>>27476031
What in the actual fuck kind of degeneracy would drive a mother fucker to do this to themselves. How in the how could you get this fucked in the head.

>>27476031
Anyone know where i could buy Diesadistins
Der swanz muss ab series? 1-3?
Se seems to have retired... deleted all movies on hwr webpage and its not on her LF , or OF

Why why why

>>27476031
all this for a degenerate fetish
>irreparable mutilation for a moment of gratification
>never gonna be able to have a boner again
wtaf is wrong with western society?

>>27476339
> Western Society

Most of them are Russian you mong.

>>27476562
Source? OP post is german and in 3rd they are speaking English, but Russians do dk have history of this with skoptsy

>>27476562
Most who have an interest in genital mutilation usually speak German. Just an observation.

This needs to be a wakeup call for you faggots.
There is not 1 (one) video ever, ever posted of something similar done to women in this, it's always male mutilation. Always. These fags probably PAID thousands to never be men again. Think about that.

/gif/ is the gayest thing in the internet outside of transcord

>>27476038
>keep cutting
The fuck is wrong with this absolute faggot? Even ER cannot put that shit back, even if they did he's never getting a boner again.

>>27476932
>you good?
>you sure?
The woman even asked him. Gave him like 4 tries to stop. I like to imagine him right now, after some time has passed and how much he regrets it, if he's not an hero already

>>27476031
>This thread is not worse thing of gif
Debatable. This is about as evil as it gets aside from actual torture, and for fuck's sake, at least those people didn't agree to have it done to them, nor were the perpetrators doing it with the law's permission.
Is this actually legal in Germany? >>27476128 makes me think it is. Why the fuck would this be legal? Aren't the participants clearly ridiculously mentally-ill? Doesn't that invalidate any kind of "consent" they could be giving?
And how could any society claiming to be morally decent tolerate a person doing this to someone else, filming it, and then selling it, just being alowed to go on living like a normal person? This lady got paid by some out-of-his-mind mentally-ill guy to cut the head of his dick off in a deranged fetish video, did it, waved it in his face, laughed about it, clearly very used to doing things like this and completely emotionally unaffected by her actions at this point, and then, what, just goes home and has dinner later, maybe starts planning a vacation to Spain? Her neighbors don't know or care that she does this, the government doesn't care, she just pays her taxes on the money she makes off of it and she's good? No accountability for the evil act, no legal consequence, not even a social consequence, she just gets money and society is fine with that? How is this permitted to happen?

>>27477041
Claiming to be morally right while condemning people for exercising body autonomy is a good meme
7/10 shit post, did not meet the bar for sound logic to elevate it higher in score

>>27476924
You’re wrong
There are tons of videos of females engaging in consensual castration
Well, tons in the sense of how many videos exist of mutual castration
Visit motherless and see for yourself
There are flat out surgical guides on the 3 different forms of female castration and what their uses are
There are videos out there of women who have had zippers surgically grafted to their pussy lips so they can zip themselves up, complete with total clit removal
If you’re going to make the claim that this is only done to men, at least take the time to research it properly; surely only visiting vanilla, normie sites isn’t going to yield appropriate results

>>27476031
in which context does this shit take place? is it "voluntary work"? is that person being tortured? was he kidnapped? what the actual fuck is that?

>>27476031
>This thread is not worse thing of gif.
yes it is, by far. what the fuck is worse than this?!?

>>27476924
so it's consensual? meanwhile women are brutally mutilated with their clit chopped off in some shithole countries, and just raped and discarded elsewhere
not sure what ur trying to say, but try to get your first world problems clarified, that alone might be enough to resolve things. fucking absolute worthless retard. cry more bitch

>>27477059
>Claiming to be morally right while condemning people for exercising body autonomy is
logical. sorry u are retarded!

>>27476924
Womp womp

>>27476031

CD99512
Full Vid

>>27476924
If you search for clitorectomy on the legit fetish sites you will find plenty of women having this done

>>27477105
Ah the classic snip the green text to create a narrative when you cannot compete with the discussion

>>27477125
Thank you

You got the Ashleigh and Joe vid?

>>27477134
what discussion? ur just showing how retarded you are
unless you can formulate a single fucking deduction, let alone present any premises?
condemning others for harmful behaviour is morrally right. you can't even make any assertion how 'exercising body autonomy' has anything at all to do with morality because you are fucking retarded and know you can't

>>27477215
Men who partake in consensual castration don’t have sex to begin with
Their kink is to be a total slave to a Mistress
They obtain gratification through acts of loyalty, some of them to this extreme
That gratification is on the same spectrum as what sexually active people experience during sex
This is not harmful behavior past the danger of infection, blood loss, nerve damage etc. because these people do not use their sexual organs for any conventional purpose
It is akin to body modification or scarification
It is morally wrong to place a stigma of mental illness on them for the sake of discrediting their own sexual desires
There is nothing the castration is doing to these people that would have been avoided without it, they are grown adults - usually in their late 20s and on
How about you explain what is morally wrong here outside of distribution of obscene material to the public, which is debatable because you really have to go out of your way to find this stuff, it’s not just going to pop into your recommended on PornHub

