Write the most intelligent thing you can come up with

my balls they itch

I breathe so I think

>>9319438
Uhhh... oh god... oh Jesus, uhhh HURR DURR HURR *farts*

I am.

>>9319438
If the universe were a tree, sentient life would be the fruit.

the meaning of life is pounding fat ass

'Sunset found her squatting in the grass, groaning. Every stool was looser that the one before, and smelled fouler. By the time the moon came up she was shitting brown water.'

Being poor sucks

>>9319464
profound.

File: 1484799916610.jpg (24KB, 287x410px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 287x410px

Humans always seeks rationality, even if it isn't rational. An explanation is better than no explanation, afterall nothing is what most humans fear.

This is why so many superstitions, deemed nonsense now, exists.

Perhaps I should've said humans are pattern seekers.

Like the tick sucking my nutsack dry, love is a small thing.

OONGA BOONGA...

Suffice it to say, me pretty smart.

*puffs bubble pipe*

>>9319459
nice

In the end, I guess we're just carbon-based computers...

I pray my dick get big as the Eiffel Tower. So I can fuck the world for 72 hours.

>>9319523
Out, out, brief schwengel
Life's but a walking swelling

>>9319438
The enemies of man cannot stand before us!

Traps are gay.

call me cismale

im james joyce bitch
im james joyce
im james joyce bitch
Im james joyce

call my bitch nora she nowhera im at
im james joyce fart fuck any fine lass
tween sum sheet ill fuck her in the
sit round the pub with hemingway
start fights I cant win anyway

I know what youre thinking
oh this cant be happening
turn around bitch
ill gut you with my wit
thunder words thunder mind
thunda sheets gonna get me mine

im james joyce bitch
im james joyce
im james joyce bitch
im jame joyce
>fade out

>>9319438
There are only 2 genders.
Men and women are different and not equal.
The holocaust is a lie.
Hitler did nothing wrong.

>>9319599
holy shit man..this is bad ass...

The blackness of my belt, like inside of coffin on moonless night.

Reddit is better than 4chan

The masses look for the rational through the irrational.

>>9319438
Fuck me.

>>9319504
>pattern seekers
Actually, we're pattern builders. The difference may seem subtle but has very different ontological implications.
Read Hume.

qqqqqq

Infinite Jest

>>9319659
feels good

I am a god
Hurry up with my damn massage
Hurry up with my damn ménage
Get the Porsche out the damn garage
I am a god
Even though I'm a man of God
My whole life in the hand of God
So y'all better quit playing with God

>>9319438
It's all a lie that we take seriously.

>>9319459
If nature was walking, with us it fell and broke a leg.

>>9319523
>We're computers
Ha! You wish.

>>9319644
>Be le me
>Be inside le coffin
>Don't see le shit
>Suddenly start caring about the moon: IS IT OUT?!
And THEN I realized my autism.

There are two type of nigras waltzing about this world: Those who can go for a walk for no reason, and those who need a reason to go for a walk.

>>9319736
Delete your can. Otherwise, not bad, Walser.

That Bryan's 1+2 has phantom low crush properties in Tekken 3 especially when you do it after a short back dash.

>>9319459
the rotten fruit, that is

There's two types of people in this world.

God has already damned us, and we are all in hell

>>9319805

underrated

File: yldb3423rtg.png (40KB, 333x174px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 333x174px

If the crafter of this kenomatic world was bestowed eyes, he would not be sick with the world, but with himself.

>>9319751
Men and women

>>9319861
Um, no sweetie...you realize Christ redeems even the demiurge, right?

>>9319751
People I like and people I don't like.

File: subway.jpg (48KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 960x960px

Language is an inherently inferior form of expression, as such anything conveyed by it is devoid of any significance. Writing something 'intelligent' is therefore self-defeating.

>>9319913
Whats a superior form of expression?

>>9319913
What is superior to language then? Pointing and grunting?

Or maybe you meant written language, but that doesn't make your point less stupid.

>>9319921
He clearly meant interpretive dance.

>>9319882
You type like a woman.

>>9319591
Shut up

File: cia.png (384KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

384KB, 600x600px

>mfw still no intelligent post ITT

File: DankMoon.jpg (14KB, 236x223px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 236x223px

>>9319963
>Mfw yours was the least intelligent yet until I posted this.

>>9319963

Every post ITT is de facto intelligent, since intelligence is a necessary prerequisite for making a post.

Now, what if a person with an above average intelligence, a genius even; made a dumb post. How are we to quantify that? On it's own merit? Or on the merit of the poster? We may never know.

Bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonnerronntuonnthunnt-rovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk

>>9319978
great post

All fetishes are born out of conditioning and perverts deserve to be berated and denied respect because of the meekness of their spirit.

I am not wise.

>>9320013
>can't no nuffin tier

"What would Jesus do?"
-Socrates

>>9319438

No.

>>9320010
>All fetishes are born out of conditioning

citation needed?

life.
life is life.

>>9320055
Not him. But do you really think somebody could be born with the inherit behavioral pattern and predisposition to some fetish? That's biologically impossible. Fetishes are acquired through sexual association with something. Thus everyone has some sort of fetish along with the baseline fixation. But to claim conditioning is not the reason for this would just be ignorant.

>>9320058
na na, nana na.

>>9320076
yes.
One of the explanations for foot fetishes is a crossed neuron connection between foot area and the genitalia area on the somatosensory cortex. the image map of your body.

>>9320091
Sometimes when I'm getting blown I can feel a weird sensation in my feet. It's weird as fuck. I don't even have a foot fetish.

>>9320091
I've hard of that. Seems likely due to how common the fetish is. Hormones play a role as well. But still, I am not denying biological predispositions like that. Most fetishes are conditioned, Paraphilia is a good illustration of the fact.

>>9320105
I think those are probably just sciatia because you're compressing your spinal nerves when you bend over forward to blow yourself.

>>9320091
Neural intervention and modification is the basis of all human learning, though. If it has been proven that newborns have this sort of mutation then I'm willing to exclude foot fetishists from my post.
It's also possible for a young child to be conditioned unknowingly into associating feet with sexual pleasure, like it's possible for that to happen to most body parts (just not likely). The thing about feet is that they're very sensitive in humans, a lot of nervous potential just like in your genitalia and arm pits (another sort-of-common fetish).

>>9320122
Savage.

>>9320122
Absolute madman

>>9320123
The feet are sensitive (as in, occupy a slightly greater proportion of the somatosensory cortex than they do in the actual physical body), but the armpits are not sensitive by that definition. If you look up the somatosensory homunculus, you'll see the armpits are quite close to normal physical proportions. That's why I'm curious what the reason for the armpit-fetish is, what the ideas and associations behind it are.

>>9320148
It's not the armpit by itself, its how it is set in proportion to the rest of the woman's body. At least from my observation. It could be any association though.

>>9320122
kek

>>9320148
It could be sweat, secretion, which a fetishist might associate with the climate of vagina and the uterus and moistness which also signals fertility, potential for life.

>>9319438
what if god was one of us?

File: kek.png (434KB, 394x571px) Image search: [Google]

434KB, 394x571px

>>9320164
forgot pic

File: me smart.jpg (34KB, 655x527px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 655x527px

i have penis i am rape

>>9320164
hadn't thought of it, that way, I was stuck thinking about cognitive associations.
I was thinking that female armpits, like genitalia is something that you usually can't see. Women usually shave them, but having them stared at is embarrassing. Maybe getting access to such a place does something for fetishists. Pretty speculative though.

I wonder if it's a simple, "one big reason" with a bunch of tinier associations around it or if it's just a ball of smaller associations.

>>9320169
Furthermore, what if god was /ourguy/?

>>9320181
God is an absolute madman.

>>9320180
The ''big reason'' is the way the mind works. We can only observe these patterns. Naming some abstraction which we have auto-anthropomorphization would just be another layer of abstraction from the actual thing in action. Maybe, I don't know.

>>9320189
>auto-anthropomorphization
auto-anthropomorphisized*

>>9320181
truly a demiurge

>>9320180
Good point about women being secretive about arm pits. When you take that into consideration, you could put it all into the standard Pavlovian classical conditioning model:

man attracted to pussy
pussy is hidden and shaven
arm pits are somewhat hidden and shaven
man attracted to arm pits

>>9320196
>>9320188
>tfw god manifested the world though greentext
>tfw god felt sorry for adam because tfw no gf

The most intelligent advice I can give to /lit/ is that people need to distinguish between novels (i.e. artistic books) and proper books.

If your favorite book is a novel you are an idiot.

>>9320216
Why?

>>9319451 >>9319465 >>9319514
>>9319515 >>9319644 >>9319984
These aren't funny but I lol'd anyway.

>>9319978
Yours is clearly ironic and therefore better than >>9319963

>>9320076 >>9320148 >>9320156 >>9320164
>>9320180 >>9320189 >>9320200
Why don't you try >>>/d/ instead of playing armchair psychologists?

