|
DrSunshine posted:Actually, if you extend your hypothetical to possibly existing organisms, and assuming that the pregnant woman's offspring N has some probability P>0 of being able to procreate N+1 successors, it would mean that for every pregnant woman we allow to alive, we are allowing the possibility of coming into existence uncountable multitudes of future beings that could suffer, if we accept the premise of the nonexistence of non-negative hedonic values. To be clear Josef, the above is not an absurd conclusion if you accept categorically that life is suffering, and that suffering should be lessened. That's why I used the term categorical imperative before. Whether at small or large scales, the conclusion is the same, and it has nothing to do with hatred or "crotchspawn" or anything like that. if you come at this problem with the 2 foundational beliefs above (life is suffering, less suffering is good), then you come out with these conclusions. If these seem monstrous, then the problem is with the premise, not the conclusion. E: You could layer on "but people should get to make their own choices", but then your position isn't coherent. Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Apr 9, 2021 |
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 16:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 13:37 |
|
|
Beelzebufo posted:E: You could layer on "but people should get to make their own choices", but then your position isn't coherent. Why not? You could say that you believe in voluntary human extinction, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 17:23
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Why not? You could say that you believe in voluntary human extinction, right? That's equivalent to saying that you are fine with endless suffering. By choosing that course of action (or non-action!), you are immoral, becuase you are allowing suffering to perpetuate, which is the sole metric that matters under the precepts set out. That's the core of the problem. E: It's the why, the justification, that matters. your proposition is this - minimizing suffering is good (by extension, no suffering is the most desirable outcome) - life is suffering, therefore no life means no suffering So - the moral course of action is any action that limits life, and thereby limits suffering. (corollary: Any lifeform that thinks otherwise is just being deluded by biology, because their lives are suffering by definition) You add on - however, life has the right to choose to suffer, and the right to beget more suffering on life without the choice to consent. Therefore the moral course of action is no longer to minimize suffering, because you also can't violate autonomy/consent. So, now, you have a moral system with directly contradictory premises. Both actions that increase or decrease suffering are now moral based on either of these foundational beliefs. So it's incoherent. It's a cop-out because on some level you realize that the hypothetical suffering of abstract potential people isn't a reason to justify harming existing people now. But if you accept that, then you moral certitude goes away and you feel lost and powerless again, which was the real problem in the first place. Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Apr 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 17:30
|
|
|
Beelzebufo posted:That's equivalent to saying that you are fine with endless suffering. By choosing that course of action (or non-action!), you are immoral, becuase you are allowing suffering to perpetuate, which is the sole metric that matters under the precepts set out. That's the core of the problem. To argue the point, and bear in mind I don't personally believe this: Our lives, as they are lived now and most likely for a very long time, are built on the exploitation of others and suffering. We are all immoral due to contact with these things, nothing we can do can be moral. The best option is triage. We cannot force people to change their ideas through violence, but we can choose to not participate in exploitative systems to the best of our ability and encourage others to not do so. Suffering will continue anyway and we cannot stop it, the best we can do is mitigate it. Also your points would make sense if we were working from a blank slate, as it were, but we aren't. Life exists, it may have been better if it hadn't, but we can't actually stop it via violence. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Apr 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 17:41