>>27477059
"Logical soundness" (look it up if you don't know what it means) does not exist in moral arguments, only logical validity, as morality is not based in objective reality. I didn't intend to make a moral argument anyway, I thought it was sort-of apparent already that this is fucked up, and I was asking questions about it.
I don't believe in the value of bodily autonomy above and to the exclusion of all else; preventing extreme and easily-avoided harm is, in some cases, more important to me than bodily autonomy, like with this, suicide, etc. Obviously we differ in that regard.
Anyway, this is the "autonomous" choice of someone who is absurdly mentally-ill. Does that factor into your perceptions of bodily autonomy at all? Or do you just think consent is both necessary and sufficient, borrowing that opinion from our current hyper-individualistic, post-modern zietgeist with no deeper consideration whatsoever, like every other brain-dead teenager who thinks everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want?

>>27477265
>morality is not based in objective reality
if that is your opinion, then you have no argument in the first place. why even ever bother discussing morality if it is not objective? it literally doesn't fucking matter then

>>27477252
>Men who partake in consensual castration don’t have sex to begin with
>Their kink is to be a total slave to a Mistress
>They obtain gratification through acts of loyalty, some of them to this extreme
>That gratification is on the same spectrum as what sexually active people experience during sex
>There is nothing the castration is doing to these people that would have been avoided without it, they are grown adults - usually in their late 20s and on
irrelevant and also untrue
>This is not harmful behavior past the danger of infection, blood loss, nerve damage etc. because these people do not use their sexual organs for any conventional purpose
it's not physically harmful but it is still harmful in many different ways
>It is akin to body modification or scarification
which is harmful
>It is morally wrong to place a stigma of mental illness on them for the sake of discrediting their own sexual desires
no it's not. discrediting their own sexual desires is the morally right thing to do, if it is harmful
>How about you explain what is morally wrong here outside of distribution of obscene material to the public, which is debatable because you really have to go out of your way to find this stuff, it’s not just going to pop into your recommended on PornHub
it's harmful

>>27477281
it literally causes pain so it is physically harmful. bunch of maniacs here lol

>arguing about morality on /gif/ in porn thread
you all need to kill yourselves

this thread is immoral but not illegal
deal with it. not a big deal

File: 1700926232491401.webm (2.54 MB, 640x480)

2.54 MB WEBM

not penis rekt but still fun

>>27477265
>"Logical soundness" (look it up if you don't know what it means) does not exist in moral arguments, only logical validity, as morality is not based in objective reality.
if u can say all that, then how do u explain objective reality in the first place? how do u prove anything is objective? isn't that the problem in western philosophy? the best they got is 'cogito ergo sum' which leads to solipsism and nihilism
the philosophers of today need to do better, way better.

>>27477265
I think it’s fucked up too, but I like researching weird shit in the world and through browsing discussions these people have I’ve concluded they’re not mentally ill; at least not in the sense of that they aren’t happy and productive people
Trying to equate this with suicide is jumping the shark; nothing changes about this persons day to day life after they’ve healed, they didn’t use it to begin with; they aren’t leaving a void behind for friends and family
On the subject of suicide I think assisted suicide is acceptable for extreme circumstances like suffering from terminal illness
I don’t know why you try to undermine me by calling me a retard or insinuating I’m a teenager, I’m probably older than you, it’s not necessary
These are grown adults of sound mind, this behavior really shouldn’t be an issue; they know who they are and what they want, it’s not like they’re trying to change their gender or identity

>>27477281
>irrelevant and also untrue
not from what I’ve seen out of people in these niche communities that do this stuff

>>27477340
ya ur not gonna gish gallop me. it's irrelevant, but also untrue. ur insistence in discussing it without demonstrating it's relevance is logical evidence of you arguing in bad faith, or egoistic retardation. lol
>>27477336
>through browsing discussions these people have I’ve concluded they’re not mentally ill; at least not in the sense of that they aren’t happy and productive people
that makes it worse. their mental illness is of a different kind, likely deep seated
your shitty description of mental illness shows how your misconception of mental health is causing ur retardation
>I don’t know why you try to undermine me by calling me a retard or insinuating I’m a teenager, I’m probably older than you, it’s not necessary
this is the internet. going on the internet, on 4chan, is not necessary for any of us. this website is not necessary. your existence is probably not necessary. kys lol

oh and hey, i choose to be immoral. just because it's immoral doesn't mean i'm not going to do it. lmfao ur all so stupid. cry more bitches