"fetishes" a la Freud basically don't exist, 99.5% of us just like the idea of certain kinks. That's it. Someone with a foot fetish just likes feet. You may as well be trying to reason about why people enjoy different books, movies, games, etc.

>>9320267
>degenerate logic
Nah, you like your family, you don't jerk off to it you perv (I hope). Just because you abandoned all hope of having normal sexual life doesn't mean fetishes are normal.

>>9320267
>calls people citing actual neurological and psychological observations and facts, armchair psychologists.

>Namedrops Freud

>Goes on to be a armchair psychologists himself

If you cannot look at different things, look at things differently.

>>9320216
explain this further.

>>9320294
Some famous author said something very similar to this, can't remember who. Something like growing up isn't changing the landscape but changing your view of the same landscape.

>>9319438
Life (?) is like a box of chocolates.
Thank you.

What is stronger, your brain or your mind?

>>9320331
Muh dik

>>9320331
Example of a mind without brain: your computer
Example of a brain without mind: you

Now fight to the death. Unfortunately, whoever wins will not be able to relay the outcome to me :/

>>9320352
I think you got that backwards mate.

>>9319805
Is that why I'm so happy?

>>9320358
Read it again and think reeeeally hard

>>9320370
Fuck you. A computer can be said to be a brain but it cannot be said to have a mind. You could be said to have mind, but you don't have much of a brain.

>>9319805
>we are all in hell
>Trump is president
>I'm fucking 3 pussies at the time being
It simply doesn't add up, kid

File: a picture of a brain my man.jpg (227KB, 646x438px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 646x438px

>>9320377
You're probably a visual learner so I pulled up an illustration of a brain for you.
Wanna try that again sweaty?

>>9320387
You don't understand the difference between a brain and mind, do you?

>>9320352
>>9320358
>>9320370
>>9320377
>>9320387
>>9320394
Fuck you guys, stop butchering my quote.

>>9320387
Don't worry kid, you'll get there and make your momma proud

>>9319438
my diary desu

>>9320387
nigga sayin you dumb

and nigga, nigga aint as dumb as you

>>9319708
>>9319711
>>9319523
>>9319454
>>9319459
>>9319504
>>9319650
>>9319913
>>9320331

deep bro xD

According to some pro-choice people, it is the loss of the conscious self that makes killing wrong, because we are essentially just self conscious minds. Thus, if a being is killed prior to the development of its conscious self (such as in abortion), no harm occurs. Likewise if the conscious self is lost at any point later in life (such as someone falling into an irreversible coma), then that person has died, even if his body is biologically alive.

However, imagine a case in which a four-year old boy is dying from a rare disease. We have a drug that can save his life, but it will cause him to lose all of his memories and return him to the psychological state of an infant. Should we erase the boy's memories or let him die? I think most people would agree that we should save his life.

But under the pro-choice view, the acts of letting the boy die and erasing his memories while saving his life are equivalent. Both acts destroy the conscious self, so there should be no difference, and hence no difficulty in choosing the "correct" course of action. But since people see death as being worse than the child losing his memories. I believe this provides evidence that a person is not just a mind but a union of body and mind. This implies that a person begins to exist prior to the development of a conscious mind after birth.

>>9320607
Moreover: should all pro-choice degenerates be killed in their sleep, since they're unconscious?

>>9320607
I don't think approaching this issue from a philosophical stand-point is of any use however. Choice, life. It's to society to decide which is right, based on what makes the most sense at the time.

File: stirner3.jpg (62KB, 720x616px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 720x616px

>>9320607
Very spooky post, well played

>>9320607
Why is this such a contentious issue in America? I've never heard anyone discuss it in England. Are you really that far behind culturally?

>>9320634
What kind of stupid ass bait is this?
>>9320619
Society wants to discuss it. Let it.

>>9320634
Prolfeed

>>9320619

Why should society, or in other words, the majority of people get to decide what's morally right and wrong? I think moral truths exists and we can know them within reason. For an easy example, torturing children is always wrong regardless of time place or circumstances. But there were times and places when child torture was acceptable, and if a society deemed it acceptable in the past it could theoretically deem it acceptable in the future.

>>9320655
Nigga, that's like, your opinion. What are you, Sam Harris?
If Ethics exists, it exists outside human perception and in doubt. Who are you to randomly say what is ethical and what isn't?
Besides, the definition of moral is that it's a local perception of right and wrong.

