Is pic related worth getting? Any better books on the subject?

>>9115028
Why on earth do you need a book on the subject? Are you actually trying to into Neuroscience? Because if not, even a shitty self help book will be more applicable.

Your Brain on Pork

>>9115040
Maybe I find the subject interesting and I want to read more about it :^)

File: MIKE .png (167KB, 300x347px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 300x347px

>>9115042
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA

How does one figure out if they're addicted to porn?

>>9115048
Sounds like some grey pol/pill waste of time to me. Why not get a textbook on neuroscience instead of such a specific topic? Or read a journal article on it from google scholar. It doesn't need a whole book.

>>9115108
1) You have more than one porn video off of the same site bookmarked for future watching
2) Your trash can has more than 4 clumps of tissues/napkins with jizz
3) You have a Sasha Grey book

>>9115111
Why are you assuming the anon hasn't done these things? Why do you think people are incapable of lay interests? Why are you so concerned that someone might read an ENTIRE book on a subject?

>>9115108
stop watching porn and see what happens

>>9115129
Just my opinion, man. Don't take it so personally. Just seems like a weirdly specific interest to have unless you're either studying Neuroscience and addiction, or wanting to masturbate less. If it's the second, this is not the right book.

>>9115028
Is porn really bad for you? Is there any legitimacy to this book?

>>9115108

Try to quit it for a month.

It's surprisingly difficult.

Quit watching porn about a week ago. I feel like shit, but that's because of other things

>>9115146
I believe the consensus is that it is.

>>9115146

It has to be. There's a plague of kids with erectile dysfunction, what other explanation is there?

>>9115146
There's a large dose of evidence (neurological, chemical, and plain anecdotal) that says that any pornography (especially internet pornography) and excessive masturbation is bad for you.

>>9115028
Was there difference between porn watchers and meditating Tibetan monks?

>>9115215

>neurological
>chemical
Could you provide any sort of scientific evidence?

File: 1486728879220.jpg (15KB, 230x186px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 230x186px

OP, what if your porn addiction isn't the cause of your troubles, but just another symptom of a greater underlying problem?

>>9115108
when you watch it for extended periods of time and don't even masturbate

>>9115108
When they watch it on a laptop during their daughter's funeral.

>>9115535
i jerk off cus im lonely
the thing is you hear all these people saying how damaging it is but that for all the rough, passionaless shit (there was some tedx talk where this guy talked about how in most porn the man never holds the woman or some shit) but what if youre watching the most vanilla shit because that feel when no gf?

>>9115640
Well the problem there is you're not going out and getting a fucking GF.

>>9115649
someday....

reminder that if it's too hard to give up porn completely, even the simple move to softcore photo galleries helps

File: maxresdefault.jpg (148KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1920x1080px

>alt right 4chan hates porn, even softcore shit because, of course, it's "degenerate"
>wants to ban it
>glorifies homo-erotic displays of the male body and hailing the "gains"

Yeah you guys are gay as fuck to be honest.

>>9115108
True addiction is when it starts to affect areas of your life outside masturbation, especially when it comes to sexual performance. What's happening to some kids is since they grow up watching porn, that's what they program their bodies to like, and so when they actually go to fuck a girl, they can't get hard because they've programmed themselves to only become aroused by porn. Time magazine surprisingly wrote an article about it.
This sort of answers >>9115146 question, that it can be bad. Personally though I don't think it's bad in moderation. Porn has always been around, the only difference is that now it's so incredibly accessible that some are becoming dependent on it.

I want to get into helping people with addictions. Any recommendations?

>>9115729
Get an addiction so you can help from a position of experience.

Best thing you can do to get off of porn IMO is find something else to do. Occupy your mind with something else. When I used to watch porn, I would fap like 3 to 5 times a night if I had nothing to do. When I was busy I would sometimes not fap at all.

>>9115735
I used to have an addiction but I lost it naturally.

>>9115580
underrated

>>9115694
this

>>9115694
w-what's wrong with that?

>>9115501
Just search pubmed for the topic

>>9115146
No. Its non-scientific garbage

>>9115123
what if you have like 20 videos/streams open at the same time and you're switching between them with your left hand whilst you yank with the other
what then?

>>9116880
Get a hobby

>>9115028
-Brahmacharya by swami shivanada (world's oldest man at 120 who puts it down to not ejaculating)

-The Divine Matrimony by Samael Aun Weor

-The Multi-Orgasmic Man by Mantak Chia

-The Tao of Health, Sex and Vitality by Daniel Reid

>>9115715
So if I grab my girlfriend's ass and get a boner and she's not pregnant or tied up I'm okay?

>>9115146
there's a load of evidence that says it is

from personal experience, i found my sexual tastes become much more degenerate as a result of porn. if you watch it every day, you burn out on the conventional and start to seek more novel stimulants.
its hard to get off without them now.

>>9115146

i wank like 3 times a day sometimes and still have sex like every fortnight at least

i dont doubt that i have some sort of addiction to it, but its not like i have to duck out of public gatherings to bash off in the toilet

>>9115146
>Is porn really bad for you?