>>27477252
>They don't have sex
irrelevant
>That gratification is on the same spectrum as what sexually active people experience during sex
Based on what? And he's payed this woman to permanently remove a part of his penis, which would reduce the physical sensations of masturbation at the least
>these people do not use their sexual organs for any conventional purpose
I'm pretty sure this guy jerks off; porn addiction and jerking off is probably how he got into this in the first place
>It is morally wrong to place a stigma of mental illness on them for the sake of discrediting their desires
This is irrelevant to what the person you responded to in this post has said thus far (I am the person you first responded to, the one who called it mentally-ill, and >>27477265
). And based on what? The harm the stigma would do to them? As opposed to, I don't know, the harm of the head of his dick being cut off to suit a fleeting fetishistic desire born of a mentally unbalanced state, a desire which is not inborn to this person and is likely a product of his porn addiction and some deep-seated feelings of self-hatred and worthlessness to the opposite sex? Your position is ridiculous.
>nothing castration is doing to these people that would have been avoided without it
Again, at a bare minimum, I'm pretty sure he jerks off (or used to). It also makes permanent that he won't have a partner, won't make love, etc. It takes it from a temporary issue, assuming it is one, to a permanent issue. He essentially can't hold a normal relationship after this and if, when the sexual fugue wears off and he can't masturbate, he changes his mind, he's stuck. It's also an affront to society, but you only seem to think of moral issues through an individualistic lens (poorly, even then) only examining the harm to and life outcomes of (with incorrect analysis) the person it happens to, so the idea of that wouldn't make sense to you

>>27477355
my description of mental illness comes from a practical sense of whether or not it’s a problem to society
it’s a waste of resources to try and “fix” someone who is productively contributing to society and happy
you say I’m arguing in bad faith?
the intent of your message weighed against the words you’ve chosen says otherwise
stop moralfagging in threads you knew would piss you off before you clicked them, that’s mental illness

>>27477406
>society
society is the fucking problem now

>>27477406
>the intent of your message weighed against the words you’ve chosen says otherwise
you have no fucking clue what my intent is, you fucking retard. plus i literally said i choose to act immorally, not a big deal
>stop moralfagging in threads you knew would piss you off before you clicked them, that’s mental illness
LMFAO YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS MORALFAGGING HOLY SHIT KYS

>>27477381
If they don’t have sex to begin with they wouldn’t have a partner or make love
What makes you think he paid for this?
The people in the discussions I’ve browsed through on this stuff are in lifetime commitments to each other albeit a different power dynamic than traditional relationships
You think a guy who lets his mistress cut his dick off masturbates? You think someone that committed to another person does anything without being told to?
You’re showing the same misconceptions I had before I looked into it further
I still think it’s fucked up but whatever, the only issue I can find with it after digging into it is that the act is being distributed to the public and at the end of the day that’s pretty insignificant to me

THE DEATH OF THE WEST. and it's all your fault
not my problem!

>>27477421
kek no society is not the problem
people who do not contribute to society are the problem

destroy ur society and enjoy ur shithole. where i come from it was always a shithole, so idc about helping your wrethed wortyless society when i have my own to worry about.
>>27477441
the west is the problem. you are the problem

>>27477426
I’m not moralfagging at all I’m explaining this from a better position of authority than you and it’s triggering your brain

hunny. the more u try to switch sides, the more you might finally realize that i never picked a side in the first place

>>27477444
omg not the jews!

>>27477252
>>27477381
Cont.
>outside of distribution ... debatable ... have to go out of your way
It's a non-naturally occurring sexual desire acquired through porn (don't even bother trying to argue that sexual predilections can't be acquired through porn consumption and addiction, this entire board proves that wrong). What's the harm of people interested in something adjacent to this seeing it and becoming interested in it? At the least, that they might become like this guy and have it done to them when they otherwise would not have. Furthermore, permitting it results in more of these people having it done to them anyway, even if it didn't increase the number of people with self-destructive fetishes, because any legal barrier to it occurring will reduce the number of people who do this at least somewhat, if not majorly.
>>27477269
I have values and can admit they are ultimately subjective; I don't have the arrogance to assert that the universe agrees with me. It doesn't care if we live or die, cut each others' genitals off, it doesn't give a shit. But I do, and the fact that it doesn't matter objectively doesn't stop me from giving a shit. I don't want a society where this is permitted to exist. If one exists, I want it to change such that this is no longer permitted. Morality is a system of rules that people come up with for how society should operate based on how they feel, and I feel strongly enough about someone's dick head being cut off, someone else profitting from it with quiet governmental approval, and it being put out into society that I wanted to post my questions and rant about it.

Can anyone tell me if this is still legal?

>>27477455
what's wrong with jews? they are from the middle east. the west destroyed itself due to the arrogance of the white man. kikes simply exploited the short sighted arrogance of the west. i don't blame them for other people being weak

>>27477457
>But I do, and the fact that it doesn't matter objectively doesn't stop me from giving a shit.
>I don't want a society where this is permitted to exist. If one exists, I want it to change such that this is no longer permitted.
why should anyone give a fuck about that or care about what you say?
>Morality is a system of rules that people come up with for how society should operate based on how they feel, and I feel strongly
so there is no right or wrong and every society is right in their own way? it doesn't get more post modern than that my friend. and it is wrong

>Can anyone tell me if this is still legal?
>caring about laws
lmfao ur so lost

>>27477451
>position of authority
appeal to authority, genetic fallacy. is this bait? if not, you have to demonstrate the formal logic to refute this informal fallacy. you have not demonstrate any such thing

Found a study about it

>For this question, 188 participants provided responses. The primary theme is to achieve their preferred self (46.3%). Among these, there were three sub-themes: gender dysphoria (25.3%), BID (37.9%), or to be non-sexual (20.7%). Example quotes include “seemed right for me, I do not like having genitals” (P726), “gender dysphoria during school years” (P26), and “I wanted to get away from all of the sexual feelings that I was having all the time” (P32).

