|
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. much to think about!
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2021 12:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 18:34 |
|
|
If you’ve got the power to somehow educate everyone into rejecting the base biological drive to reproduce (or otherwise enforce that) why don’t you just transform society into a form that maximizes pleasure and exists in perfect harmony with the biosphere? It’d be trivially easy.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2021 01:41
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Puppy Galaxy posted:This is a loving stupid probe woozy pawsies is posting the most honest and philosophically consistent take in the thread and he got probed for it
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2021 03:48
|
|
|
Vasukhani posted:it doesnt exist. When people die, everything ends, there is no preservation of happiness or sadness. Letting people die its the only way to have an ethical society. There is no reason to be against this. 13 was a tough age for me too
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2021 02:52
|
|
|
Vasukhani posted:haha yes. believing in fundamental bodily autonomy is truly an adolescent affliction. no one is arguing with you about broad bodily autonomy, including the right to autoeuthanize, which appears to be generally supported throughout this forum (or subforum, at least). People are goofing on your hot topic teen philosophical musings about how actually life is meaningless when you really think about it, maaaan
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2021 16:41
|
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:I find it perplexing why anyone would deliberately try to have children, my friends with kids describe it as an unending hell that they love for some indescribable reason. hear, hear, fellow goon! This "love" is an ineffable and hideous emotion! Do your friends not know that loving their children eats into valuable time for the betterment of one's soul, such as watching their favorite vtubers play danganronpa?
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2021 19:42
|
|
|
Strawberry Pyramid posted:I mean, yeah I should do that anyway, but that's the point you seem to be making: no one can be a good faith advocate of a position unless they personally live that position's logical extremes themselves. thinking life is suffering (however you define that) and nonexistence and the end of suffering is objectively superior to continued suffering but not killing yourself is an incoherent position and is why everyone thinks you sound like a whiny mall goth. If I thought satiety is superior to hunger and had a sandwich at my disposal, I'd eat the sandwich. If I didn't it's because I had some reason to prefer hunger over satiety: I don't want to gain weight, say. If you think nonexistence is superior to existence and have the ability to end your existence, you'd do so. You don't because there's something stopping you. You can say it's a fear-based part of your suffering, but based on what? Missing out on something cool, actually enjoying your life in a general sense (if you don't want to admit it), whatever -- but guess what! -- death destroys desire, this doesn't hold water by your own logic. If you killed yourself, there'd be no one to care about missing out on something. This is an incredibly tedious argument because people arguing in favor of life = suffering haven't even taken the time to interrogate themselves about their own feelings on the matter, so everyone else has to sit through all of this empty childlike positioning and too-online blackpilled dogshit. It sucks! If you're going to try and make an argument out of this at least make the attempt to bring something interesting or thought-provoking to the table. e: not to mention it's fundamentally very selfish. I enjoy my life but they can't, or won't, or will be prevented from doing so by something or other. Pentecoastal Elites fucked around with this message at 22:59 on May 7, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 7, 2021 22:57
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2021 23:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 18:34 |
|
|
the thing this thread definitely needed was edgelord malthusian weirdoes jerking themselves off over human extinction
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2021 17:44
|
|