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:To argue the point, and bear in mind I don't personally believe this: That doesn't solve the problem. If human life is built on exploitation, and minimizing suffering from exploitation is your goal, then you should still do all you can to end human life! It's only if you accept the idea of human life in and of itself as valuable, versus the abstract problem of suffering minimization, that you can come to the conclusion that it should be voluntary. E; if all lives are exploitative, why should you respect the autonomy of others. Unless you believe that say, an indigenous person in Brazil might be living a less or even possibly non-exploitative life, in which case, you've violated your core premise. E: This then comes into the question as to what counts as exploitation, and why it is immoral. Is arresting the life cycle of plants to eat them immoral? what about bacteria, or jellyfish? Or is it only neurons capable of pain that matter? Is exploitation immoral only if it's outside of a human defined "natural" cycle? Is a sea turtle acting immorally? or it it human reasoning capabilities, in which case, are children held to the same standard? Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Apr 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 17:43
|
|
|
Beelzebufo posted:That doesn't solve the problem. If human life is built on exploitation, and minimizing suffering from exploitation is your goal, then you should still do all you can to end human life! It's only if you accept the idea of human life in and of itself as valuable, versus the abstract problem of suffering minimization, that you can come to the conclusion that it should be voluntary. Again, in this example of things I don't believe but would like to poke at: Why would that follow? I can believe that veganism is much better for the planet and do my best to eat as much vegan stuff as possible, but with an awareness of myself I can also tell that I am going to probably have a chicken burger at 2am when walking home from the pub. As a separate point, why do you think human life has value? Beelzebufo posted:E; if all lives are exploitative, why should you respect the autonomy of others. Unless you believe that say, an indigenous person in Brazil might be living a less or even possibly non-exploitative life, in which case, you've violated your core premise. Because that's up to them to decide? Again it seems like you are just coming back to the GK Chesterton point of "A suicide is the worst of men because he murderers the whole world", which seems daft to me. Beelzebufo posted:E: This then comes into the question as to what counts as exploitation, and why it is immoral. Is arresting the life cycle of plants to eat them immoral? what about bacteria, or jellyfish? Or is it only neurons capable of pain that matter? Is exploitation immoral only if it's outside of a human defined "natural" cycle? Is a sea turtle acting immorally? or it it human reasoning capabilities, in which case, are children held to the same standard? Depends on where you draw the line for different people? Say you draw the line at hurting people or animals is probably a big part of it but I errr more on the side of people being being exploited is worse than animals being exploited. Say someone else thinks that even stopping plant life growth is inherently bad. Jains for instance believe that life, in every instance, is worth protecting. This means they try to do the barest minimum to harm other beings and some particularly religious folks only eat fruit that has fallen from trees. Would you accuse them of hypocrisy in trying to limit the harm that they do? Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Apr 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 17:46
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Again, in this example of things I don't believe but would like to poke at: So this isn't a moral framework. It's not questioning why you believe certain things are moral or immoral. It's just failing to live up to a moral framework you have accepted. Veganim is the core framework here, everything else in the above is irrevelant to defining morality from a vegan perspective. Josef bugman posted:As a separate point, why do you think human life has value? Because it exists and I personally value existing and good experiences. This is a foundational belief because it can't be derived from priors, like the idea that minimizing suffering is an ultimate good is also a foundational belief. These are irreconsilable. I know this. I'm just taking your stated premises to their logical conclusion. Josef bugman posted:Because that's up to them to decide? Again it seems like you are just coming back to the GK Chesterton point of "A suicide is the worst of men because he murderers the whole world", which seems daft to me. Why is it up to them to decide? If you accept the logic being presented, then letting them decide is an immoral act. It produced much more suffering. That's what I meant when I said that your premises are contradictory. Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Apr 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 17:55
|
|
|
The smartest board in the world, folks. Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 18:00
|
|
|