>Additional themes which were reported by 7–14% of the respondents included:

>Interaction with another person (e.g., “my wife …encouraged my castration fantasy… She kept encouraging it, as a way to control my sex drive” (P36), and “our washing machine broke had no clean underwear and my mom made me wear my sisters panties for a few days” (P477)).
>Eroticization of castration (e.g., “sexually excited reading [BME] and eunuch archive” (P253), and “I discovered as a gay man that I was exclusively a bottom sexually, and my testicles were a distraction to full enjoyment to gay sex” (P997)).
>From accessing the media including books and the Internet (e.g., “reading on the Internet (BME & other) I found the idea very interesting” (P83), and “going through eunuch.org I learnt about castration and got motivated” (P39)).
>Health reasons that were treated with surgical castration such as testicular torsion, prostate cancer, and acute testicular pain.

>Participants also provided feedback on what they believed as disadvantages for lacking genitals (173 responses). A large proportion (32.9%) did not feel there is any disadvantage in not having genitals, such as “cannot think of any” (P45), “none” (P586), and “nothing” (P979). Themes reported by 8–26% of participants were:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10102058/

>>27477457
If it’s acquired through copious consumption of porn why was this being practiced in Roman and Ottoman times?
Not to say porn won’t shape a persons fetishes
This board is a clusterfuck, I don’t think it reflects accurately because it’s been proven there are Discords dedicated to flooding it with BBC, cuckholding, trans, sissy etc.
same way pornhub had this sudden shift to incest porn years ago
People who do this are consistently tried for criminal behavior, too
At least the ones who distribute it and get caught

>>27477479
yah it’s bait, it’s been bait since the first reply kek
my break is over in a few minutes, thanks for the entertainment and helping push this god awful thread closer to the bump limit

>>27477503
i kneel

>>27477311
Truly proving anything is objective is unfortunately impossible because perceiving things necessarily involves subjectivity. I don't think there is anything in the realm of truly truth seeking philosophies (at least those regarding the nature of morality and purpose) beyond nihilism, though I wish that weren't the case
>>27477406
You don't need to spend resources trying to fix them, you can simply ban it, fewer people will acquire this predilection, and the mutilation will happen less.
>>27477430
I was assuming he paid for it, but for the sake of the point that the woman happens to profit off of it it's kind-of irrelevant.
And yes, I think he masturbates, or at least used to. This is sexual in nature, after all. And again, I think he got into this through porn addiction. I'm just not going to accept that people are not mentally damaged for getting into and by this (doesn't matter to me what they say, there's a major motivation for sunk-cost with them here, plus they're addicts), and at this point, that's a level of irrationality I'm comfortable with having.
>>27477474
No, I'm not a moral relativist. Moral relativism is a retarded assertion that what societies decide are right and wrong ARE OBJECTIVELY right and wrong within those societies; objective right and wrong unfortunately do not exist. Objective means without perspective; it means that, were no one there to pass judgement, something would still be. Morality does not exist in that state; morality is the judgements people pass with respect to oughts and ought nots, governed typically through a combination of evolutionary psychology, personal desire, group-think; not via laws of physics. Even though I may care about what I see as morality, it is not an objective thing. That's all.

>>27477495
So it is illegal in some parts of the West. That's good. Penis removal wasn't practiced in Roman and Ottoman times in the same way, and I'm gonna say that this form of it (which is fetishized by the individual getting his dick head cut off) probably happened less or not at all. I think it's reasonable, regardless, to assume that it's an acquired sexual desire for many of these guys, and I don't see where else they would get that except through porn.
>>27477503
Glad to have messed up the thread with you.

>>27476031
Why no eunuch maker? They're the best ones. Fuck getting castrated by some dumb whore, it should only be done by another man.

>>27476932
He wanted to lose his cock in the ultimate moment of pain and pleasure combined. Good stuff.

Whole thread is shit with nonces bickering instead of posting shit. Fuck you OP

>>27477541
>Truly proving anything is objective is unfortunately impossible because perceiving things necessarily involves subjectivity.
you don't understand subjectivity like you think you do. it has objective mechanisms. maybe western philosophy is retarded? maybe someone tried combining analytical philosophy with phenomenology and 'cartesian skepticism' but this is actually kindergarden shit when shit like christianity and buddhism is perfectly logical, without even trying to be. it's the fault of the west for getting stuck on doubting the ego and settling on this bullshit cogito ergo sum crap
>I don't think there is anything in the realm of truly truth seeking philosophies (at least those regarding the nature of morality and purpose) beyond nihilism, though I wish that weren't the case
there's your arrogance speaking. because the west already figured out everything right? kys