File: rousseau-jj.jpg (121KB, 939x1130px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 939x1130px

>>9319438
Man is born in chains; yet everywhere he is free

>>9320634

It's hardly a settled issue. I assume you're pro-choice, if it's such a settled issue then explain to me why I should be pro-choice too.

>>9320662
>If Ethics exist
They don't.

>>9320671
Eh, prove God doesn't exist and you can say that I suppose.

To answer the question "Does having a brain make someone a person?", we must answer a more basic question: "What does the brain do?"

When our brain isn't performing complex tasks (such as when we sleep), or when it hasn't developed the ability to do so (such as when we are infants), our brain simply keeps our bodies alive. At brain death we lose our "organic unity," and we become a corpse. Our body parts no longer function together to keep us alive. If a person stops existing not when the brain dies but when his body parts no longer function together to keep him alive (or when he no longer has organic unity) then it makes sense to say that a person begins to exist when his body achieves this organic unity.

When does this occur? At fertilization a person begins to exist, because at that time the unborn child's parts work together to keep the child growing and living. When the child becomes so complex that he needs a brain to survive, he will simply grow one, because he is a person who can continue developing new organs and new abilities over time. A brain-dead person cannot do this, and that is why the brain-dead are no longer persons, while the unborn, even without a brain, are persons who are merely immature.

>>9320655
Seems like you're just rationalizing these things to fit them into your ideological world view; i.e. resolve your neurosis.

Ponder, for a moment, the two beings:

One is a leftist, peacefully slumbering in his bed. Other one is a month-old baby in their mother's tummy.

A month-old baby is not in possession of the faculty of consciousness. Neither is the slumbering leftist.

Is it morally reprehensible if we kill them both?

Of course, you say. The slumbering leftist will soon regain the gift of consciousness, so it's wrong to kill it.

It certainly is not, you say. The month-old baby will... Gain consciousness too? But surely in a much longer period, so this alone makes it justifiable to kill it, no?

Setting aside the weakness of this argument, which alone should prove that these two scenarios should not be approached differently, let's consider some scientific data.

After birth, a baby will differentiate between sounds it heard while it was still in the womb. That means the baby has a variety of responses and modifies it's behavior based on whatever the input information is.

Do leftists, slumbering or awake?

Thank you.

>>9320676

you must be some kind of asshole to think that ethics is only possible if god exists

>>9320676
>prove God doesn't exist
There is no God, therefore he doesn't exist. QED

>>9320655
>torturing children is always wrong regardless of time place or circumstances

You only feel that way because, as a member of a species, your instinct is to protect children etc. If you look at the whole though, it's neither right nor wrong. It's just a thing that you can do, that can happen. The universe won't be against you if you torture children and it won't be congratulating you either.

>>9319459
ok then who are the bugs

>>9320686
Morality can exist without God. That is, you can decide to say killing children is wrong in the same way you can say chocolate ice cream is good, it isn't really objective or universal. But Ethics? Not really, can't see it happening.

that I know nothing

>>9320699
Media ;))

Imagine a woman has sexual relations with her husband, and the next day a stranger rapes her. Several weeks later she discovers she's pregnant but doesn't know if her husband or the rapist fathered the child. A DNA test reveals the husband is the child's father. The woman gives birth, and three months later the doctors call back while she is home alone with the baby. They inform her that they made a mistake and that the rapist is actually the baby's father.

The woman is devastated and can't stand to have this "thing" grow up who one day might become a rapist himself. Should she be allowed to kill this product of rape while it sleeps in the crib? If not, then why not? Shouldn't we forbid killing the product of rape in the womb for the same reason that we forbid killing the product of of rape in the crib: that both are innocent human beings?

>>9320707
"Should" and "shouldn't" have nothing to do with it; she herself in that instant thinks she "should" kill the product of her rape because she is blinded by her guilt projection (desire for vengeance).

She can kill it, I would be surprised if any mother did this, but if she does she'll surely regret it.

In any event, why do you concern yourself with this? It's a waste of mental energy. That is, I assume your wife is not a deranged rape victim, or you have no wife.

>>9320707
Aborting fetuses that are product of rape is justifiable not because the child might grow up to be a rapist, but because it wasn't conceived purposely OR because of the negligence of the consenting sexual partners.

>>9320701
Imagine we have a society which holds that it is considered good to follow a list of behavioral patterns. And that people are conditioned from birth to follow these patterns. This is ethical behavior, it doesn't require an actual deity to back it up, yet it exists in the minds of the people who are conditioned to it.

How the fuck is Ethics not real? Yes it's an abstraction, but its impact is seen in the world, etc.

