
Did you even read the fucking third post in the thread?

>>846528
COMPUTERS ARE NOT CYBERNETICS

H
O
L
Y

FUCK

B
O
Y

R
E
A
D

A BOOK

>>846527

I am talking about going to India to visit one of these ancient orders, even though they no longer rule. Relax, mate. I wasn't referring to the state of India itself as an example. The world is always shifting, and we are currently experiencing the Kali Yuga. We will not get to experience the golden age, my young cuck.

>>846528
>I don't understand how language works
If 4chan were a site filled with doctorates maybe you'd have a point. But in the general usage, a tragedy is a sad story. Turing's fate was certainly sad

>>846549

>Turing's fate was certainly sad

from your point of view...

>>846481
I point to >>846453
>I do not see how these relate to masculinity.
>Then why do feminists care about them?
Those were the two statements in question, and it should be obvious that your response to my initial query is unclear.

Regardless:
>having more women in the workplace is literally-LITERALLY-an example of society becoming more feminine
>women making more money than they ever historically have is literally-LITERALLY-an example of the feminization of society
Let me establish something, I think laws in the United States are ridiculously preferential towards women. Women get far, far lighter sentences in federal court than men do. They get on average about a 60% advantage when it comes to sentence length, meaning their sentences are 60% shorter than those of men. Similarly, women make up the majority of college students, outnumbering men by a statistically significant proportion in comparison to the population. Likewise, the gender pay gap is revealed to be obviously falsified with even the slightest bit of research. In fact women may make more than men after one takes into account experience, overtime, and all the rest.

My disagreement is mostly with your notion that computers and the increasing use of technology have contributed to this. I also disagree with your claims that it is a feminization of society. It is rather liberalism that is responsible for these trends, and the rise of liberalism is the continuation of a trend which has been occurring since before recorded history.

That trend includes a slide towards conservatism, and it is this phase of the trend that we are on the cusp of today.

>>846536
I NEVER CLAIMED THEY ARE
WOW
O O
WOW
MY CLAIM IS THAT CYBERNETICS RESEARCH HAS BEEN GREATLY IMPACTED BY TURING'S RESEARCH AND THAT WHAT HAS HAPPPENED, HAS HAPPENED THANKS TO TURING'S WORK
IF YOU WANT TO SAY COMPUTERS HAVEN'T AFFECTED CYBERNETICS RESEARCH THEN FUCK OFF
>>846549
>sad
I'll give it that. I'm standing by my claim about feminization.

>>846551
So we come here again
>>846475

>>846511
>Feel free to visit India any time, friend.
shithole

>By their collective intuition bestowed to them upon the divine, they seek to find the next great initiates that will further lead the society onto the righteous path.
relies on the direct intervention of a superbeing which probably isnt real. Basically oligarchy with some role-playing elements. Any such system will be overtaken by more competitive systems such as liberal free market democracy.

I get you're trolling at this stage, just in case someone takes you seriously

>>846556
>It is rather liberalism that is responsible for these trends, and the rise of liberalism is the continuation of a trend which has been occurring since before recorded history.

You're making a categorically different type of claim than I am. We can talk about ideology all you want. If you don't think that modern feminists use information technology to pursue their agendas, though, we might be living in different worlds.

>>846438
Go away evil dogger

I don't give a shit about turing to be honest

he was one member of a larger office

the emphasis placed on him is overblown

>>846562

Read your Guenon, friend. It is hard to explain this to a Westerner.

>>846566
Well of course feminist use the internet to advance their cause, so does every social or political movement.

Feminism is simply a branch of liberalism to begin with. To clarify, I don't mean liberal and conservative in the sense that those words are used in the United States, I'm using them in the sense that liberalism is a belief founded on the ideals of liberty, equality, and modernity. Conservatism is a belief founded upon the ideas of tradition, stability, and an opposition to modernity.

>>846551
>FROM MY POINT OF THE VIEW THE GAYS ARE EVIL

>people think turing INVENTED the computer

>>846582
>I'm using them in the sense that liberalism is a belief founded on the ideals of liberty, equality, and modernity. Conservatism is a belief founded upon the ideas of tradition, stability, and an opposition to modernity.
I'm aware. I agree with you. I just don't think it's right of you to disconnect computers from the advancement of liberalism (and revolutionary and reactionary ideologies associated with it) in the latter half of the 20th century. This most certainly is just one facet of a much larger phenomenon that has primordial roots.