>>27477805
/gif/ is a text board now, deal with it

>>27477541
>No, I'm not a moral relativist.
yes u are
>Moral relativism is a retarded assertion that what societies decide are right and wrong ARE OBJECTIVELY right and wrong within those societies;
no. moral relativism is a rejection of objectivity, and says everything is subjective. it's like postmodernism. which is what u beleive without even realizing.
this is very typical though. i have noticed JBP described christianity in a way that sounds post modern yet he criticizes it all the time. even now he bases the value of christianity on pragmatism, which is still half way to modernism but still postmodernist considering the lack of objectivity considering the domain is no longer involving physicality
>objective right and wrong unfortunately do not exist.
yes they do, u are retarded
>Objective means without perspective;
what it really means depends on the context. sometimes it means universal, sometimes it means independent of perspectives. sometimes it's both of these, sometimes it's something else entirely
>it means that, were no one there to pass judgement, something would still be.
not necessarily.
and logically the west is stuck on solipsism/nihilism anyways, by your own admission. so you literally can't logically prove anything beyond your own subjective experience (according to the west), so... you are using the wrong definition of objectivity here. reconsider the context...

>Morality does not exist in that state; morality is the judgements people pass with respect to oughts and ought nots, governed typically through a combination of evolutionary psychology, personal desire, group-think; not via laws of physics. Even though I may care about what I see as morality, it is not an objective thing. That's all.
this is gibberish

anyways i appreciate u trying to respond. would have been boring. but also it's off topic
>>27477311 I just HAD to ask this to you though

>>27477541
>I don't think there is anything in the realm of truly truth seeking philosophies (at least those regarding the nature of morality and purpose) beyond nihilism
and you completely missed the point of it all. how can you prove objectivity?

how can you be sure science is not based on assumptions? we have to assume the past causes the future (causality), and this assumption led us to quantum mechanics which shows that there isn't enough information in the past to determine where an elementary particle will be when it's super position is reduced to a single position, or as they say 'when the wave function collapses' (quantum indeterminacy)

>>27477805
lol you wanted to see some guys getting castrated and now you're mad you can't? boohoo faggot

>>27477912
Just looked it up. Guess I would be by some definitions, though I always thought it incorporated the belief that what a society says is moral goes and should be respected, even by people who belong to other cultures that have other beliefs (I don't believe this; other cultures' moral frameworks aren't inherently entitled to respect). "Relativism" used the way it apparently is I think is something of a misnomer, then, because I don't actually think that right and wrong are relative; I think they aren't real.
>objective right and wrong do exist
They unfortunately do not, at least not without a god or something which can dictate them objectively (because the physical world does not)
>objective has different meanings
bit of an obfuscation, truth-focused "objective" is not about everyone agreeing with each other; if everyone agreed that the sun revolved around the earth, some aspect of that could be said to be "objective" in the universal sense since they all share the experience of believing that, but it would still be false in reality. That sort of consensus "objectivity" isn't the kind I'm thinking of, nor is it truly objective, even. Maybe "tue" is a better word for me to use here so we don't get mired in a definitional argument.
>not necessarily
Same point as above; I don't think of consensus of experience to actually be proof of the objective state of something; if one person were to suddenly change their mind, the "objectivity" of that kind would suddenly go away, while the truth value of whatever the belief was would remain the same (i.e. does the sun revolve around the earth?). Opinions do not determine true reality, except when the subject being discussed is the opinions themselves (i.e. Bill believes x. True or false?).
>can't logically prove
That's the problem with philosophy, and with invoking logic in any philosophical discussion.

>>27477252
if its just the unused cock that gets snipped well ok, but balls are more than just a cum factory. Its involved in many endocrine processes and a lack of sex hormones causes various health issues.

>though I always thought it incorporated the belief that what a society says is moral goes and should be respected, even by people who belong to other cultures that have other beliefs
that's just called sympathy, or maybe empathy. good to have a solid philosophy to encourage such things but it's not necessary. the moral relativistic postmodern shit is the trash philosophy that gives libtards pseudointellectual fake empathy lol. it just comes across as gaslighting. anyways i digress
>>objective right and wrong do exist
>They unfortunately do not, at least not without a god or something which can dictate them objectively (because the physical world does not)
yes they do, and it has nothing to do with the physical world. which u can't even prove exists, without making assumptions!

>>27478048
>"Relativism" used the way it apparently is I think is something of a misnomer, then, because I don't actually think that right and wrong are relative; I think they aren't real.
well the context here of what is 'right' and 'wrong' is about better decision making.
it's not misnomers here, sometimes it's important to have semantics clarified though.

likewise, it's not an obfuscation, need to clarify meaning/context of words here
>some aspect of that could be said to be "objective" in the universal sense
when i said universal, i was not talking about consensus at all whatsoever. regardless, it depends on the context

>>can't logically prove
>That's the problem with philosophy, and with invoking logic in any philosophical discussion.
no that's the problem with the west. you are the problem. retard. i don't mind to explain things either way... i would if u ever fucking asked questions. kys
i used the socratic method to lead the conversation and asked u questions. because of how it works, anything u knew that i didn't, you could have told me already and we would have had a productive conversation. but if nothing new, as expected, the convo went my way.