it's also important to note that the question is "is reproducing immoral/illogical/unethical?" not: - "is it wrong for me, specifically, to reproduce?" (or, "is it wrong for people living in eg. Appalachia/Bangalore/a mansion in Napa Valley to reproduce?") - "is it wrong for people to choose not to reproduce or have bodily autonomy in general?" - "is it wrong for people to make their own choices, in a broad sense?", or even - "is it wrong for people to hold certain beliefs about what might cause more harm than good?" If you, personally, don't want to reproduce for whatever reason, I don't think anyone (at least ITT) would argue with you for a moment about that. If you want to argue that people shouldn't reproduce in certain cases, I think you have to be careful about the structures of power that create those cases, but fine whatever maybe there are some good ideas there. If you want to argue that people should be allowed to reproduce or not reproduce because they either want to have kids or think long-term human extinction is the best case... well okay, but there's not really a lot of argument to be had there. Similarly with arguing that people should be encouraged to not reproduce because they can be convinced human extinction is a good thing and the people that aren't encouraged or ignore the message will have generally better lives because of it is, also, not much of a thing to talk about and at this point you're way, way off in the weeds. The question is: is it wrong to reproduce? Personally I don't really care because I think all of this weighing potential vs actual suffering vs existence vs sentience etc etc etc is all angels on the head of a pin rear end nonsense. People are going to gently caress and have kids. If you somehow had the power to abolish reproduction (outside of a nuclear arsenal), you could just minimize or maybe even abolish societal suffering, your control of humanity would be so complete. If you're trying to argue that, on the whole, people having less kids will result in less suffering, I'd say go ahead and fight for body autonomy and women's rights, which are both pretty good things to fight for regardless. Practically, I think it's pretty safe to say if you're trying to balance out net suffering tables you probably shouldn't have a kid, if only for your and their mental well-being. Also, human lives have meaning to the extent that anything has meaning, which is to say there is no master list of Really Mattering out there in some platonic realm. Things have the meaning we assign them. If you decide that human lives have no value that's just as """valid""" as someone deciding they do in the sense that there's no source of truth to test these statements against. Practically it'll make you a real pain in the rear end, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 18:03
|
|
|
Beelzebufo posted:So this isn't a moral framework. It's not questioning why you believe certain things are moral or immoral. In that instance, sure, I suspect that there are lots of people who ultimately hold beliefs yet do not live up to them, does that mean that the values are wrong? Beelzebufo posted:Because it exists and I personally value existing and good experiences. This is a foundational belief because it can't be derived from priors, like the idea that minimizing suffering is an ultimate good is also a foundational belief. These are irreconsilable. I know this. I'm just taking your stated premises to their logical conclusion. Wait, hang on, can I ask for clarification quickly? Do you not believe that minimizing suffering is a good? Beelzebufo posted:Why is it up to them to decide? If you accept the logic being presented, then letting them decide is an immoral act. It produced much more suffering. That's what I meant when I said that your premises are contradictory. Again don't believe this, represent a point yadda-yadda: Sure, but so is living? It's a less immoral act to go "people can decide for themselves if they find meaning from the world. I do not agree with them, but it is not up to me to decide that for others". It produces more eventual suffering, potentially.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 18:05
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Depends on where you draw the line for different people? Say you draw the line at hurting people or animals is probably a big part of it but I errr more on the side of people being being exploited is worse than animals being exploited. Say someone else thinks that even stopping plant life growth is inherently bad. I mean jains inherently value life, a foundational belief I can agree with, and the compromises they make come from trying to balance between the different instances of life they inherently value. So no, I don't think that's hypocritical. It would be if they claimed life had no value and the only thing that mattered was not allowing suffering thought! And the question is why do you believe that exploiting people is worse than animals. What is that based on, why is there a difference. It's not in the precepts Owlfancier gave, and as soon as you start introducing exceptions and compromises, then you have to define why one life suffering is better or worse than another, and hence you are admitting that life has a value! It is being used to determine the relative value between two types of suffering in your own example!