You faggots still talking about homosexuality? Well, that's fucking gay.

>>846603
I would contend that liberalism is past its heyday. If anything conservative and reactionary movements make better use of the internet than liberals do today. The rise of the far right in Europe and the rise of Trump are in large part due to the enthusiasm of online communities.

The absolute height of liberalism in the United States was the 1960s, and computers have only really become a widespread aspect of culture in the years following the invention of the internet. So post-1995 essentially. I admit this period coincides largely with the rise of Third-wave Feminism, but the third wave has been the weakest of the three by far. It's a movement without a real goal, essentially balkanized.

>>846629
>If anything conservative and reactionary movements make better use of the internet than liberals do today
We can't talk about this for another 25 years, though.
>The absolute height of liberalism in the United States was the 1960s,
Are you opposing it to something else that emerged after the 60's? IMO, liberalism transformed as a consequence of the 60's, but it's been ascendant ever since as a consequence of the changes it underwent to combat Marxism. These changes are now culminating in the far-right movements you commented on, as responses to the failures of existing forms of liberalism to deal with their own contradictions under the weight of these reforms and later ones.

>>845906
Don't know if you're still here but had to respond.

I completely understand where you're coming from, when I first learned about homosexuality I thought nothing of it, it was just another form of human sexuality. But deviations that arise far too often in homosexuality surprised and angered me.
"bug chasers" "flaming homosexuals" "transsexuals" all of these things were horrific a vandalism of the human form.

I agree that in this day and age, degeneracy and promiscuity run rampant in the homosexual community, so do they in every sexual orientation. Heterosexual fetishes have only gotten more extreme and degenerate, scat, piss, suffocation, BDSM and all of these branches. Humans are spoiled and disillusioned with power.

Constantly we have fetishist women around us, all of these vapid, uninteresting, "easy-mode" girls are only that way because their sexuality has been released and encouraged in a world of horny and frustrated people. It's the same with homosexuality, if you treat a group of people like children because they've had it rough in the earlier years, you're setting them up to act like children. Sexually charged, attention seeking children. Homosexuals, women and minorities are the "victims", if you will, of this babying.


No conquests in the first world, not building your own home, every part of human life has been complicated, most people given more power and freedom than they understand and they diverge into weird subcultures.

But out of this complexity and confusion comes beauty, this man was beauty. This man was intelligent and dedicated himself to the cause, he didn't abuse society and use it as a tool to expand his ego, he helped society and was a capable non-childish being.

We cannot say any one group isn't normal, 'mutations' 'deviations', differences are all a part of complex life. Individuals should still be judged as individuals.

So though I see what you see, I disagree on it's cause.

>>846557
cybernetics research has practically nothing in common with turings research. So, that's also wrong.

I'm assuming you're one of those kids who've played too much deus ex and think cybernetics are mechanical arm upgrades or some shit

>>846800
>cybernetics research has practically nothing in common with turings research. So, that's also wrong.
I don't know, man, literally every source I've encountered links Turing to computer science and computer science to modern cybernetics.
>I'm assuming you're one of those kids who've played too much deus ex and think cybernetics are mechanical arm upgrades or some shit
You're making an ass of u and me.

>>846809
cybernetics derives from ww2 antiaircraft gun design not computers. the only commonality besides stupid humanities shiteaters misapplying the concept is that you can use computers for modelling. It has become erroneously part and parcel of the computer hype revolution whilst contributing almost nothing to design or technology. How many programming languages do you think use feedback loops, hmm?

>implying cybernetics isn't a megabuzzword

>>846229
>humans cant deviate from their nature
philosophy 101 nigger, the naturalistic argument against gays is the dumbest one, if you dont like them at least give a valid reason
>m-muh expanding population
in a world with almost 8 billion people

File: 1447450274333.png (222KB, 449x401px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 449x401px

>>846652

t. butthurt prude

>>846652
>bugchasers

I'm an active flaming faggot and the only time I've heard of bugchasing was that fucking image on 4chan.

>>846859
>the only commonality besides stupid humanities shiteaters misapplying the concept is that you can use computers for modelling.
That's all I'm claiming.
>megabuzzword
That's why you're megabutthurt about my use of it.

>>846889
>I'm an active flaming faggot
Why do you flame?

>>845811
Sterilisation was a common medical response to homosexuality in the era and homosexual acts were criminal acts.

States apologising for acts conducted when lawful is somewhat ridiculous.