It depends on who you are and what is expected of you.
But to keep it simple, if you want to be what is considered a healthy/normally functioning person who contributes to society, porn does more bad than good IMO.

I think one of the worst aspects of porn consumption is hyper-stimulation. This is most true for internet porn and internet in general (and 4chan is a typical example of that).
It's creating hedonistic people who are constantly looking for quick entertainment/dopamine rushes.

Porn consumption is also a symptom of deeper societal problems. Basically people are brought up in a meaningless world with no higher goals, so they end up glorifying sex and other pleasures.

>>9115146
I've read some of the research and I believe its inconclusive at best. There are studies which say it is and studies which say its not. I don't agree with some of the responses you've received, such as >>9116988 and >>9115212. I think porn usage in moderation is the best way to go.

>>9117027
>I think porn usage in moderation is the best way to go.

Why do you believe some porn use better than none?

>>9116911
The bad thing is that real girls weaken your life and imagination.

>>9115580
People do this? I solely watch porn to expediate the masturbation process. Does this mean I'm probably not addicted?

>>9115028
>I'm not gay, but porn has made me attracted to dick girls.

>>9115694
whats the problem being gay? (no homo)

btw, that guy is hot as fuck and when i look at him i feel like i should at least try to fix my shit

>>9117607
He looks like a girl though.

>>9117599
Porn absolutely has made me comfortable with the idea of sucking a dick.

here is why all these theories about this stuff is stupid

If watching so much porn is so bad for you then why is the human brain designed to have such a high libido in the first place?
see the reason watching porn is "bad" is not because it hurts the individual directly its because it hurts society by removing that uncontrollable biological desire that drives people to go out and be a "productive" member within it aka jump through hoops to achieve what it has dictated as success

human sexuality is such a mental thing there is just simply no way I could ever possibly believe that it could be permanently and irreversibly "damaged" on any kind of wide scale nor could I believe that watching porn magically makes the reproductive system in a human body somehow stop working as intended
meanwhile there is a hundred drugs on the market that do have adverse side effects on this but who cares about that I think I might have watched one too many pornos this week

>>9117607

>whats the problem being gay? (no homo)

What's the purpose of gay sex? Pleasure. That's the only possible reason you would want to partake in it. To say its not wrong would be to assume that pleasure in itself is a moral good, which I don't believe it is because there's lots of things I could do purely for pleasure that would not be morally acceptable. Sex should be rooted in its 'telos' or rationally known purpose, which is reproductive. Whenever you engage in a sexual activity that not ordered towards this end you're reducing it to pleasure, which is not a moral good in itself.

If you were to claim that pleasure in itself is a moral good then what possible argument could you make against men sucking off dogs or fathers sleeping with their sons? Any objection you make could be easily dismissed because it's philosophically inconsistent. By accepting gay sex you must also accept some forms of bestiality and incest.

>>9117607
>>9117713
There is no such thing as homosexuality. Only people who indulge themselves into that behavior.

>>9117732
>into that behavior
As in, homosexual behavior?

>>9117713
the purpose might be, that we don't breed over the limits of our ecosystem? Idk, does anyone have any sauce on that? I quite agree with you, tho.

>>9117735
As in, sodomy. As in, needing to swallow pills to reduce the pain to be able to have sexual intercourse. As in, not being able to eat for an entire day and cleaning out your butt before you can have sexual intercourse. yes.

>>9117713
>Sex should be rooted in its 'telos' or rationally known purpose, which is reproductive.
Why? Because you say so?

Your line of logic makes no sense. Accepting gay sex does not meet the conclusion of accepting ALL manner of sex. Two consenting adults engaging in a pleasure act that hurts no one is not the same as a father raping his son. Why would you even say that, beyond trying to sound deeper than you have really thought it?


Also, I suppose you never do anything pleasurable, unless that pleasure is only a side product? Because that would make you quite the hypocrite, Tommy.

>>9117755
So, your previous post is just semantics?
Also, what the fuck are you talking about, swallowing pills? Have you ever heard of lube?

>>9117765
Why does everybody think that just because two people consent that it makes it all okay? They are hurting other people as these people can now force Priests to marry them. Because these people can now adopt children.

>>9117766
You clearly have no idea what it means to have sex in your butt for a long period of time.

>>9117772
>They are hurting other people as these people can now force Priests to marry them. Because these people can now adopt children.
This wasn't what we were discussing. We were talking about gay sex, and the "morality" of engaging in homosexual acts. Two gay men having sex has nothing to do with what you listed. I agree with you that a child should have a mother and father, not two fathers. That does not mean I condemn gay sex, just that particular aspect of gay relationships.

Why do you have such disdain for a case of the gays?

>You clearly have no idea what it means to have sex in your butt for a long period of time.
But I see you're intimately familiar with the prospect?

>>9117772
>They are hurting other people as these people
They're not.
>Because these people can now adopt children.
That's a good thing for those children

back to pol

>>9117765

Reproduction is the rationally know, natural purpose of sex. As I explained, when an act is not ordered towards this end, it is disordered, it is reducing the purpose of sex to pleasure, and I don't believe that pleasure in itself is enough to make anything morally acceptable.