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 18:06
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:In that instance, sure, I suspect that there are lots of people who ultimately hold beliefs yet do not live up to them, does that mean that the values are wrong? If you can't defend them, yes, they are wrong. I don't care if you don't live up to your framework, I care whether you actually understand what you are arguing. I mean, if your aregument is that "people believe what they believe man, and don't always live up to it", then you're basically just giving up on the idea of moral reasoning entirely. What's the point if we aren't going to examine the precepts built into belief systems? Josef bugman posted:Wait, hang on, can I ask for clarification quickly? Do you not believe that minimizing suffering is a good? I belive that life has inherent value, and that the dignity of human life in particular is what is most important. Suffering minimization is important to that goal, but since I value life existing, and the right of peoples and cultures to perpetuate themselves (which I include in my definition of dignity for human life), I would not place suffering minimization as an absolute moral good. So yes, we can minimize suffering, but that is subsidiary to valuing human life, which is the core foundational difference between me and Owlfancier. I just think my beliefs through, while he would rather rationalize the conclusions of his premises away. Josef bugman posted:Sure, but so is living? It's a less immoral act to go "people can decide for themselves if they find meaning from the world. I do not agree with them, but it is not up to me to decide that for others". It produces more eventual suffering, potentially. Why isn't it up for you to decide? Why does their autonomy have value if life itself doesn't, if suffering is all that matters. Where does that come from as a belief, and how does it interact or conflict with the categorical statement that life is bad because it is suffering? Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Apr 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 18:11
|
|
|
I don't think OwlFancier's position is as inconsistent or poorly thought through as you're making it out to be, egOwlFancier posted:And sometimes a desire to make the right practical choice might put me at odds with my ideal outcome in the short term. e.g if I had a button that would zap all life out of existence I might well push it, but I don't have a desire to just go out and start murdering people. But most of their stance against real world action seems to come down to there being few or no obvious ways to decrease net suffering in practice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 18:22
|
|
|
Llamadeus posted:I don't think OwlFancier's position is as inconsistent or poorly thought through as you're making it out to be, eg Still doesn't explain why they'd save a pregnat woman. Like I said, if they're going to argue that their choice not to have kids is inherently moral because suffering blah blah, that this is always the case, then why is it different when it's someone other than them at hand. What's the difference, given that life is only defined by suffering and nothing else about it matters? The net suffering decrease in both cases is negligible on grand scales, but letting the woman die spares her the pain of childbirth, so it's actually more moral than just not having kids. It's exactly equivalent, based on the moral calculations being presented. The Omincide button is a cop-out, because it's a scenario so far out there that it doesn't really apply or matter, even if it is the logical endpoint of their beliefs. Also they wimp out and don't commit, even in what you quoted. E: VVV Yeah fair enough, there's really no point in continuing this, and there are other ideas in this topic that would be worth discussing. Bowing out. Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Apr 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 18:26
|
|
|
I wish Josef bugman and Beelzebufo would both stop, personally. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 18:39
|
|
|
I feel like I should state that i don't believe that life has no value, but I am trying to understand how we come to think about these things. Also I can stop if people would prefer, I am just quite enjoying chatting about this sort of thing.Beelzebufo posted:I mean jains inherently value life, a foundational belief I can agree with, and the compromises they make come from trying to balance between the different instances of life they inherently value. So no, I don't think that's hypocritical. It would be if they claimed life had no value and the only thing that mattered was not allowing suffering thought! If they did the same actions but for the "wrong" reason, would you inherently disagree with them? Say that Jainism believed that the cycle of Karma is inherently cruel and that it is necessary to do as little harm as part of ones life in order that you are not enmeshed in continual rebirth. Would they still be wrong to act as they do? Beelzebufo posted:And the question is why do you believe that exploiting people is worse than animals. What is that based on, why is there a difference. It's not in the precepts Owlfancier gave, and as soon as you start introducing exceptions and compromises, then you have to define why one life suffering is better or worse than another, and hence you are admitting that life has a value! It is being used to determine the relative value between two types of suffering in your own example! A negative number can still be larger or smaller than another negative number, can't it? If I were to hold that life has no value, but that conscious creatures have a higher likelyhood of justifying their existence and, as such, encouraging others to continue, then you