Have you guys tried cutting down on masturbation? You might find

File: IMG_0279.gif (1MB, 310x314px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 310x314px

>believing pseudo science from a guy that lived 800 years ago

why are all the posters here so stupid

File: needsleep.jpg (10KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 250x250px

B-but they tell us it's healthy!

>>37113342
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2093562.stm

" The research could also help explain how sexually-transmitted diseases evolve - by exploiting the depressed immune system when humans have sex.

Such diseases also lead to the possibility of a reduction of life expectancy in humans. "

"Dr Siva-Jothy said: "Those organisms that mate the most, and are therefore more successful in evolutionary terms, reduce their own life expectancy in the process."
"Our results show a clear effect of DR and a cost of reproduction for both sexes."


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022191010002635

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0531556505001579

When you think about it does make good sense. This isn't just piss coming out of our dick, its literally a key ingredient to human life itself.

>>37113526
Yeah and I swear to god that I feel more healthy when I don't masturbate and think about sex, I'm calmer yet more energetic... it's not just placebo I assure you.

>>37113303
Fapping is in my routine. I force myself to do it even though I rarely feel like it. Horny or not I lose interest before the first shot of cum emerges from my dickhole.

>>37113303
I've tried.
My dick is as hard as concrete and I want nothing more than to stick it in a broad. Sadly I don't even know how to convince a woman to sleep with me, since my previous attempt had failed.

Eventually you just lose interest in masturbation, and realise how unsatisfying and a waste of energy it is, you have to change your attitude about it and it becomes natural and you stop being like a lusty teenage yet you're actually in your twenties

>>37113303
Nofap loses it's benefit after 7 days. Past that point you should be using it as a motivation to fuck.

What if you fap but don't cum? Does it count?

>>37113464

>you're more likely to get sexually transmitted diseases if you're sexually active

wow!

>>37113526
>>37113464

damn
i'm going on nofap now
i have to live long enough to see chad die

I masturbate 4 times a day. My dick skin is currently torn due to excessive masturbation.

>>37113741
I tried this. It makes it harder to avoid fapping and makes you pretty frustrated and sexually tense, in my experience. Eventually you give in and cum, so I would recommend avoiding edging/masturbation at all as they have their own psychological side-effects

>>37113760
Do it dude, you have more time and energy to do genuinely fun things, and you may as well enjoy life more while you are here, rather than make yourself tired and depressed by masturbating, only reinforcing your loneliness... I hope you do go nofap and don't suffer any temptation my bro! Want my robot brothers to feel better.

>>37113303
>quoting medieval philosophers of all people
what was the purpose of this? why would undermine yourself from the first post?

Are you nofap faggots gonna post this everyday?

>>37113303
who cares, not like id go out and do anything anyways
you think chad or anyone who is active masturbates? no because they have shit to occupy them. no reason for me to not masturbate.

File: human_transmutation.png (186KB, 451x477px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 451x477px

>>37113526
>a key ingredient to human life
It can be tempting to attach weird occult properties to biological processes, but you should remember that just because something makes dramatic sense, it isn't necessarily true. Semen doesn't store any kind of mystical life energy, any more than blood or hair. It takes your body some resources to generate it, but if you're eating well, that really shouldn't be an issue.

>>37113565
Placebo is powerful stuff, though. If it makes you feel better, go for it.

>>37113849
legitimately, the problem is porn addiction and not madturbation itself. not masturbating doesn't make sense if you don't get laid, but not watching porn has had a positive impact on my life. also, not watching porn had made it so that i don't feel the need to masturbate more than 3 or so times a week

>>37113861

There's barely any studies on longevity of humans and the effect sex has on it because we live so damn long. Most studies just show it weakens our immune system.
There's a lot of studies looking for positive effects and they do find some, but they are often poor studies overall. I did however find some studies after a quick google, I used to have a list of about 20 showcasing the harmful effects of excessive sex that was hard to compile but I lost them with my old harddrive.

There isn't a lot of modern-day people criticising masturbation and excessive masturbation. I am convinced there is a conspiracy by ((them)) to encourage debauchery and degeneracy in mankind, and make us meek and easy to control as a population. If we realise we aren't primitive creatures that are manipulated by sex we have more of a chance to think freely and realise the corruption in our world around us

>>37113902
I enjoy gaming and TV-shows/films, when I masturbate I notice I don't appreciate these things as much.