This is why I say that if you do actually believe that pleasure is enough to make something morally acceptable, you must accept that fathers having sex with their sons is morally acceptable, or that men sucking off dogs is acceptable. You may believe that "consent between two adults" is all there is to sexual morality but that's not the road that I want to go down because it leads to a very nasty place. The father and adult son consenting to incest is in fact "two consenting adults."

>>9117713
>To say its not wrong would be to assume that pleasure in itself is a moral good
No, it's just not wrong. Doesn't mean it has to be morally good, which nobody ever claims.

>>9117799
>You may believe that "consent between two adults" is all there is to sexual morality but that's not the road that I want to go down

>I don't like the consequences of a reasonable argument so i just reject it

>>9117793
Oh come on? You seriously believe yourself? I'm not from /pol/ by the way. Last I checked the alt-right loves homosexuality.

>>9117790
I didn't condemn gay sex (although I believe that it's wrong to hurt your own body like that, but I also believe that everybody should be able to decide what they want to do with their own body as long as it doesn't affect anyone else) but I condemned anyone calling themselves 'homosexual'. So I mostly agree with you.

>>9117793
>>Because these people can now adopt children.
>That's a good thing for those children
Kill yourself

>>9117793
> rape is good for children
O rly?

>>9117807

You're absolutely correct. I do not like the consequences of a society treating gay sex as morally acceptable. What's wrong with that?

>>9117809
Don't cut yourself on that edge. Children with gay parents do just fine and either way they are way better off than in an orphanage.

>>9117812
You have not presented an argument other than 'I don't like it' (which isn't an argument).

>>9117799
>This is why I say that if you do actually believe that pleasure is enough to make something morally acceptable, you must accept that fathers having sex with their sons is morally acceptable
No it does not.
What do you think of a man and a woman engaging in sex for the purpose of pleasure? if you think that's alright, that must mean you also think a mother sodomizing his son is alright.
It's a hollow line of thinking

What is it with you that equate sex with morality? Two guys fucking inside an apartment has nothing to do with morals.
Everything that happens in nature is natural, including people subverting the "purpose" of sex in exchange for pleasure. Nothing disorderly about it

Do you ever do things purely out of pleasure? Because you skilfully disregarded this question before.
I of course know the answer - You do, you hypocrite.

Also, you're a buzzkill, maaan

>>9117808
>but I condemned anyone calling themselves 'homosexual'. So I mostly agree with you.
Now that I can get behind. Just like any ass that pleases me

>>9117822
>Everything that happens in nature is natural, including people subverting the "purpose" of sex in exchange for pleasure.
Except that the body is literally not made for homosexual behavior. It is not natural.

>>9117822

If you think that sex has nothing to do with morality then are you okay with incest and bestiality?

>>9117835
Not him, but incest is fine as long as people do it in private and don't get kids. Bestiality is fine as long as the animals doesn't get hurt.

>>9117838

It's the natural consequence of accepting homosexual behavior. I appreciate the honesty. It's a wonder why you guys don't go public with this view.

>>9115161
I have a ton of trouble with 3 days

>>9117831
>Except that the body is literally not made for homosexual behavior. It is not natural.
Well, nature finds a way. Nature has equipped us with both the desire, and the means to fulfill that desire.
We, as natural beings, with natural tools, and minds that nature has given us, have made homosexual acts possible and pleasurable.

And again, anything that happens in nature is, by the very definition, natural. We are not outside nature. Nothing we do is outside nature. Nothing that exists or happens is outside nature.

>>9117838
>Bestiality is fine as long as the animals doesn't get hurt.
You objectively have a mental disorder. What is your take on pedophilia? It's okay as long as the child is not hurt?

>>9117847
Because people would despise it when they see the slippery slope is real.

>>9115184
Thanks for your report

>>9117847
And the consequence of rejecting homosexual behaviour because it's only for pleasure would be rejecting heterosexual sex as well if it's not done with the intention of getting children

>>9117853
Except that the desire for the same sex is solely made in your brain. It has nothing to do with nature. Man has made homosexuality possible. it is not natural. You are lying to yourself.

>>9117854
>What is your take on pedophilia? It's okay as long as the child is not hurt?
That's pretty much impossible so i'm obviously against pedophilia.

>>9117835
>If you think that sex has nothing to do with morality then are you okay with incest and bestiality?
I suppose I should have been more clear. Not all sex has to do with morality, like sex between to willing adults. Better now?

But dude, gay sex inherently has nothing to do with incest or bestiality, besides both things having to do with intercourse

>>9117857

I've explained that sex is moral when it is ordered towards the creation of children. This does not mean that you must try to have children, it simply means that the bits should go where they're supposed to.

File: 1485621896183s.jpg (5KB, 192x154px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 192x154px

>>9117858
>humandkind is not natural
male animals fuck as well btw

>>9117858
>Except that the desire for the same sex is solely made in your brain. It has nothing to do with nature.
Are you trying to tell me my brain, and thoughts that arise from it, are not natural?

I don't understand

>>9117862
But how is it possible with animals?

>>9117865
>I've explained that sex is moral when it is ordered towards the creation of children
How is that moral? It's neither morally right nor wrong. It's just neutral.
> This does not mean that you must try to have children, it simply means that the bits should go where they're supposed to.
Yeah, that doesn't make sense.