>>845811
>>847784
>sterilize gay guy
>can no longer impregnate another mans anus
>oh wait

I mean it's fucked up, especially if you're just bi and did a little sodomy here and there, and it's certainly humiliating and dehumanizing. It's also really not that consequential, it's not a big loss. Then again, if it's not a big loss, there's not much of a reason to do it except to humiliate someone.

>>846354
Still the best post.

>>845845
Bait or falseflag

>>845845
>cybernetics
Slav detected

>>846389
>http://www.iep.utm.edu/hedonism/
>Implying the word pleasure refers to nothing more than the physical feeling

Have you read a book, friendo? Did you even read the webpage you linked?

>Hedonists usually define pleasure and pain broadly, such that both physical and mental phenomena are included. With pleasure and pain so defined, hedonism as a theory about what is valuable for us is intuitively appealing.

>Most accounts of Motivational Hedonism include both conscious and unconscious desires for pleasure, but emphasize the latter.

>>846391
If you want to, yeah. Try to explain why it wouldn't be without claiming that you don't actually want to cut your foot off.

>>847874
I really don't understand why you think anyone who thinks life is worth living is a hedonist. I've explicitly stated that I don't think life is necessarily a pleasure. Are you assuming everybody is a hedonist? Because that's a psychological argument, not an ethical one, and it seems like you're trying to make an ethical argument.
>>847860
Why?
>>847796
>Then again, if it's not a big loss, there's not much of a reason to do it except to humiliate someone.
Or to prevent them from polluting the gene pool.

File: 1405799452108.jpg (267KB, 960x652px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 960x652px

>>845845

>>847923
You're asking why of the law and medicine. The point is that he committed unlawful acts and received proper medical treatment.

>>845811
Why would sterilize a homosexual?

>>847971
>You're asking why of the law and medicine.
So are you.
>They did it to humiliate the poor guy!!!!1!
>The point is that he committed unlawful acts and received proper medical treatment.
Yes it is.

>>847978
No. I'm stating that the vast majority of Turing's society, including the state, its parliament, its ossified law, its police, its medical profession, and its secret services all ruled Turing's conduct to be unlawful and medically treatable. And that they did so.

States shouldn't apologise for previously lawful actions. The medical profession shouldn't apologise for its best prior professional opinions.

If the UKGBNI really wished to apologise for its previously lawful conduct: it ought to abolish itself and remove its baneful influence of potentially being thought wrong by future generations. Their apology is hollow, because they acted as a state and continue to do so.

If the medical profession was not operating to the standards of best professional opinion, or is uncertain that this produces medical knowledge, then it should abolish itself as we can have no confidence in it. Any such apology is hollow, they acted as a profession and continue to do so.

Historians don't deal in oughts, but in what wases.

File: bd8.png (178KB, 1190x906px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 1190x906px

>>845845

>>847923
>it seems like you're trying to make an ethical argument.
On what planet does it look that way? I'd already stated there's nothing people ultimately "should" do, I'm definitely not making ethical claims.

File: Konrad_Zuse_mit_Z3.jpg (1MB, 3358x2280px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3358x2280px

>235 posts
>Not one mention of based Zuse

This is why you don't want to get your board get pussified by leftist faggots.

>>848097
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FAGGOTS
NOT COMPUTERS

>>848097
Zuse was an atheist and openly amoral though, stating that he'd work for any effort that allowed him to pursue his work. He would definitely be on the leftist "there is no ought" side of the thread.

>>848110
>Atheist and amoral
>a leftist trait

I should've clarified my statement, I meant pussified AND retarded leftist.

>>848097
Zuse is on our side retard.

Conservatism will always lose. Look at the middle east for reference.

>>848097
Z U S E
U
S
E

>>848079
You're trying to say that hedonism is correct, aren't you? Hedonism is an ethical doctrine.

>>848165
What makes you think he's Indian?

>>848177
He's defending their trainwreck culture and society. At first I thought he was some new age hippy, given his naturalistic fallacies and love for India but then he said "westerners" and gave himself away

>>848189
I'm a Westerner and I use that word often.

>>845845
>Computers and cybernetics have contributed to the feminization of society.
So find a nice cave and become a hermit if you want to preserve your masculinity, bitch.

>>848198
If he was a westerner then he'd hardly have trouble explaining it to westerner. I mean maybe he is just a hippy but I've had conversations with autistic indians before.