>>37113967
People say that but I gave up porn yet still masturbated and the effect was mostly the same. I felt more lonely after and masturbation was less enjoyable without porn, too.

File: IMG_0443.png (323KB, 584x717px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 584x717px

>>37113342

Belivew scientism and post-enlightenment rationalism has fully described the human condition and does not have limitations

>>37113962
Semen is literally a key ingredient to human life. Nothing occult or mystical about it.

Here are some hard scientificinformation based on facts.

" This suggests that spermatogenesis, rather than oogenesis or the physical act of mating, is a major factor reducing lifespan"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1448167
evolution.unibas.ch/teaching/evol_sex/Costs_Benefits.pdf

http://www.nature.com/cr/journal/v24/n1/full/cr2013148a.html

>>37114067

philosophy is for retards that are too stupid to study science or mathematics

File: IMG_0814.jpg (108KB, 436x600px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 436x600px

>>37114223

>implying philosophy is a seperate discipline from science and maths and the larger pursuit of knowledge. Go back to the 18th century where you belong cuck. R9K is a metaphysical board

>>37114223
t. someone who doesn't actually study science or mathematics

no, your highschool classes don't count by the way anon.

Im on nofap for a week now, no porn, no erotic images, not even scanning pics in fb. I started to feel the benefits already, no foggy brain, no fatigue and my anxiety reduced. I also do meditation and stopped eating junk food. Hopefully I will achieve normie level.

>>37114273

you're right, i only made my previous post because i don't know enough about philosophy to refute you, so i was compensating by boasting about my presumably superior knowledge of mathematics

>>37114223
Philosophy requires a broader degree of critical thinking and skepticism than the cult of quantification that is a large degree of science. Science and maths can be extremely robotic, and often comes naturally by looking at the world around you. Philosophy comes from looking at the world, looking within, thinking about what you see and feel, and considering that which can not be counted.

I went a year and half without masturbating after being becoming addicted to orgasams at the age of 12.

>>37114361

your post indicates you know nothing about mathematics, so your whole point is invalidated

>>37114330
I never want to be a dumbass sheep like normies, but I would like to be as happy and confident as most normies... I'm glad you're noticing good effects, has it been difficult ? does it get easier?

>>37113526
>its literally a key ingredient to human life itself.

So is water you fucking doorknob

>>37114361
>calling science a "cult of quantification"
>claiming that scepticism is inherent in all branches of philosophy
>not realising that science is a branch of philosophy borrowing from empiricism, logical positivism and applied ethics
Fucking pleb, don't ever post your shit opinions ever again. Just as bad as the mouthbreather you were replying to.

>>37114379
Maths requires consideration of the abstract, sure. But it still relies on symbols.

It's got nothing to do with semen retards, it's got everything to do with fucking DOPAMINE.

>>37114408

your post implies that the primary consideration of math are things that can be counted, which is so wrong that it's clear that you don't know anything about the subject. hence, any argument you make comparing math to anything else is going to be wrong because you don't know enough about math to make valid points

>>37114384
Actually it does get easier. Of course I relapsed countless times but it doesn't matter. Just start over if you relapse. Another thing that helping me greatly is meditation, I really reccomend it.

>>37114394
< Look at the consciousness problem in science. Consciousness can not be measured or quantified and you we have no idea what it is. Scientists often equate the mind with the brain yet if you've considered the antanae/receiver analogy you realise how completely incorrect this model could be.

Never claimed that scepticism is inherent in all branches of philsophy. I said it often takes more skepticism than science and my reasoning is that philosophy has no hard rules or 'facts' (which are often disproven in retrospect) to rely on.

I do realise that science came from philosophy. You aren't displaying great crtitical thinking skills by assuming I didn't know that because I didn't say it in my post. I didn't say anything to contradict that fact, either.

>shit opinions

Bigot

>>37114449
I know that greek philosphers and mathameticians overlapped a great deal. But I do know that the way maths is taught today is not particularly conducive to independent thought and crtitical thinking such as philosophy is

>>37114602

no you don't, your knowledge of math is not beyond what a high school graduate would have. if you're educated in a certain subject, i assume you've heard people talk about it and sound like morons because they don't know what they're talking about. that's what you're doing right now

>>37114692
"I know that greek philosphers and mathameticians overlapped a great deal." - which is a fact.