>>9320707
Pointless little story, reduce it down to: "should we kill a baby in the crib???" because that's what you just asked and though you may disagree with them, people have had answers to that for quite some time now.

>>9320714

You didn't answer the pertinent question. Is it okay to kill the product of rape while it sleeps in the crib?

>>9320712

>In any event, why do you concern yourself with this?

I have a problem with people killing innocent human beings. What I don't understand is why so many people act like this topic shouldn't even be talked about. I love to dialogue with pro-choice people but they rarely ever talk, they only try to shut the conversation down.

>>9320715
I didn't say you couldn't be moral without God, I said ethics can't exist without God. Google the meanings of "morality" and "ethics" for me real quick please.

>>9320727
>I have a problem with people killing innocent human beings
What is "innocence"? You're apparently amenable to killing humans, as long as they're "guilty" of some offense?

>>9320727
>You didn't answer the pertinent question. Is it okay to kill the product of rape while it sleeps in the crib?
It isn't. But what you're proposing is, I imagine, an extremely unlikely scenario. How the hell would they make a mistake in the DNA test then realize they've made a mistake so late? I imagine that would even be solid ground for a lawsuit against the clinic for fucking up that badly.

>>9320736

Yeah I'm not against killing people in self defense. Innocent means not guilty, that they have done anything to deserve being killed.

>>9320732
>a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values

You must be confused.

>>9320748
>innocent means not guilty
No shit, way to dodge the question.

In what instances do you judge a person as "deserving" of death?

>>9320745

It's just a story that's meant to set up a philosophical question so don't take it too seriously. The question boils down to why is it okay to kill one group of innocent humans because they're born of rape(the unborn), but it's not okay to kill another group of humans even though they're born of rape (the born).

>>9320759

But I did answer your question? I believe killing humans is acceptable in self defense.

>>9320759
Not him, but damn there should be a comprehensive grading system that would take into account the nature of the crimes, the severity, the intent etc. so that if you reach a certain point you're put out. It would also need to be cumulative for one person.
>>9320765
The deciding factor, like with any abortion I suppose, is consciousness. If the child is in the late stages of pregnancy or born it's murder.

>>9320770
Define "self-defense." If someone is attempting to mug me, and only wants my money, is it "morally acceptable" to kill them? What if they try to mug me without a weapon? What if I'm walking down the roadside at night, and someone seems to be about to run into me? Is it "morally permissible" to pull out a Beretta and empty a clip into the windshield? Why wouldn't I just dive out of the way?

>>9319438
Any girl, lemme holla atcha. Aight, fuck you then.

>>9320786

What point are you trying to make? I think "self defense" is self explanatory. If you're not going anywhere with this I'm not going to bother writing out self defense scenarios where it would be okay to defend your life by taking another.

>>9320780

>The deciding factor, like with any abortion I suppose, is consciousness. If the child is in the late stages of pregnancy or born it's murder

What do you think of these posts?

>>9320679
>>9320607

The pro-choice view of personhood is human plus birth, or human plus consciousness, or human pluss viability. But how is this different from those who say personhood is human plus white skin, or human plus male gender, or human plus an IQ higher than 70? Why not just say being human is enough?

Maybe Earth is just another planet's hell.

>>9320786
Self defense includes defending your self-interest against illegal attempts, so yeah if someone is trying to mug you you should be able to kill them. Would drastically reduce mugging rates 2bh.

Fart butts toot toot I don't give a hoot hoot

>>9320794
My point is: even in a scenario where you are being shot it, you could act such that no one would die. I'm having trouble coming up with any scenario that requires the death of the other party as a logical necessity. You can always incapacitate rather than kill, if you are skilled enough in the art of self defense.

>>9320810
Killing in self defense is not a logically apt punishment or resolution of the predicament , it's more of an incentive not to attack people because you never know.

>>9320810

I'm having trouble seeing the relevance of this to abortion.

If it is possible to remove a late-term fetus and keep him alive in an incubator, then, theoretically, if the technology existed, one could take a premature infant from an incubator and transfer him into a woman's uterus. Nearly everyone agrees that it would be wrong to kill the child in the incubator. But according to the sovereign zone argument (I can do whatever I want with my body), it would not be wrong to kill that child after he was transferred back into the sovereign zone of the womb. It seems ridiculous that an infant could be treated like a human being in one location (the incubator) and like disposable property in another (the uterus).

>>9320804
So now planets are spiritual planes? Which planet is Heaven?

>>9320820
Then there is no "morality," and you only ever kill because you want to.