>Can anyone tell me if this is still legal?
literally the only question you asked. some sarcastic retarded bullshit. arrogance. learn to fucking ask questions you stupid fucks. even if u already know, do socratic method like i do. so fucking simple.

>>27478055
truly the answers that we needed

>>27477912
Cont.
Ironically, the nihilistic, "reject our ability to logically prove anything" position is the most logical. A lot of people who think about morality come to this conclusion now, not merely because their brains have unknowingly been marinating in the nihilism and post-modernism of our times for all of their lives, but also because it's the most empirical position on morality that you can have. Plus, living in a society without consistent values, beliefs on appropriate behavior, etc. is destabilizing in a way which makes people realize that morality isn't real, and that moral beliefs are merely peoples' opinions.
I don't like this, by the way. I don't think people are equipped to handle that their are no true moral rules; I think we're just supposed to believe that the rules of the tribe we live in are correct. That's obviously what we're evolved to do, it's best for society, too, but modern society and people asking too many philosophical questions about the nature of truth and reality screw it up.
>gibberish
I'm attempting to describe what morals are and where they come from. They are beliefs about what people should and should not do (ex: Is it ok for me to kill this random guy? He hasn't done anything to me btw), and what people think with respect to what we should and shouldn't do usually comes down to evolutionary psych (ex: most people are instinctively compelled to view wanton murder/rape as bad; it's bad for the group, bad for them if it's accepted, etc., but before they even think about it on that level, they have an instinctive negative reaction to it rooted in evolution), selfishness (people trying to morally justify something so they can do it/would be allowed to do something similar), or viewing things as morally right or wrong in an instinctive bandwagon way (because those around them do and it's safe to go with the majority).

>>27478144
>Ironically, the nihilistic, "reject our ability to logically prove anything" position is the most logical
no it really isn't. why don't you explore the (faulty) premises for once?!?

This is what every woman fantasizes about every waking (and not) moment of every single day.

>>27478177
exquisite bait

>>27478144
>but also because it's the most empirical position
and you trust empiricism? another flawed philosophy
>Plus, living in a society without consistent values, beliefs on appropriate behavior, etc. is destabilizing in a way which makes people realize that morality isn't real, and that moral beliefs are merely peoples' opinions.
do i really need to hold ur hand? just say there's objective parameters that allows society to sustain itself. past these thresholds, as anything outside of the parameters would result in the collapse of society
so then u can say, objectively speaking, a society needs 'consistent values, beliefs on appropriate behavior, etc' and even if these things have to be approached subjectively, society has to objectively exist within these thresholds where there is consistency

anyways this doesn't give any insight to the core issue here about finding true objectivity anywhere
>I don't like this, by the way. I don't think people are equipped to handle that their are no true moral rules;
it's fine either way. morality is not the issue actually, this is a brainlet take. it's the other stuff that is at risk from the lack of objectivity. but also by coincidence and the fact that everything can be described objectively, morality can also be objective. it doesn't matter either way though lol

anyways. this is total bullshit bickering. idk how much hand holding i can do for you now

>but modern society and people asking too many philosophical questions about the nature of truth and reality screw it up.
it's better to destroy society than be enslaved by ignorance. KILL YOURSELF

>>gibberish
>I'm attempting to describe
ur being arrogant as fuck. i don't think i asked you to describe that. i sure fucking asked you other shit that you have a hard time responding to!

oh I did ask, why should people care? well it was a rhetorical question. people should not care about anything if they don't understand objectivity. it really would be better to evolve then

okay so why does George Berkeley show up when u search empiricism, yet his immaterialism (and idealism in general) is dogmatically dismissed (without any refutation) in universities?

>discussing morality and objectivity is dangerous to our democracy!
like nigga look at the thread we are in. media is full of demoralization and culture is so warped that bnwo and white genocide is being normalized

i think we can fucking handle some discussions on philosophy. how much of a gigakike are you, really?

>>27478177
>>27478179
Not bait. Honestly held belief. The only reason they don't is the fear of consequence. Although they only have to cry rape, abuse or temporary insanity to get away with it. There is no reason for them not to. Their only value is their cunt, they know it and the ultimate cruelty is to deny men the ability to cash in on that value.

>>27478177

I am a eunuch (male). You should see how nice women who know I have no testicles treat me. Some of them even speak to me like I am a little kid. Lots of "awwws" to anything I say, lot's of "sweeties" LOL! There is much truth in your statement.