"no you don't"
Good arguing with you.

>>37114740

>But I do know that the way maths is taught today is not particularly conducive to independent thought and crtitical thinking such as philosophy is
>no you don't

no one is refuting that mathematicians and philosophers often overlapped prior to the 19th century. why is it so hard for you to admit that you haven't studied math and aren't qualified to make broad generalizations about the subject?

>>37114548
>the consciousness problem
Almost as if... a framework designed only to test the material... cannot confirm the existence of the metaphysical... woah....
>has no hard rules or 'facts' (which are often disproven in retrospect)
They're disproven in retrospect because of the prevailing scepticism of scientists. Models are subject to constant reevaluation based on new tests being performed and theory being developed. You have no idea what you're talking about. Scientists don't take a scientific "fact" as an absolute truth, but rather the closest to truth we have gotten within the constraints of the model being used to understand the phenomena being studied.
>>37114740
He's not wrong. Math absolutely requires a capacity for abstract thought, problem solving and critical thinking. It's painfully obvious you have no idea what you're talking about.

uh.... does masturbating a lot make you a sex addict?

>>37114789
Actually argue with something I say rather than try and dismiss what I say because you think I'm not "qualified" to have an opinion or generalise. I ask you.

"But I do know that the way maths is taught today is not particularly conducive to independent thought and crtitical thinking such as philosophy is"
"no you don't"

You did it again. Maybe you should try and actually argue with the content of what I say, rather than make a blatantly incorrect statement trying to invalidate what I know to be true.

The meme is real brehs. When I stop watching porn and masturbate less I feel alot less depressed and apathetic. When I fall off the wagon and start masturbating to porn every day I feel it.

>>37114904
You can't get a more detailed response because your criticism of mathematics is completely milquetoast. What exactly about the way math is taught leads to it not encouraging independent thought and critical thinking?

>>37114794
In maths and science, there is a huge amount of preexistent knowledge to grasp and learn, and questioning what you learn takes a back seat. In philosophy today, you are from day 1 questioning what you are reading and writing your own ideas. That's what I'm trying to express. I think you both misunderstand me, and I take ownership for my failure in communication, because I do not think that maths or science require no critical thinking or skepticism, I stated that philosophy requires more because nothing is ever considered to be true, assumptions are always clearly assumptions. I believe scientists often mistakenly, and we can see from history - carry assumptions for far too long and they would benefit by remaining close to their roots in philosophy, the mother of logic.

>>37115027
>In maths and science, there is a huge amount of preexistent knowledge to grasp and learn
As is there in philosophy.
> In philosophy today, you are from day 1 questioning what you are reading and writing your own ideas.
No, anon. This is wrong. This is maybe true for armchair/keyboard "philosophising", but in an actual academic setting, it's going to take years of dedicated prestudy before you even have a hope of getting any work published. Good luck writing a serious paper on epistemology or ontology or any philosophical field without a proper academic grounding. Seriously my man, not only do you blatantly not study mathematics, you don't seem to study philosophy either, or have the foggiest about what being a philosopher actually entails. Also, your claim that nothing is considered true in philosophy is simply false. Many philosophers believe in an absolute truth, just as many philosophers do not believe in absolute truth. The fact that you think philosophers are just making "assumptions" in their arguments also shows you don't understand the rigorous logical framework used to prop up most philosophical works.

>>37114973
I think that's you being lazy.

I think that they try and teach you to much, too much time as a spectator being lectured to, as opposed to coming up with your own proofs and presenting them to your teacher for feedback

>>37114800
uuhh... i kind of need, to know this. for, um. science/

>>37115266
Hilarious joke, my friend! Top kek.
>>>/reddit/

>>37115235
anon quick prove that (cosA + sinA)/tanA = tanA +1

>>37113464

raw dogged and came inside of 29 girls in my life, no STD's

i only fuck nerdy girls and insecure girls though

friend found a disgusting slut on tinder and got chlamidya lmao. it was his second lay ever lel


get gud

>>37115145
In philosophy there is no pre-existent knowledge. There's pre-existing ideas, but many of the different writings conflict with each other, and provide alternate viewpoints.