>>9117865
I think sex is immoral when ordered toward the creation of children. Because of the untold horror and sorrow that life will bear down upon them. So I don't think bits should go where they're supposed to.

You can't dismantle this argument, because it's completely opinion based - just like yours.
Morality isn't objective. It's made in your little mind. Your natural brain, I might add

>>9117868
>>9117872
>>9117875
>>9117877

Here's The Quick Rundown

>Rothschilds bow to Bogdanoffs

>In contact with aliens

>Possess psychic-like abilities

>Control france with an iron but fair fist

>Own castles & banks globally

>Direct descendants of the ancient royal blood line

>Will bankroll the first cities on Mars (Bogdangrad will be be the first city)

>Own 99% of DNA editing research facilities on Earth

>First designer babies will in all likelihood be Bogdanoff babies

>both brothers said to have 215+ IQ, such intelligence on Earth has only existed deep in Tibetan monasteries & Area 51

>Ancient Indian scriptures tell of two angels who will descend upon Earth and will bring an era of enlightenment and unprecedented technological progress with them
>They own Nanobot R&D labs around the world

>You likely have Bogdabots inside you right now

>The Bogdanoffs are in regular communication with the Archangels Michael and Gabriel, forwarding the word of God to the Orthodox Church. Who do you think set up the meeting between the pope & the Orthodox high command (First meeting between the two organisations in over 1000 years) and arranged the Orthodox leader's first trip to Antarctica in history literally a few days later to the Bogdanoff bunker in Wilkes land?

>They learned fluent French in under a week

>Nation states entrust their gold reserves with the twins. There's no gold in Ft. Knox, only Ft. Bogdanoff

>The twins are about 7 decades old, from the space-time reference point of the base human currently accepted by our society

>In reality, they are timeless beings existing in all points of time and space from the big bang to the end of the universe. We don't know their ultimate plans yet. We hope they're benevolent beings.

>>9117872
Not if you fuck a dog or something. But if a woman lets a dog fuck her, I don't see the harm.

>>9117863

I'm not trying to say that gay sex is the same thing as bestiality or incest. What I'm saying is that when your bar for what is morally acceptable behaviors is merely "two consenting adult," then you must also accept an adult mother having sex with an adult son as morally acceptable.

>>9117875

Read my previous posts because I'm just repeating myself a lot now. The creation of children is the rationally known, purpose or 'telos' of sex.

>>9117831
The body wasn't "made" for anything. Brainlets always assume it's self-evident that the "objective purpose" of organisms is to reproduce, but this is tautological. Existing organisms have a propensity to reproduce, as a consequence of their evolutionary history (every one of their ancestors reproduced).
>>9117858
>Except that the desire for the same sex is solely made in your brain. It has nothing to do with nature.
Neither does art; it has nothing to do with survival and is a consequence of affluence and idleness created for pleasure. I guess art is "degenerate" too.

>>9117877

The creation of children is rationally known, natural purpose of sex, and for that reason it's not immoral. If you believe that morality is subjective then could you tell me that torturing a small child is wrong?

>>9117885
>then you must also accept an adult mother having sex with an adult son as morally acceptable.
Why wouldn't it be?
Because it hurts the feelings of whatever god you worship?

Morality isn't objective, Anon. You're just some animal who deceived himself into thinking he is something better. Nature and the world doesn't care for whatever you think is moral

>>9117888
>Existing organisms have a propensity to reproduce, as a consequence of their evolutionary history (every one of their ancestors reproduced).
This is factually wrong. I don't know what else to say. It is proven to be not the case.

>>9117905
Holy shit you're edgy. Don't cut yourself on that edge, Jimmy.

>>9117905
>Morality isn't objective

Of course you would believe that. You would have to in order to say that bestiality and incest is acceptable. I just like shining a light on what you people actually believe.

>>9117799

consent is an idea that stems primarily from the law which is the most commonly accepted moral framework within human civilization created specifically for the purpose of promoting a strong moral sense within a populace

yet you dismiss this instead calling upon the laws of nature which are inherently devoid of morality to tout the importance of that very thing?

>>9117905

*reads blurb of beyond good and evil once*

>>9117919

People can consent to all sorts of things that would rightly put them in prison. A few years ago a man consented to letting another man cut his penis off and eating it, and they were rightly arrested for cannibalism, so clearly consent is not the apex of morality.

>>9117897
>The creation of children is rationally known, natural purpose of sex, and for that reason it's not immoral
The creation of children is rationally known, and irrationally done. There is no reason to entrap more people in the same sea of misery that we live in. For that reason I think it immoral

>If you believe that morality is subjective then could you tell me that torturing a small child is wrong?
If you had the inclination and mental thought process to make it so, sure.
A psychopath finds nothing morally wrong about that. Yet he is as natural and human as you. He simply has less people that share his morality, or rather, the lack of it. There is no law of the world that states what morality is. It is a human concept, thought up in our minds. It is real like your feelings and thoughts are real. Nothing objective about that

I think it would be a benediction for human kind to be destroyed. Ending the charade of suffering and self-deictic. But my morals can't exist in your world, because you think them objectively wrong. Yet, here I am

>>9117912
Good post. Really set me straight, amigo.