>>848210
I think you're being obtuse on purpose.

File: images (1).jpg (15KB, 281x180px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 281x180px

>>848213
learn what obtuse means pajeet

>>848236
Did an Indian trigger you, anon? You're starting to see your phantasms everywhere.

>>848248

It's probably some weirdo from /pol/. You can't expect those people to be able to make sensible points.

>>846507
More like OP was disguising a troll thread under a hidden history guise.

>>846517
Not just sterilized you idiot, he lost his having a dangling penis privilege.

>>848268
Within normal medical treatments for a criminal conduct.

>>848160
>Hedonism is an ethical doctrine.
Not inherently.

I'm not saying hedonism is correct, but that hedonism on some level is unavoidable, and from there extending my claim to say that shaming someone for being hedonistic is hypocritical, which may not be objectively "evil" but is objectively irrational. Wanting to spread your kind across the planet like a bacteria culture in a petri dish is no different from wanting to stick dick in anus, save for the fact that dicking buttock doesn't result in creating more mouths for society to feed which may or may not end up contributing.

>>846577
Basically. Enigma would have been cracked without him, for every Turing in Britain, there were 3 other number whizes. Turing was however probably the best of the best of them.

>>846652
>this man was beauty. This man was intelligent and dedicated himself to the cause, he didn't abuse society and use it as a tool to expand his ego, he helped society and was a capable non-childish being.

He was an idiot who willingly let thieves who stole from him back into his house. He also did sexual tourism, with unprotected sex, risking spread of disease. Don't tell me Turing wasn't childish.

>>848280
>Not inherently.
Unless you specify that you're talking about psychological hedonism it is. You didn't do that until this post.
>hedonism on some level is unavoidable
Which is why nobody actually calls every action that leads to the continuation of life 'hedonistic.' You're conceiving of hedonism much more broadly than I've ever seen it articulated.
>shaming someone for being hedonistic is hypocritical
Nobody is shaming anyone. Shaming is not necessarily a bad thing. You only think so because you've convinced yourself that psychological hedonism is true. This is all part of a liberal feedback loop you've been buying into.
>Wanting to spread your kind across the planet like a bacteria culture in a petri dish is no different from wanting to stick dick in anus
Except it is. Anal sex between two men cannot produce offspring. I don't understand why you think this is irrelevant when this is literally the only way our species reproduces.
>inb4 'but cloning will be possible'
Maybe, and when clones outnumber born humans, I'll make a thread about how cybernetics led to it and blame Turing. You can't speculate about the future and use your speculation to support your claims about the past.

>>848305
>nobody actually calls every action that leads to the continuation of life 'hedonistic.'
Except for physiological hedonists, retard.

>Shaming is not necessarily a bad thing. You only think so because
No, anon, no I don't. I just think it's hypocritical, as I said a post ago. The one in a feedback loop is you, imposing your subjective perception as though it were objective, then strawing your opponent as a last resort.
>inb4 'but cloning will be possible'
Case and point in regards to strawmanning.
We aren't running out of children anon, we don't need cloning nor do we need to eliminate sexuality in order to keep a population.

>Anal sex between two men cannot produce offspring.
So? Posting on the internet doesn't produce offspring. Kissing your wife doesn't produce offspring. If you choose have offspring, it's because you want them. That's the same want as wanting to stick dick in anus.
>I don't understand why you think this is irrelevant when this is literally the only way our species reproduces.
I don't understand why you think reproduction is objectively valuable. I could live my life as the last generation on earth and not really be bothered. If you can't do that, feel free to go have a kid, but there's nothing objectively worthwhile about that; it's just what you want.

>>847926
Me 4th on the right.

>>848355
>Except for physiological hedonists
Right, a very small, very stupid group of people.
>I just think it's hypocritical
How is it hypocritical of a straight man to shame a gay man for not wanting to procreate? I don't see how you're innocent of imposing your subjective values on the world. You must understand that this is the essence of a democratic society: the majority imposes its values on the minority and the minority agrees not to violently resist.
>Case and point
Well, I don't know, I want an argument.
>We aren't running out of children
I haven't claimed we are. You're the one strawmanning. You haven't refuted my central claims yet because 'muh hypocrisy.'
>So? Posting on the internet
Now you're actually revealing yourself to be an idiot. Please focus on the claims being made.
>I don't understand why you think reproduction is objectively valuable. I could live my life as the last generation on earth and not really be bothered. If you can't do that, feel free to go have a kid, but there's nothing objectively worthwhile about that; it's just what you want.
This honestly confuses me. You can't understand why reproduction is relevant? Do you not care if your civilization or your species goes on existing?