>>27477971
You can't. That's the problem with objectivity and with being as logical as possible. Yes, I believe that science is based, ultimately, on assumptions. On the ground level, scientific theory incorporates our perceptions of the empirical world. Perception cannot be separated from subjectivity. It has more internal consistency than a lot of things, but it isn't an exception to the limitations of our abilities to truly understand the nature of reality.
>>27477930
No problem. Like I said, I want to derail this thread if possible.
>>27478116
>yes they do
But how? You haven't provided an argument for this yet.
>physical world ... can't prove exists
True. It's merely the least removed from what I can perceive as empirically real, but that doesn't make it real. The argument stands, though. Morality seems to me not to be real.
>better decision making
Ok. In that case, I certainly have opinions on what would and would not be good decisions for the guy getting part of his dick cut off to make (which I think is a bad decision, and am willing to pass condemnation on equal to or exceeding that which might be passed by someone who believes they are objectively right to assert that what is happening there is wrong, but I do not assert that my position is objectively right. I will act and make decisions as though I believe that it is, I just recognize it unfortunately isn't)
>Socratic method to lead
>if nothing new, as expected, the convo went my way
>>27478122
>only question you asked
All of my questions were in the first post in the chain>>27477041
None of them were answered to my knowledge. I don't mind that too much, but you can't say they weren't there.
As for us not discussing something that was new to you, I hate to burst your bubble, but nothing you've said has been new to me thus far either, aside from the semantic particulars of definitions of "moral relativism" and "objective", which I just looked up and learned from Wikipedia.

>>27478147
Provide an argument that it is a faulty premise (you still have yet to do this).
>>27478183
>trust empiricism? Flawed
Yes, they all are. Again.
>Parameters for sustaining itself ... can't past these points ... so to exist, objectively, it needs these things
We're talking about morality and objective right and wrong. You've inserted a goal (a very reasonable one) into a search for the objective existance of rules for things and declared "Look! I found a (conditional and only applying when pursuing a goal, though no such goal exists objectively) rule!" Societies' existances is, unfortunately, not an objective law of the universe. There is nothing, objectively, proving that societies should or should not exist. That goal is subjective. You've found an (obvious) rule that needs to be followed in order for something you subjectively desire to happen In the context of what we understand about how it works (which is not objective, making this ultimately an assumption). Like: "In order to live, I need to consume fluids!" Yes. Wow. Brilliant. Very good. But how do you turn this into a morally objective thing? You don't. There is no reason why you must or mustn't exist, or society must or mustn't exist, nor can you truly know that no alternative means exists outside of your understanding, though you are likely correct to assume that one does not.
>better to destroy society than be enslaved by ignorance
No one is arguing this, you mental midget. I do not want the majority of people to hold my opinions
>didn't ask
Don't care. Your point can immediately be turned around on you anyway: I didn't ask you about any of the stuff you said, either.
What was the stuff I had trouble responding to?
I'm getting the sense I've probably had the thoughts you're having already, based on what your "handholding" seems to be about. But you can attempt to teach it to me at any time
>>27478189
Is this addressed at me? What idea is this responding to?
>>27478263
Democracy? Wtf?

>entire thread is people /pol/ posting
>there are only like 5 relevant posts

>>27478429
Be nice if the "wall of text" folk would let up for a bit ...
Kinda wanted to see more from
>>27478177
and
>>27478282
But this is /b 2.0 ...

>>27478303
>>27478263
I seriously don't understand what this is supposed to mean. No, maybe I do. Dangerous to our democracy? I'm racist, I believe in the heritability of IQ, I hate jews, and there was fraud in the last election. Do you get who you're talking to, now? Has that been the issue this whole time? Might be why you thought you were teaching me something, come to think of it.
And I'm discussing philosophy right now, I'm not opposed to doing so. I just think the most objective form of discussion about it leads to nihilism, which is unfortunate; bad for the things we both want, like functional society.
What is the objective basis for morality?
Alternatively, feel free to answer any of my original questions>>27477041
though I think your answers will probably be similar to the opinions I already have about those things
>>27478429
Yes. I'm ruining your shitty, disgusting thread. You want to see someone's dick getting cut off, go stand in front of your bathroom mirror and do it yourself (honestly don't, though. Get some help)

>>27478279
literally don't know what ur saying
>The only reason they don't is the fear of
don't what?

>>27478500
Entire thread is about:
>the cut most cruel
Seriously, no idea what I meant?

>>27478563
ur saying women would mutilate men's genitals but they don't because? because they would get knocked the fuck out with broken bones bitch. the fuck u talking about

>>27478279
But why would they want to? Power and sadism? You can't seriously believe this about most women. Most people don't think this way.

>>27478587
Broken bones heal. You get up after a punch. Temporary.
That one time cut, even repaired, exists for his entire life.

>>27478636
Of course I do. It is their "go to" threat. The 1st place their mind goes when things aren't how/what they want.

>>27478663
I immediately hate anyone named Lorena on the off chance her married name might have been Bobbitt. Guilty until proven innocent, but that holds up for most women in general.