>>9117914
What makes it objective? it is a human concept. It does not exist beyond our minds

>>9117929
>There is no law of the world that states what morality is

Every law is literally legislated morality.

>>9117921
Never read it, my man.

I'm some chapters into "The Conspiracy Against the Human race" however, and that is a stark reminder of the horrible delusion even I live in

>>9117934
>Every law is literally legislated morality.
You took that very literally.
But if you go this route, that would mean that every law in every land would be the same, since laws are based in morality, and you think morality objective (If you're the same anon)
Yet you know that isn't true

>>9117926

no this is just a trickier issue

its not that the concepts of consent and morality are at odds here

its that the morality of the individual is at odds with the morality of the whole

>>9117942
>>9117931

You both seem to think the people who say morality is objective are claiming to also perfectly know it. What there saying is that there is an objective standard that we can rationally know, and that is what we should measure our actions against.

People usually recognize evil, even if they are reluctant to recognize good. Some might look at an apparently heroic action and imagine a selfish motive behind it--the desire for fame, or praise, or monetary reward. Few people, however, will hesitate to call evil by its name. Yet, once they have done so, they have placed themselves in a bind. They have bound themselves by law. Because evil is possible only as the perversion of something good, the opposite of something good, the denial of something good. Once people acknowledged a transcendent standard of good, they themselves have placed the world under a law.

They can't escape the bind by saying that law exists, but merely as a utilitarian stopgap, to ensure the safety of the greatest number of people either. For even then they are invoking transcendent standards: the notion, for example, that the greater good: or that anyone should be concerned with another person's safety. Utilitarianism cannot suffice to prevent murder or theft, because some individuals sometimes find these actions quite useful. Yet they are actions universally condemned, by civil law and common morals. Such condemnations are among the moral truths that human beings naturally know. -These norms witness something that philosophers describe as "natural law."

>>9117897
Also, are you a fan of Sam Harris? That last part really sounded like a premise Sam would present

>>9117958
Great argument. Thanks lad.

A Billion Wicked Thoughts is a surprisingly fascinating and well-researched book using google data to talk about fetishes and pornography.

>>9117946
>>9117956
>>9117958
>>9117968

Here's The Quick Rundown

>Rothschilds bow to Bogdanoffs

>In contact with aliens

>Possess psychic-like abilities

>Control france with an iron but fair fist

>Own castles & banks globally

>Direct descendants of the ancient royal blood line

>Will bankroll the first cities on Mars (Bogdangrad will be be the first city)

>Own 99% of DNA editing research facilities on Earth

>First designer babies will in all likelihood be Bogdanoff babies

>both brothers said to have 215+ IQ, such intelligence on Earth has only existed deep in Tibetan monasteries & Area 51

>Ancient Indian scriptures tell of two angels who will descend upon Earth and will bring an era of enlightenment and unprecedented technological progress with them
>They own Nanobot R&D labs around the world

>You likely have Bogdabots inside you right now

>The Bogdanoffs are in regular communication with the Archangels Michael and Gabriel, forwarding the word of God to the Orthodox Church. Who do you think set up the meeting between the pope & the Orthodox high command (First meeting between the two organisations in over 1000 years) and arranged the Orthodox leader's first trip to Antarctica in history literally a few days later to the Bogdanoff bunker in Wilkes land?

>They learned fluent French in under a week

>Nation states entrust their gold reserves with the twins. There's no gold in Ft. Knox, only Ft. Bogdanoff

>The twins are about 7 decades old, from the space-time reference point of the base human currently accepted by our society

>In reality, they are timeless beings existing in all points of time and space from the big bang to the end of the universe. We don't know their ultimate plans yet. We hope they're benevolent beings.

>>9117968
That was just a point of curiosity. Calm yourself

>>9117958

Its a pretty common way to respond to a moral relativist. They can't tell you anything is right or wrong because it refutes their own premise, and when they try you can accuse them of trying to impose their personal morality on you.

>>9117880
>>9117974
I bless you for your work, Anon

>>9117978
>They can't tell you anything is right or wrong because it refutes their own premise
Sure they can. They can tell you what they think is right or wrong. That doesn't entail that they think their morality is objective or shared by anyone else but them

>>9117988

They really can't. If morality is subjective then you have no right to impose your personal morality onto me, so why should I not torture a small child?

>>9117979
Thanks.


Here's The Quick Rundown

>Rothschilds bow to Bogdanoffs

>In contact with aliens

>Possess psychic-like abilities

>Control france with an iron but fair fist

>Own castles & banks globally

>Direct descendants of the ancient royal blood line

>Will bankroll the first cities on Mars (Bogdangrad will be be the first city)

>Own 99% of DNA editing research facilities on Earth

>First designer babies will in all likelihood be Bogdanoff babies

>both brothers said to have 215+ IQ, such intelligence on Earth has only existed deep in Tibetan monasteries & Area 51

>Ancient Indian scriptures tell of two angels who will descend upon Earth and will bring an era of enlightenment and unprecedented technological progress with them
>They own Nanobot R&D labs around the world

>You likely have Bogdabots inside you right now

>The Bogdanoffs are in regular communication with the Archangels Michael and Gabriel, forwarding the word of God to the Orthodox Church. Who do you think set up the meeting between the pope & the Orthodox high command (First meeting between the two organisations in over 1000 years) and arranged the Orthodox leader's first trip to Antarctica in history literally a few days later to the Bogdanoff bunker in Wilkes land?