Of course if you want to get papers published there are a lot of barriers and preconditions to achieve.

A philosopher may believe in an absolute truth but a good philosopher does not consider one model of viewing the universe or man as true without a shadow of a doubt.

Philosophy requires more because nothing is ever considered to be true - meaning you are not taught that one theory or writing and true and another is not. In science you are taught theories that have been disproved and the current "correct" theory.

Maybe if you weren't looking for ways to confirm your opinion that I'm stupid you'd understand what actually I'm trying to say.

Often certain logical statements are made in a philosophical writing as a means to generate further ideas, the logical statements are carried forward as assumed to be correct in order to make further statements also assumed to be correct. Different philosophers use different methods to arrive at their ideas and in persuading the reader, and explaining their logic.

>>37114904


you haven't even made an argument for your own claim, you just negatively compared math to philosophy because math is concerned with things that can be counted, isn't particularly conductive to independent thought, and can be "extremely robotic.

the only discipline in math that can be considered to primarily concern things that are countable is number theory, which studies the integers. real analysis is concerned with properties of the real numbers, which are uncountable, and continuity; topology is concerned with the properties of space; abstract algebra studies symmetry; other areas of math are concerned with applications, like modeling physical systems. it's just false to say that mathematics is primarily concerned with things that are countable.

you say that mathematics can be robotic, but i don't know what to take of this. if you're saying that mathematics education primarily teaches predetermined steps to solve a problem, those are called algorithms and they are an object of study in math. even then, the study of algorithms is more concerned with their efficiency to be implemented on computers. most areas of pure math study abstracted forms of concepts like, as stated above, space, continuity, and symmetry. this is normally done by starting with a set of axioms and then using deductive reasoning and definitions to eastablish truths about what's being studied. hence, what's being done in pure areas of math normally takes the form of proving assertions with an argument. doing this requires considering the specific forms of the objects of study and coming to understand what qualities they share that would nessecitate that the larger abstract class of objects they belong to would hold a certain quality. if you want a better refutation that math can be "robotic," you'll have to define the term because i can't refute vague adjectives whose meaning can be changed for convenience in an argument.

comment too long

>>37115329
You've literally failed to acknowledge anything I've said, and haven't actually responded to the content of my posts. You have done nothing but talk about my education, you're still defensive because you thought I was insulting maths because I said philosophy teaches more skepticism and critical thinking than maths does. I've explained what I meant by that and why I think that. You aren't talking about the issues of philosophy and maths and how they differ.

>>37115549
>>37114904

your description of math as "not conducive to independent thought" has the same problem. math is frequently taught from textbooks, meaning that you're not being asked to form new theorems or areas of math in mathematics education; however, this is hardly different from how other subjects are being taught. if you attempt to get a graduate degree, then let of that is forming new mathematics, but you're not being asked to do that as an undergraduate and i assume the same is true for philosophy. the arguments to prove assertions in math can take several different forms and require that you understand what you're studying. it's not like you're given a problem and then taught how to find a solution. you must independently understand the object and formulate an argument. again, if you want a better refutation you'll have to be more precise with your statement because i don't see studying abstract classes of objects and establishing truths about them through logical argument as being "not conducive to independent thought." in fact, being able to make assertions and argue them using what you know and understand seems to be how independent thought would be defined.

>>37115597
Because you can't solve a high school level proof and yet feel qualified to comment on the pedagogy of mathematics. You're an idiot anon, plain and simple. The entire reason I'm discussing this with you is because I'm bored, not because I feel you might have any valuable intellectual insights to offer me. You know nothing about philosophy or mathematics, and the content of your posts has demonstrated this time and time again. I was going to say "stay in school", but frankly, you'd be better off just learning a trade.

>>37115549
I did, >>37115027 and further>>37115450 here. I acknowledged how oversimplified by explaination of my opinion was and expanded on it.

I never said maths was all and only about that which can be counted, I said philosophy is concerned with that which can not be counted. There's a difference, a huge one.

When I say maths can be robotic, I mean that we can easily teach a computer maths, and even to prove theory. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/03/computers_proving_mathematical_theorems_how_artificial_intelligence_could.html

Furthermore, I think AI is much further away than the above in being able to provide anything new in the field of philosophy, what do you think about that? AI considering meaning and that which can be felt but not seen?