File: Can+someone+help+me+look+for+my+sides+_404d9413f1533fda5fc07f6e344e060d[1].jpg (28KB, 493x386px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 493x386px

>>845845
>Computers and cybernetics have contributed to the feminization of society.
This is why I keep visiting /his/

>>848376
>I don't see how you're innocent of imposing your subjective values on the world.
I do impose subjective values, but I understand that they're subjective and nothing more and thusly don't get buttfrustrated when people fill eachother's butts.

It's not a matter of my values being "right," but that I actually understand value as a concept wheras you just don't.

> the majority imposes its values on the minority and the minority agrees not to violently resist.
Then you're boned, because short of shooting up a gay wedding, there's not much you can do.

>Well, I don't know, I want an argument.
>"G-give me something easier to attack or I'll invent a point for you, you're making this too hard!"

>I haven't claimed we are [running out of children].
And I haven't claimed you claimed as such; my comment was making the point that because we are not running out of children, you can't reasonably claim that each individual needs to produce more children if the population is to be sustained.

>You haven't refuted my central claims
Yes I have. You claimed producing offspring was objectively good, and by extension that homosexuality was objectively bad. That point has been blown out numerous times by now. Now you're backpedaling and saying "i-it's just a subjective belief I'm imposing because I can, not something I find objectively true!", as though it wasn't contradictory.

>idiot. Please focus on the claims being made.
I was. you were claiming that gay sex is bad because gay's don't make offspring. However, lots of things don't result in offspring which you clearly don't consider bad, ergo you contradict yourself. Case closed.

>>848376
>Do you not care if your civilization or your species goes on existing?
Well yeah that's literally what I just said. If I can live a life where I eat the fruits of the trees around me and die, that's a fine enough life for me. The fact that my "fine" is different from yours hereby proves that there is no objective "fine" or "good" and that producing offspring is not objectively "good".

>>848669
>but I understand that they're subjective and nothing more
>and nothing more
You live in a democratic society, your opinion carries weight. I'm sorry you're too delusional to understand that.
>my comment was making the point that because we are not running out of children, you can't reasonably claim that each individual needs to produce more children if the population is to be sustained.
Where have I made that claim?
>You claimed that producing offspring was objectively good
No, you're the one bringing subjectivity and objectivity into this.
>I was
No, and you haven't been all along.
>>848671
>Well yeah
Why should I abide by your decision not to care about anyone in your world but yourself?

>>846438
Go away evil dogger

>>847923
>Why?

You have the option to fuck your wife, anon. And you don't. You're standing on a podium lecturing people about how you're living the good life as a phantom concept is standing right beside you, holding your wife's naked form before you. She's spraying fluids all over your face, and as the mixture of silver and gold liquid runs down your nose and across your lips, you stare the audience in the face and say "I'm not a cuckold". It isn't that this is wrong, but that it's just so extraordinarily amazing that you can pull off such a feat with a straight expression.

Wait, why would they sterilize him for being gay? That's stupid.

>>848132
It's certainly not a right-wing trait.

>>848701
Pleasure is a spook.

>>848681
>No, you're the one bringing subjectivity and objectivity into this.
The fact that i'm the one actually drawing the distinction does not mean I'm the one who's actually making objective claims. Nice "who smelt it, dealt it" logic.

>Why should I abide by your decision
Did I say you ought to? It is not that you ought to abide by my decision, but that the existence of a belief which contradicts yours suggests beliefs are not objective.

>You live in a democratic society, your opinion carries weight. I'm sorry you're too delusional to understand that.
Scalia and the rest of the right are pretty dead at the moment anon, the one who has delusions of weight is you. As you said, "You must understand that this is the essence of a democratic society: the majority imposes its values on the minority and the minority agrees not to violently resist." Short of shooting up a gay wedding, you've got zero options.

>>846229
Hedonism is simply neurological fact. You may believe yourself to be pursuing a higher cause, but you're really just pursuing a neurological carrot. Get over it.

>>845924
He's right though. We don't live in huts anymore and your gender roles are outdated, Jethro. Men and women can aquire food and gather resources with equal ease now.