>They learned fluent French in under a week

>Nation states entrust their gold reserves with the twins. There's no gold in Ft. Knox, only Ft. Bogdanoff

>The twins are about 7 decades old, from the space-time reference point of the base human currently accepted by our society

>In reality, they are timeless beings existing in all points of time and space from the big bang to the end of the universe. We don't know their ultimate plans yet. We hope they're benevolent beings.

>>9117993
>If morality is subjective then you have no right to impose your personal morality onto me
Why do you assume that every moral relativist would do this? And the acknowledgement that morality is subjective, doesn't entail that I can't think other people's morality is "wrong" or stupid.

>so why should I not torture a small child?
I don't care what you do. So why shouldn't you?

>>9117994

I work for the CIA and I'm telling you that you better get out RIGHT NOW. You're talking too much. Don't think for a second that we aren't watching you, you can't just say this sort of stuff without some repercussions.

>>9117994
>>9118003
I'm also CIA, and I can confirm that you should grab hold of your buttocks and guard your flanks

>>9117998

Why should you be able to impose your morality on others if its subjective?

>I don't care what you do. So why shouldn't you?

That's the proper response of a moral relativist. There's nothing wrong with torturing small children.

>>9118012
>Why should you be able to impose your morality on others if its subjective?
Because I want to impose it?
Just because I don't think it's objective, doesn't mean I don't want to try to bring a few more players onto my team

>>9117713
Using sex as an exercise in empathy and spiritual bonding are inherently good, whereas you can't do that with dogs or children (they don't understand, therefore it's abuse)

>>9118023

So might makes right, whoever is strongest or has the most players on his team gets to decide what is acceptable behavior and what isn't? The strongest man may decide to create a food shortage that kills 7.5 million people or the strongest team may decided to systematically kill approximately 11 million people.

>>9118041
Yes.

If a group was able to obliterate the entire human race, there isn't much philosophy could do about it. "Right" or not

>>9118030
wait, so a father can have sex with his 18 year old son with the excuse of it being spiritual bonding and that is inherently good?

>>9118051

The question is whether an action is morally acceptable, not whether it can be stopped. Just to clarify, is genocide a moral good so long as enough people support it?

>>9118057
Why would the son consent to it? Spiritual bonding and empathy means both consent

>>9118061
>Just to clarify, is genocide a moral good so long as enough people support it?
In my humble, misanthropist opinion, yes. I believe the human condition is a horrible plight

>>9118073

Then I rest my case. That's what moral relativism brings to the table.

>>9118077
Yes, that it does, Rester of Cases

>>9118071
assuming that the son does consent, it's perfectly ok?

>>9118073
kek

>>9118082
Sure

I think this thread demonstrates perfectly that there is something irreversibly broken in the minds of the sort of people who accept homosexuality. It's like they can't tell right from wrong or they no longer want to. Maybe they never even learned the concept of right and wrong as children. I know back in the 90's preschool and day care suddenly became very popular and maybe that was the environment that most of these people grew up in, without any parents to guide them.

>>9118098
There's a difference between tolerating homosexuality and accepting it, and it's hardly the fault of parents who need day care when two incomes can barely maintain a middle class lifestyle if there's a kid

>>9118098
oh yeah? well, your name is probably poop

>>9118098
>It's like they can't tell right from wrong
please enlighten us

File: Cvr9781439171226_9781439171226_hr.jpg (131KB, 800x1233px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 800x1233px

>>9118117
Just read this, it has all the answers.

File: 49029263.cached.jpg (95KB, 800x500px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 800x500px

I imagine blaming porn is a deflection for the breakdown of relations between men and women overall. Porn could be merely a symptom.

>>9118117

I don't know how to teach you right and wrong.

>>9115161
>mfw suddenly got a crush on this qt3.14
>never felt such an intense level of infatuation before
>decide to improve myself really hard
>decide to quit porn and do nofap even though I think that stuff about "increased confidence" and "nofap superpowers" is bullshit

I lasted 2 weeks. I broke my streak today. I don't even regret it, I'm not addicted to porn. The wet dreams were getting annoying. I did not get superpowers. However, I was starting to find normie porn arousing again. I'm gonna try again, but this time to end my attraction to weird porn. This will make me feel better about myself, which in turn will lead to increased confidence, which will help me get the qt3.14. God, I hope I get the qt3.14, she's so pretty.

>>9118202
>>9118202
Just don't make it obvious that she has that much power over you. Show interest, but not an all-consuming one

>>9118202
>I did not get superpowers

Bullshit. You must have cheated at some point.

>>9117872
If you fuck a parrot, you're going to kill that parrot brutally. That's evil and awful.

If you fuck a mare lovingly, making sure she's comfortable, you're not doing anything wrong.