>>9320821
The anon with whom I'm speaking made it about guilt (i.e. "it is morally impermissible to kill an innocent"), and defined as "guilt" the violation of the principle of self-ownership. Abortion and killing are "wrong" when they aren't done in "self-defense," is the contention.

>>9320835
The thread is kinda jumbled, I didn't say anything about morality. I would advise people to wound rather than kill, though. But I wouldn't prosecute someone who decided to kill in self-defense. You wanna play ball, great, but you should be prepared to pay the price if you lose.

>>9320835

>The anon with whom I'm speaking made it about guilt (i.e. "it is morally impermissible to kill an innocent"), and defined as "guilt" the violation of the principle of self-ownership. Abortion and killing are "wrong" when they aren't done in "self-defense," is the contention.

I think you're just being a bit spergy about the whole thing. It's been a few posts now and I still have no idea why you objected to me saying that killing innocent human beings is wrong. That's probably the least controversial thing I've ever said on the internet.

>>9320845
You did, implicitly, if you are this >>9320707 anon, because you derived an "ought" from an "is," i.e., "murder is forbidden, therefore an act tantamount in self-denial, abortion, ought also to be forbidden." I'm not saying "murder" (which is a nonsense term itself) is better off forbidden, I'm simply pointing out that this is the fact you have based your moral assertion on.

"Morality" is always an assertion of what ought to be done in all circumstances.

File: fasfef.png (5KB, 331x97px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 331x97px

>>9320856
I'm not that anon

>>9320847
>It's been a few posts now and I still have no idea why you objected to me saying that killing innocent human beings is wrong
Because there is no such thing as "innocence," and your statement implies that the "guilty" are worthy of death, which is nonsense. You do not get to decide whose life is "worthwhile."

>>9320866

>Because there is no such thing as "innocence,"

Uh, okay.

Everything we think we know about society, politics, family, love, friendship, and how we are supposed to live is based on movies and Television shows.

File: 17819776984e818ddb1ab3e611610359_v4big.jpg (27KB, 640x467px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 640x467px

I love you guys, 4chan is like a modern day Roman Forum, with it's not as intelligent Socrates' and the likes.
I'm out of here before someone calls me a faggot now

An ultimate good cannot just be an idea. It must be, in effect, a personality with consciousness and free will. The rain isn't morally good even though it makes the crops grow; a tornado that kills isn't morally evil--though it may be an evil for those in it's way. Happy and sad events, from birth to death, just happen, and we ascribe moral qualities to them as they suit us or don't. But true, objective good and evil, in order to BE good and evil, have to be aware and intentional. So an ultimate moral good must be conscious and free; it must be god.

>>9320872
What's the point of this post? How many times do I have to say this?

"Innocence" and "guilt" are ideas that only exist in relation to each other. There can be no "sexual innocence" without "guilty pleasure," just as there can't be a "criminal" without his counterpart, the "law-abiding citizen." Whoever takes up and sanctifies the ideas of "innocence" and its twin "guilt" bases his judgment of others on their relation to these two poles ("Is this man a criminal, or law-abiding? Is he innocent or guilty?"). So, when you believe in "innocence," you don't look at people for themselves, but only inasmuch as they have an "innocent" man, woman, or child in their "essence."

In short, innocence is a "spook." But if you're unwilling to recognize this, we can't move any further with our discussion.

>>9319438
>Stop watching porn
>Start working out
>Eat a healthy diet
>Get 8 hours of sleep
>Set arbitrary goals and achieve them
>Set unrealistic and ambiguous goals to push towards until you die
>Love yourself before all

>>9320895

I understand what you're saying, you can chill out now. I am unwilling to disregard the idea of innocence to describe unborn humans because if anyone in the world is innocent it would be them.

>>9320895
You do know there is a whole applied study of guilt and innocence called law, right? I mean you're correct in saying innocence and guilt are relative from one society to another, but there are set rules as to who is guilty of a crime and who is not. There are people who are criminally innocent and people who are criminally guilty. If you're homosexual, you're maybe a pervert but you will not be tried for it in the US.
Not that guy btw

The argument from motion is concerned with the movement or change that is occurring all around us right now and we can see it. Everything that moves or changes is potential that is being actualized. A potential can't actualize itself so it's a logical necessity for there to be a "pure actual" at the beginning of any causal chain.