>>37115680
I know 'nothing' about maths and philosophy.

That's obviously untrue, and you're still being insulting. I'm sorry that you don't think I have any intellectual insights to offer you, but I haven't noticed you offering me any valuable insight either. However I'm not here trying to gain something from fellow human beings, I'm here communicating for other reasons. Albeit I'm more complex in my motivation than simply being bored.

>>37115634

I never said that math is not conducive to independent thought, see where that quote came from below.

>>37114740
>>37114789


It came from 37114789, which I did not write. I said I believed philosophy to be better in this regard, and have expanded on why I think this. I never said maths wasn't conducive to independent thought. He/you put those words into my mouth based on a misunderstanding of my original post >>37114361 - I accused science and amths of being robotic, and said philosphy required a BROADER (not greater) degree of critical thinking and skepticism. I explained why I think this. I know maths and science are broad subjects, but as philosophy is concerned with the non-material on a WIDER scale than maths and science I don't think my original post was as unreasonable as the barrage of insults would suggest.

>>37115786

mathematics is also concerned with things that can't be counted.
i'm not going to refute that computers do math because computer science is a sub discipline of mathematics. a theorem proven by a computer isn't considered valid until the proof is read, understood, and verified by the larger mathematical community. considering that computer science is a part of mathematics, its unsurprising that progress in computer science translates to progress in mathematics.

regarding your other post, there's objective truth in mathematics because objects in math are given precise definitions and any study starts with axioms. truths are derived from these "self-evident" truths, but many axioms have been refuted and new areas of study started by establishing new axiomatic systems without controversial axioms. just like parts of philosophy are considered true to allow for the study, so are parts of math. it's understood, however, that any truths in math rely on the truths of axiom systems, which can be refuted.

anyway, i'm not responding after this because it tired of typing these long paragraphs

>>37116022

your post was deserving of a barrage of insults because you made broad statements about math despite not knowing much about the subject. if i were to state that math requires more critical thought and skepticism than philosophy, and continuously insisted on the truth of the statement despite making it clear that i don't know anything about philosophy, then you would probably berate me too. it's ridiculous even now that you're maintaining the truth of your statement because you still don't know enough about math to be able to make meaningful comparisons

>>37113303
Ok, you've finally got me. I'll try it, I will cut on masturbation. 90 days from now. But if I don't get an average gf then you'll be proved wrong gay nigger

>>37116080
> mathematics is also concerned with things that can't be counted.
I never said anything in contradiction to that. But you can't say that maths is mainly concerned with the uncountable can you? I mean, I'm happy to hear otherwise.

Oh I just got to the end of your post, and you're not replying any more, that's fine. I could do with a rest from writing too.

>>37116175
>Justifying insulting someone because you disagree with their opinion and believe their opinion to hold less value than your own.
>Accusing me of being just like you in that I would insult someone if the inverse of this situation was true.

Yes, I've insisted on the fact that I still hold the opinion that philosophy requires a broader array of critical thinking and skepticism than maths and science. I'm not insisting my opinion is 'true', however. I simply believe maths and science are narrower fields than philosophy. However I might be wrong.

>>37116221

>I never said anything in contradiction to that. But you can't say that maths is mainly concerned with the uncountable can you?

>>37115549

>the only discipline in math that can be considered to primarily concern things that are countable is number theory

i can't help myself. please free me and stop implicitly refusing to admit that you don't know what you're talking about. this is like arguing about a 10 part series with someone that's only read/watched the first part, but insists that they have thorough knowledge of the series

>>37116405
are you fucking kidding me? number theory is the only discipline that is concerned with things that are countable? you're on a different planet. Algebra is concerned with that which can be countable, infact, counting and manipulations derived from such is integral to solving algebra problems. Of course there is MORE than counting, but you can't seperate the quantifiable from the vast majority of maths.

>>37116541
To follow on. Just about everything in the observable universe is countable.

How can you say that all these fields of mathametics are concerned with things which aren't countable?

A geometric pattern can be described with numbers, countable objects. Just look at your fucking computer screen.

>>37116541

>you can't say that maths is mainly concerned with the uncountable can you?

this is what i refuted. objects that are countable come up when studying the symmetry and operations that are studied in abstract algebra, but it is fallacious to say that abstract algebra is mainly concerned with things that are countable