If you let a dog fuck you, you're pleasing the dog. You're not doing anything wrong.

>>9117793
People like you are whats wrong with this world

>>9118252
People like you are what's wrong with this world

>>9115580
Went from fapping around 2 times a day to 0, and I've held out for 97 days.

Guess I was not addicted.

>>9118556
That sounds pretty unhealthy, my friend

>>9115028
dont read it, just quit porn

>>9118573

Why do you think that's unhealthy?

>>9115136
Not OP, but I'm also curious now that I've seen the post. Sometimes curiosity is nothing more than that. There are people who like to learn for the hell of it.

>>9118578
Not ejaculating at all, porn is the real problem. You should ejaculate at least once or twice a week.

>>9118662

Why do I have to ejaculate once or twice a week to be healthy?

>>9118673
I don't know specifically why, but your prostate needs to work.

>>9118719

I think as a society we've been sold this meme that we need to masturbate in order to be healthy without ever questioning why or asking for the evidence. I see a lot of conflicting studies that say masturbation could be helpful in preventing prostate cancer for older men while at the same time there's studies going on that link younger men frequently masturbating with a higher risk prostate cancer.

Do you have any other reason to say masturbation is healthy aside from the possibility that it may reduce the chance of developing prostate cancer?

>>9118760
No.

File: 1476308018063.png (753KB, 629x754px) Image search: [Google]

753KB, 629x754px

>>9118030
>Using sex as an exercise in empathy and spiritual bonding are inherently good
>tfw no gf to have passionate sex with in the missionary position

>>9118760
There was a study on cancer rates among celibate (supposedly) Catholic priests and they actually had a lower rate of prostate cancer than the general population

>>9115108
There's a decent test I came up with. Try to remember the first porn video you ever watched, then try to remember the most recent porn video you watched. If you can remember the first but not the most recent, you're probably watching too much.

>>9119106

Yeah it seems like the science is inconclusive at best, yet there's no shortage of people insisting that you have to masturbate in order to be healthy.

File: catbird.png (178KB, 321x265px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 321x265px

>>9119048

Hey could be worse anon
You could be addicted to cp

>>9119142

Do the world a favor and kill yourself. Please.

File: 1445754782097.png (351KB, 444x672px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 444x672px

>>9119048
>I'm a total sperg who can't make small talk with women

>>9119160
>implying small talk can get you laid

You must be going after some vapid women

>>9119292
If I can't even make inane small talk without looking like an autist how could I escalate it further?

>>9115715
>Porn has always been around
Human beings were alive for 200,000 years before flash photography was invented.

>>9115028
dont waste your time on the book, his tedx talk is sufficient. one of my original red-pill videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSF82AwSDiU

It's perverse whether you fap too much or purposely keep yourself from fapping at all. Your symptom may be hidden, but the problem is still there. Your problem being a lack of actual sex, or the fear of it, and it drives you to addiction with pornography as it's your safest, or most convenient, alternative.

allright, I will try to resume this thread to the one who is now arriving:

1. yes, internet porn (specifically) is bad for your brain, it will lead to seclusion, depression, ED, and will kill the pleasure mechanisms in your brain, making you unable to enjoy anything. It is serious shit. If you think you have a problem, you probably do, seek help. Don't try to rely just on your power of will, look for parent control software for your devices, etc.

2. Someone is trying to prove that homosexuality is moraly wrong, wich is impossible to do, so he is samefaggin (and falseflaggin) pretend to be someone who defends homos and bestialiaty and pedos and incest. >really

you're all welcome

>>9119584
>allright, I will try to resume this thread to the one who is now arriving:

I hope English isn't your first language

>>9119584
>es, internet porn (specifically) is bad for your brain, it will lead to seclusion, depression, ED, and will kill the pleasure mechanisms in your brain, making you unable to enjoy anything. It is serious shit. If you think you have a problem, you probably do, seek help. Don't try to rely just on your power of will, look for parent control software for your devices, etc.

I disagree. The research is inconclusive.

>>9117077
Because I don't believe in abstinence. The evidence shows that even in the South of the United States, abstinence only education leads to more pregnancy; ergo, people like to bang whether taught to or not.

>>9119645

When you look at the Catholic population throughout Africa where they teach abstinence you find that they actually have lower rates of AIDS and other STDs when compared to surrounding non-Catholic people who are taught to use condoms. When I first heard this it made me think there must be other explanations for the problems in the southern states but what do you think?

>>9119645
Your brain is so wired to porn that you can't even conceve masturbation without it. Quitting porn has nothing to do with abstinence.

>>9119610
it clearly isn't, what is your point?

>>9119645
>abstinence only education leads to more pregnancy

Not all abstinence programs are created equal. Some have actually proven to be highly effective. Scroll down to "effective abstinence programs" and there's a list of 10 different examples.

http://www.heritage.org/education/report/the-effectiveness-abstinence-education-programs-reducing-sexual-activity-among

>>9119682
This is definitely an interesting finding. Do you have a more specific source I could take a lot at?