could make the argument that the existence of conscious life is worse than unconscious life, right? You can still say "I think that this is immoral, but it is less immoral than that other thing"? Beelzebufo posted:I mean, if your argument is that "people believe what they believe man, and don't always live up to it", then you're basically just giving up on the idea of moral reasoning entirely. What's the point if we aren't going to examine the precepts built into belief systems? I mean, sort of? The practicality of the action may well matter a lot more than the reasoning behind said action, even if we can understand one better than the other. Beelzebufo posted:I belive that life has inherent value, and that the dignity of human life in particular is what is most important. Suffering minimization is important to that goal, but since I value life existing, and the right of peoples and cultures to perpetuate themselves (which I include in my definition of dignity for human life), I would not place suffering minimization as an absolute moral good. So yes, we can minimize suffering, but that is subsidiary to valuing human life, which is the core foundational difference between me and Owlfancier. I just think my beliefs through, while he would rather rationalize the conclusions of his premises away. What is the inherent value of life? Beelzebufo posted:Why isn't it up for you to decide? Why does their autonomy have value if life itself doesn't, if suffering is all that matters. Where does that come from as a belief, and how does it interact or conflict with the categorical statement that life is bad because it is suffering? Because I'm not them? If it's okay to do certain actions when you are in one position and not in another, that doesn't mean either is incorrect? Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Apr 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 18:45
|
|
|
nothing about existance ethical or unethical, when you die the program ends, a pure neutral
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 20:28
|
|
|
arguing over whether cooking the steak hurts the cow
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 20:28
|
|
|
even if you birth children into 2060 hell world, by 2150 they will be unbirthed and will have never suffered
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 20:29
|
|
|
Golden rule. Golden. Fcking. Rule. I would never bring any consciousness into existence if there was even the remotest chance they would experience the pain I have felt. Have you ever been broken by pain? Beyond mere screaming, this is the pain that makes any movement an even worse agony. Pain so bad that even oxycontin gives up? Pain that wrecks you in every possible way you can be wrecked? I will NEVER bring any sentient being into existence, or facilitate that process. And if it was within my power, I would, retroactively, erase the very concept of consciousness from the set of things that can exist. In every possible universe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 20:34
|
|
|
Vasukhani posted:even if you birth children into 2060 hell world, by 2150 they will be unbirthed and will have never suffered That's not how anything works, but you keep trucking!
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 20:35
|
|
|
IronClaymore posted:Golden rule. I haven't. However, I have experienced moments of profound joy. Moments where I exalted in the fact of consciousness, moments where I felt like I could feel the electrons lighting up in their quantum well wherever the photons of the warm sun's effervescence lit up upon my skin. I've watched a storm roll in over the shore and laughed at the lightning as it exploded over my head, and felt profound awe and reverence as I walked through a silent vale of ancient bristlecone pines and felt their connection to deep time beyond the lifespan of civilizations as I touched their bark. I've looked up at the magnificent night sky and watched the twinkling trail of the milky way as it revolved above my head and felt, lying in the cold grass, like I could fly a million light years as I bathed in their light that had traveled for countless aeons untold through the darkness between the stars.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 21:06
|
|
|
IronClaymore posted:Golden rule. So you're a glass half empty sort of person
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 21:12
|
|
|
IronClaymore posted:Golden rule. I think you just have depression
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 21:16
|
|
|
Like that wasn't a shitpost, 'I don't want to die, per say, I want to never have existed to begin with' is depressive spells summed up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 21:17
|
|
|
for real IronClaymore that sort of pain is absolutely a traumatizing experience and if you haven't and are able to I'd recommend talking to a professional about it because it can sit with you in ways you don't need to be burdened with, and that can be managed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 21:26
|
|
|
Life is incredibly precious and beautiful beyond all measure. It is the only example we know of of mute physics and chemistry creating order out of a soup of nothingness. Against all odds, it is a negentropic process that by pure chance appears to have spontaneously arisen only once in this cosmos - as far as we know. It is the only process that exists on Earth that does not merely dissipate, but also propagates. It is, as Darwin wrote, endless forms most beautiful. The fact that somehow, out of 4 billion years of life's existence on this planet, now there are life forms that can contemplate not only their own existence, but the well being of other life forms, and value the existence not only of their own progeny but every ant, microbe or blade of grass, is nothing short of miraculous. It may very well be the only chance that terrestrial life has of, possibly, surviving past the fiery death that is the Sun's middle age. I have been an environmentalist since I was a child, and I will never stop working towards a future where all of Earth's children can look up at a billion strange suns and wonder at the majesty of it all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 21:27