Technology certainly places your masculine ideals into "muh" territory. If there is a nuclear winter then reverting to them makes sense. Since it's instinctual there's no need to fear that your descendants will somehow forget how to oppress women. Trust me we'll always be great at it.

As far as "hatred of breeders" becoming the norm, you are 100% ignoring the math involved in favor of sensationalist rhetoric. The fact is that birth rates are moving up globally, and both straight and gay people are having more sex in general.

Do you think that homosexuality is new? Do they have libraries in Mississippi?

File: YarharharYARHARHAR!.gif (795KB, 245x168px) Image search: [Google]

795KB, 245x168px

>>845845

>>848713
>Nice "who smelt it, dealt it" logic.
Can you point out the part of my argument that you're talking about? I'm actually not clear on what you're referring to here, because I'm not convinced you understand the claims I'm making.
>Did I say you ought to?
If we're both living in the same society, I should think it's implicit.
>"You must understand that this is the essence of a democratic society: the majority imposes its values on the minority and the minority agrees not to violently resist."
Which is what I'm doing right now. I'm non-violently resisting you because I respect your right to have an opinion that isn't my own.
>>848719
>Hedonism is simply neurological fact
[citation needed]

>>848724
Another idiot who misunderstands the basic premises of my argument and thinks I'm blaming computers and nothing else for turning people gay.

>>848736
I literally did not say that. Please address the arguments in my post. I will not respond to you again until you do.

>>845826
Top kek

>>848730
>[citation needed]

Like all the citations you've provided for your inane claims? This is basic neuroscience. The reward centres of our brain drive us to pursue shit. But since you're a Christfag, you understandable reject both Neurology and Psychology, because they undermine your beliefs and thus destabilize your perception of self.

>>848739
>Technology certainly places your masculine ideals into "muh" territory.
If you read the thread you'd know that I define feminization in a way that doesn't have anything to do with masculine ideals. This is a materialist argument, I really don't care about masculine ideals.
>If there is a nuclear winter then reverting to them makes sense
Why are you assuming that this is a reversion? Homosexuality has existed in various forms throughout history, transitions from one sexual paradigm to another are hardly 'steps forward' or anything like that.
>"hatred of breeders" becoming the norm
As I said, I'm arguing like this specifically because I don't think it's going to happen; it's going to be democratically shut down because it's idiotic. That won't happen if everybody goes along with it, though--which won't happen, of course.
>Do you think homosexuality is new?
Again, you misunderstand my argument. Fuck off.

>>848752
>Only Christians reject psychological hedonism
I don't know where you get this idea.

>>846438
go away evil dogger

>>848757
Nah, only idiots reject psychological hedonism. You're either pursuing a neurological carrot, or dodging a neurological stick. The only way around this is with some inane bullshit like the soul.

>>848763
I still haven't seen any data about these claims. If you want to actually produce some, I might come around to your position. You probably don't believe me, though.

>>848768
No, I don't believe you, because you want to believe you're some super special spectral being created just to be God's bosom-buddy for the rest of eternity. If you want some data, go read an introductory to human neurology, I'm not here to fucking spoonfeed you, just to continue knocking idiots like you down with democratic process when you try to oppress other people.

>>848801
>I'm not here to fucking spoonfeed you
You're just here to make baseless assertions.
>when you try to oppress other people
Having a different opinion about procreation being reasonable is oppression, now?
If you read this thread you'll notice that I haven't argued any form of divine command theory. I really don't see what your issues with Christianity have to do with this.

>>848810
>You're just here to make baseless assertions.

Go open a book, or hell if you're feeling lazy, take a trip to Wikipedia, you'll become a better person for it.

>Having a different opinion about procreation being reasonable is oppression, now?

Of course not, but you've been supporting the horrific mistreatment of one of the most important men of the 20th century, you goddamn idiot.

>I really don't see what your issues with Christianity have to do with this.

Don't even bother pretending like you're not a fucking Christposter.

>>845811
how did you know that dude you must read a lot of books or something

>>849583
>>849583
>Go open a book
Which one?
>Of course not
>important
I've denied that his death is really just a tragic victim story. I've said it's sad. It isn't a story you should be using for political purposes.
>Don't even bother
Sure, I'm a Christposters, but I haven't made that a part of this argument. As I've said, the claims I'm making are not based in divine command theory. Read a book if you don't believe me. its intellectually dishonest to reject an argument based on premises you falsely attribute to it, which is what you're doing.

Oh so NOW the shitpost that broke the dam gets deleted