>>9119700
Not at all, using pornography to masturbate definitely makes it more pleasurable, just as sex is more pleasurable than masturbation. My point was that porn itself is not detrimental, and is secondary way to experience sexual stimulation when one cannot experience the sex itself. As I said in an earlier post, I believe porn in moderation is the best way to go.

>>9119718
You've linked to a right-wing think tank which, evidenced by the website itself, has an agenda which includes the the promotion of abstinence programs. Nevertheless, I have several criticism about the studies here:
1. Without looking at the studies' methodology in their original texts, I assume many of the outcomes were measured using self-reporting, which leaves itself open to manipulation by the reporter his/herself, especially regarding the 'taboo' topic of sex, so I would automatically give less weight to these results.
2. Many of these studies are well over 10 years old, I would argue that they have outlived their effectiveness as evidence for justifying abstinence in the modern day.
3. Using evidence from the first study on the website, we know that religiosity is a protective factor which decreases sexual debut. As abstinence only programs are primarily promoted by religious groups (most likely to young people who are also religious), it would make sense that the program is mistaken as being effective when religiosity is the protective factor.

Overall, I do not agree with the statement 'not all abstinence programs are created equal'. Abstinence only programs are well known to be ineffective at preventing sexual intercourse, pregnancy and STI transmission. There is a mountain of evidence to support this.

Hentai magazines

>>9117880
top fucking kek

>>9120125
>You've linked to a right-wing think tank which, evidenced by the website itself, has an agenda which includes the the promotion of abstinence programs.

Why is this a bad thing?

>>9120125

So to sum it up, you reject the possibility that abstinence programs can be effective because you assume the methodology of various studies are faulty without actually looking, that research can be dismissed because it's older than some arbitrary date that only you know, and that there must be other explanations like religion for why some abstinence programs have had success despite not having any evidence to actually believe this. The Southern states are more religious so why are they having problems with teenage pregnancy if religion is the reason some abstinence programs are working?

You're close-minded. That's really all I can say, especially with how you immediately dismiss the information provided because it's from a conservative source. Nothing could possibly convince you to change your opinion on this issue.

File: venus.jpg (36KB, 320x601px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 320x601px

>>9119430
>As if you wouldn't fap to pic related.

Cmon anon - think!

>>9120125
> My point was that porn itself is not detrimental
Porn IS what is detrimental. Porn "in moderation" doesn't really exist.

File: 998u.jpg (66KB, 620x434px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 620x434px

>>9121851

Don't be ridiculous

so you all afraid of being pinned down on your stomach and helplessly taking a pulsating cock in your virgin assholes?

what could go wrong? you'll legs will shake a bit and you'll leak come down your thighs, but that's it

afraid of dicks? are you faggots?

my diary

>>9117607
nothing per se, it just piss me those faggots acting all high and mighty while they are just the same

>>9115028
book is nothing but pure shilling, stay away

File: Cliff-Harpers-Max-Stirner.gif (7KB, 170x200px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 170x200px

>>9117713
WHO ARE YOU GONNA CALL?

>>9117755
>As in, sodomy. As in, needing to swallow pills to reduce the pain to be able to have sexual intercourse. As in, not being able to eat for an entire day and cleaning out your butt before you can have sexual intercourse.

I've bottomed plenty of times without needing to do any of this nonsense. Fasting? lmao

>>9123215

Faggot here.

Diseases. They exist. They are more prevalent among men who have sex with men.

>>9121515
If an agenda is clearly evident, the organisation has a bias in proving and/or supporting that agenda using whatever means, including rely on old or poorly conducted research. The reliability of the research can be called in on this basis. Question should be raised against the agenda of all information sources, conservative, liberal or otherwise.

>>9121577
Firstly, this type of research most definitely did rely of self-report evidence, anyone with a background in research looking at these studies would be able to tell you that. So the data was absolutely open to manipulation by the reporters. How else do you think the reported on sexual activity? The most obvious answer is that they asked the participants themselves. This is a reasonable critique.

Secondly, when writing academic articles, a good rule of thumb is to rule out relying on journal articles over 10 years old. This is not an 'arbitrary date', is it a date provided after which the evidence has become outdated, as newer evidence has most likely been created.

Thirdly, the evidence that religiosity is a protective factor against early sexual encounters is presented in one of the studies I examined in the link YOU gave me. Whilst the Southern states are most definitely more religious, which has been shown to delay the onset of sexual activity, once these individuals do begin to engage in regular sexual activity (at the mean age of 17 in the U.S.), they are more likely to fall pregnant and contract an STI. Thus, abstinence programs do not work; they do not keep people from having sex long term, and once they do, they suck at it.

I did not dismiss the information and actually took the time to engage with you on the subject. I always question the source of my information and its position, conservative, liberal or otherwise. If I linked you to a website which was left-leaning, you should be skeptical of the information presented there as well.

I've been cordial so far, but pull your head out of your ass. I know you don't have a background in research you faggot.

>>9122249
As I said, I don't believe porn itself is detrimental, I believe an over-consumption of pron (like anything) can be detrimental. Individuals can view porn infrequently, thus, porn can be used in moderation.

>>9115694
Pretty sure they're just glorifying the payoff of the hardwork that goes into sculpting a strong body. At least personally I know I can admire a muscular figure without feeling attracted to it