Imagine you drive up to a railroad crossing, only to find a train is passing by. You see boxcar after boxcar, first dozens of them and then hundreds of them. You arrived as the train was already in motion so you never saw the engine. But you must infer that the train has an engine: because, if you see a train in motion, you know something is moving it. an engine is pulling it. If you try to solve the problem by positing an infinite series of boxcars, you haven't done away with the need for explaining the motion. You've enlarged the problem infinitely. If you deny the existence of the engine, then you've enlarged the need to find a much bigger and extraordinary cause for the motion of such a long line of boxcars.

Asking "what moves god" is like asking if every car on a train needs to be pulled, then what's pulling the locomotive?

People may say "there are no moral absolutes" yet that itself is an absolute statement. Or they say "you should never impose your morality on other people" which is itself a moral prescription. In rejecting morality, people must paradoxically embrace a morality that is opposite and equally imposing.

>>9320907
I'm not asking you to disregard it, I'm asking you to understand that it's only an idea. I myself don't "disregard" it, but I don't judge all humans with a newborn as my standard.
>I am unwilling to disregard the idea of innocence to describe unborn humans because if anyone in the world is innocent it would be them.
This is a tautology. To say "babies are the most innocent" is equivalent to saying "bachelors are the most unmarried."

>>9320910
Law is a spook derived from the spook of innocence. Its quality of being written down and backed by force gives it no more "legitimacy" than the dictates of Niyazov.

>>9320942
Oh, you're a stirncuck.
So can I come over tonight and fuck you in the ass since ass virginity is also a spook?

>>9320942

I don't hold newborn babies as the standard for good. You're on some other planet dude, if I say the concept of innocence is just an idea will you tell me the purpose of pointing that out? I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish aside from maybe derailing the conversation away from abortion.

niggers aren't human and neither are women, therefore women are the niggers of gender

I notice a lot of people support abortion because it disproportionately kills blacks. I can understand the reasoning, blacks are generally a problem on societal terms, but why is that? I think they're more likely to become criminals because they live in a culture of death. A culture that has no respect for life. Perhaps if we could encourage a respect for life in the black community they might, over time, become more sociable and wouldn't be such a societal problem. Permitting or encouraging abortion does the opposite of this, it actively encourages a disrespect for life and feeds into this vicious cycle where we encourage blacks to have abortions which then causes them have attitudes towards life which fosters crime which then further motivates us to encourage abortion and so on.

>>9320607
But surely resetting the child gives new consciousness and therefore new life, meaning it is not equivalent to letting the child as where one is creative and destructive, the other is only destructive, meaning there is clear reason to reset the child?

>>9319657

Nah, some times we build patterns. Most of the time we find them, read them, and interpret them.

>>9320999

In both cases with the born and unborn you're giving birth to new consciousness so in that sense they're equivalent. If you believe that consciousness alone is what constitutes a life or personhood then resetting the toddlers memory would actually be worse or more destructive than killing the unborn who has yet to have a consciousness, because in the case of the toddler you're actively killing a person by wiping away his consciousness while the unborn has yet to be a person.

>>9320378
>implying that's not sinful and morally wrong

You did this to yourself.

>>9319438
Yo, but what if I didn't though?

>>9319918
Hand gestures.

>>9319449

But if I do that, what will I do with the rest of my time?

>>9320958
I hope categorizing people as things makes you feel more secure in yourself. Also, from the way you talk, I'm guessing you've never read Stirner. "Spook" is a usefully descriptive term, the fact that the word itself spooks you means that you are very -- spooked.

>>9320961
If it's just a notion, there's no obligation to preserve it, just as there's no general obligation to preserve life. The proscription of abortion is as nonsensical as the proscription of murder. After all, what I was originally responding to was the supposition that abortion of "the innocent" should be prohibited on the same grounds as "murder" of "the innocent," i.e. by law.

You said you have a problem with innocent people being killed, and this is your problem, no one else's. Let abortions happen where they don't concern you, the like with murder: all you or anyone else can do is be concerned with yourself.

Ladders have captured my imagination since I was eight. In Singapore, the libraries have these tall bookshelves where you have to use a ladder to grab a book. Although I was tall enough to grab a book off the shelf, I could not help but imagine the anxiety of climbing one:

Would it be scary to look down?
What happens if you fall?
Is it okay to take a break on one of those steps?
Would the ladder wobble?
If you’re stuck, who’s going to save you?
I thought anyone who could climb a ladder was a god. They were fearless of heights and more. I had never climbed a ladder until I was sixteen because of my fear of heights.

It made me think of Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling. It asked a simple question: How did Abraham overcome his anxiety and sacrifice his son, Isaac, in the name of God?