|
|
|
I believe that continued human existence in general and having children in particular is not a moral issue, but a matter of risk. Every day that you choose to stay alive, you are rolling dice with the universe and betting that the good parts of life will be worth the bad. And when you become a parent, you put a lot more chips on the table than you ever did before.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 21:27
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Life is incredibly precious and beautiful beyond all measure. It is the only example we know of of mute physics and chemistry creating order out of a soup of nothingness. Against all odds, it is a negentropic process that by pure chance appears to have spontaneously arisen only once in this cosmos - as far as we know. It is the only process that exists on Earth that does not merely dissipate, but also propagates. It is, as Darwin wrote, endless forms most beautiful. otoh, you have this take 
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 21:45
|
|
|
Origami Dali posted:otoh, you have this take Yeah, so? I didn't realize it was wrong to like things. Must not have gotten the memo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 22:13
|
|
|
Whether we wonder at the hand of the divine or at the random chance that created us so we could wonder, I think it's probably the most natural thing humans are capable of. That feeling of wonder keeps us from falling into existential angst.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 22:18
|
|
|
Origami Dali posted:otoh, you have this take That's some powerful sourpuss energy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 22:19
|
|
|
it's by the most depressed man alive
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 22:21
|
|
|
I actually have Hubble's 30th anniversary image as my desktop background cause it looks really cool. It's a shame I can't view life/consciousness with that same sense of wonder.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 22:42
|
|
|
Vasukhani posted:people should be born but should be allowed to opt out. Forcing life is unethical. You are mentally ill. I don't think you would contest this? But for some reason you have decided to let your illness dictate your entire ideology. You hate life and seem to be keen on spreading discontent so that others will hate life. On one hand you have my sympathy. Mental illness sucks. On the other, you are pretty much actively toxic to everyone around you and you seem aware of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 23:54
|
|
|
woozy pawsies posted:I love to cum, hard, into vaginas. I love to stick my turgid cock into an engorged pussy and blow some cum out of my dick and into the pussy. I like it when my sperm meets an egg, an ovum, and creates a baby. This feels good to me. It’s great to see this little being, aka crotch spawn, that came from I hosed hard and cummed—into a pussy. It’s amazing and wonderful to see. But it also feels good, no it feels great. I love to get girls pregnant, I love to do this by having sex with them. I gently caress them, by thrusting my hips with my boner at the end, into their vaginal opening, which will be wet. The egg, or ovum, will be ready to be impregnated by my semen. This is how God intended it. That’s why it feels so drat, god drat, good when I blow my cum out of my dick and my dick is in a pussy and now it’s squishing the cum out. Nature is made of an infinite amount of fractals. nice dude
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2021 00:28
|
|
|
Big Scary Owl posted:I actually have Hubble's 30th anniversary image as my desktop background cause it looks really cool. It's a shame I can't view life/consciousness with that same sense of wonder. Life in general or your own life in particular? I'm sorry to hear that either way though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2021 00:42
|
|
|
woozy pawsies posted:I love to cum, hard, into vaginas. I love to stick my turgid cock into an engorged pussy and blow some cum out of my dick and into the pussy. I like it when my sperm meets an egg, an ovum, and creates a baby. This feels good to me. It’s great to see this little being, aka crotch spawn, that came from I hosed hard and cummed—into a pussy. It’s amazing and wonderful to see. But it also feels good, no it feels great. I love to get girls pregnant, I love to do this by having sex with them. I gently caress them, by thrusting my hips with my boner at the end, into their vaginal opening, which will be wet. The egg, or ovum, will be ready to be impregnated by my semen. This is how God intended it. That’s why it feels so drat, god drat, good when I blow my cum out of my dick and my dick is in a pussy and now it’s squishing the cum out. Nature is made of an infinite amount of fractals. Preach it brother.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2021 00:53
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Life in general or your own life in particular? In general yeah, though it's only my viewpoint on it of course, but I wanted to make the thread to know what people's thoughts are on life/birth in general. It's been interesting reading the posts. Thanks 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2021 00:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 13:37 |
|
|
Big Scary Owl posted:Thanks It's no bother. Keep safe!
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2021 01:01
|
|