Kierkegaard says that’s because he is a knight of faith. You may know that term in various terms: genius, Great Man, role models, heroes, Ubermensch, individuals, artists, and more. These knights of faith have the ability to be a paradox — they are abnormal people; they are looking at God’s point of view (sub specie aeternitatis).

File: 1490086369953.jpg (45KB, 808x805px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 808x805px

>when you realize you're fucking dumb

Peek peek pek a prakaw, prakaw

File: check this.jpg (8KB, 226x223px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 226x223px

>>9319438
check

Sit down bitch be humble

Everyone is fucking dumb, everyone but me, until I open my mouth that is, then I disappoint myself. Fuck you. Taste my blade

My father was a sentimental man. He was the type of person to yearn for a lost soul that was never there in the first place. He would often sit in his plush armchair by the fire, warming his tender, calloused hands underneath the mantel. He would scare me, for he often got very close to this fire. I always wondered if he saw something in that fire. Whenever he looked into the fire, I saw an extremely distinguished sparkle in his right eye. I can't quite put my finger on it, but I believe that sparkle was knowledge. The only other time I saw this look was quite a few years ago. He bent over my tiny, woolen cot and whispered into my ear in a soft, pleasing, yet knowledgeable voice, "Reply to this post or your mother will die in her sleep tonight."

>>9320091
I can how that might be bolstered by the fact hat to people, such as myself, who have no fetish feet it seems utterly impossible to understand. Whereas even though I don't have a fetish for say, obese women, I can at lest understand how someone else might. Feet, as a fetish, just seems so random.

>>9320634
received knowledge is knowledge devoid of contemplation

...or did you come to your position through intellectual wresting?

>>9320683
>a month-old baby in their mother's tummy.
>tummy

She ate the fucking baby??? This post went dark in a hurry.

>>9320705
go to bed, Donald

>>9319438
jews are responsible for everything bad in the world

>>9320683
>>9320683

Pretty good. Positing a baby is a potential change while a "slumbering leftist" is wasted space as a stance on abortion. Nicely done. And the absurdity goes well. Perhaps you need better prose though.

>>9320691

Implying that these very common impulse reactions aren't an expression of the universe.

A society that does not value private property above human life is not a free society. Only through the complete eradication of postmodern Islamocommunism can a supramodern white ethnostate be achieved, ushering in a perfect medium between capitalism and socialism.

Man is a sentient machine

>>9320707
Why would the kid grow up to be a rapist?

I wouldn't keep the kid cause I ain't a cuck, but why would he turn into a rapist?

>>9319861

>>9320078
Levelet kaptam LÁJF!

i will cum on my mustache so i must be and am

being "intelligent" is the dumbest aspiration one can have, find a field and stick to it.

>>9319438
The most intelligent thing you can come up with

Man, you people are a bunch of fuckups. Can't you follow simple instructions?

BANE?

>>9319438
my diary d.e.s.u.

the man who can read many books at the same time is always getting more than any one book at once can and it is the same as any art dear friends

where is the alan watts up in here?

>>9319438
Spontaneous affective insight into quantum hegelian dialectics.

File: fourth-wall[2].jpg (138KB, 800x582px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 800x582px

>>9319459
Look at this anthropocentric fuck, look at him and laugh.

It is only after the rain stops that you learn you are wet

The greatest trick that God ever pulled was convincing us we matter.

>>9319438
Poopy bum.

>>9319438
like if ur reading this in 2017

>>9323072
best movie

>>9321017
But you said

>under the pro-choice view, the acts of letting the boy die and erasing his memories while saving his life are equivalent.

In a system of reset/kill, reset is clearly the better option because, whilst both involve a death if you consider consciousness-as-life, reset creates new life, which is better than just the death.

My point is that resetting the four-year-old being the correct thing to do doesn't correlate with abortions, because resetting the four-year-old is dependent on factors not present in the abortion debate. (As in, the abortion problem is about the possibility of consciousness, whereas the kid is about the negation of consciousness)

Everybody knows that God is the Word.

BRAAAAAAAAP

>>9319438
Why does he wear the mask?

>>9320267
This has to be the worst post in this thread and maybe even on this fucking board.

KILL YOURSELF

>>9320267
criminally underrated post

>>9319459
If your mom were a tree my dick would be full of splinters

>>9323732
kekosophy

File: pexels-photo[1].jpg (3MB, 4240x2384px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4240x2384px

>>9323218
I like this.

>>9319438
Evidence-based policy is likely a good idea considering it is based on evidence and not faggotry.