>>27478663
so true xD hah no actually u get smashed in the head and die. u know some people don't care about jail, free food, free place to stay, free education. a relative of mine knows a guy who was accused as terrorist for no reason it was a huge thing here. solitary confinement before getting fully proven in court that sort of thing. eventually nigga got a degree in jail yo, wtf? seems legit af

Thanks for ruining gif with your gay Blog posts, you newfag nigger worshippers

>>27478303
>You can't.
you keep saying that, maybe u should try showing how. how many times have be been doing this back and forth? unless you've finally asked...
>Yes, I believe that science is based, ultimately, on assumptions.
it doesn't have to be
>Perception cannot be separated from subjectivity.
that doesn't mean that it can't be objective
>It has more internal consistency than a lot of things, but it isn't an exception to the limitations of our abilities to truly understand the nature of reality.
the limitations are just limiting beliefs
>No problem. Like I said, I want to derail this thread if possible.
ironically enough, this gives a legitimate excuse to go back and forth exorbitantly

>But how? You haven't provided an argument for this yet.
well you haven't really asked, i'd answer specific questions.
furthermore, i already specifically mentioned how the concept of objectivity can be applied differently depending on the context.
>True. It's merely the least removed from what I can perceive as empirically real, but that doesn't make it real. The argument stands, though. Morality seems to me not to be real.
yes, but no. it's about pattern recognition. and there are possibly many things that are fundamentally true in universal ways. some say things like the laws of logic, but those axioms do need to be explored with nuance to find what is truly self evident. a lot of work needs to be done but it's actually really fucking simple.

>the semantic particulars of definitions of "moral relativism" and "objective", which I just looked up and learned from Wikipedia.
oh we just getting started. which is why i'm hoping you and generally people can figure things out on their own. idk why not.
that's how socratic method words btw, it's not about digging for new things, but it's about leading the conversation.
my point there is that i would be happy if there were new things, actually it's just a preemptive defense incase anyone wants to argue that it is disingenuous.. :)

>>27478303
>Ok. In that case, I certainly have opinions on what would and would not be good decisions for the guy getting part of his dick cut off to make (which I think is a bad decision, and am willing to pass condemnation on equal to or exceeding that which might be passed by someone who believes they are objectively right to assert that what is happening there is wrong, but I do not assert that my position is objectively right. I will act and make decisions as though I believe that it is, I just recognize it unfortunately isn't)
i hate to be a condescending cunt (no i don't i love it) but... is english ur first language or what. see how fucking easy that was?
anyways. yes, it's true. i was already thinking about this conversation and reminded myself, truth really isn't all that powerful. it could be if ur clever, but u can do manipulations and illusions shit if ur clever enough as well (and the big problem in this world is that it's too easy to be evil when ur smart, but still idk exactly it's easy to know on an individual basis what's the problem with the lack of intuition duh). logic is pretty easy though it's like 1+1 and i think everyone is just not thinkin right idk man, except some peaople i could make a list but that's besides the point but i'll say i haven't found any legit people focusing on philosophy specifically, there is a math phd guy though on the right track. and anyways i'm not complaining (not for myself anyways) since i can and have talked to philosophy professors, would have to get involved in university again etc but i'm focusing on other stuff right now

>>27478709
The dead don't suffer.
One might be dead but that is hardly a punishment. He on the other hand will live in his own personal hell for the rest of his life.
She got away. The FAR easier of the two.

>>27478779
jail sounds like heaven bro

>>27478785
She would agree. Particularly knowing he will experience that pain over and over; everyday, every piss, every horny thought, etc. She is feed, housed and 99% free from responsibility. She already won the war.

>>27478794
what war? epic larp bro

>103 posts
>6 files
KILL YOURSELF REDDITORS

Anons waxing philosophical about penectomy is a level of autism I’ve not seen in a while

>>27478734
Ruining gif? This place is a shithole. Who are you fooling?
>>27478753
>You haven't asked
I have now. I don't think you'll be able to provide a sensible answer
>doesn't mean it can't be objective
It means that you can't know or demonstrate that it is
>specific questions
A question of suitable specificity has been asked. As for objectivity being applied differently in different contexts, if you're implying I should ask you about that, I didn't ask about it because the way you describe it leads me to believe that you won't have a sensible answer. I'm not going to engage with literally everything you try to steer things towards on my own. I don't find what you're saying to be infinitely wise and worthy of begging for every morsel of. Just provide the information if you wish for it to enter the discussion
>pattern recognition ... many things have a universal element of truth
Is this just moral realism? I figured this is what you believe. We are at an impasse on that. You cannot derive objective rules of morality based on what works and doesn't work; it doesn't mean that the universe believes such things are morally right or wrong. Math, and other things you might assert as universally true, doesn't make morals. Morals are value judgements, largely about actions, not evaluations of what does and doesn't function. The functioning of something needs to be, itself, established as something which morally "should" happen (without perspective, which is an impossibility by definition) before any rules that must universally be followed to achieve it can be said to be moral laws of reality. The easiest way to do this is by using God as a substitute for reality and asserting that because he has dictated that it is morally right for it to happen, it is a moral law of reality that the outcome is right, then working backwards to assert that things which must happen to cause the morally right outcome are also morally right, though even this has flaws.

>>27478825
As in; "He/she has won the battle but already lost the war" Pyrrhic battle. He lost too much to call her in jail/dead a victory. He lost regardless.

>>27478769
lol why would u help the west fix their problems. better to go to university in russia or something. fuck the west

>>27477130
Where? I can't find shit, even on motherless.

>>27476089
Porn adiction. Keep it up faggots

>>27478769
>is english ur first language or what. see how fucking easy that was?
Yes. What was this supposed to be?
>the rest of that
Is it not yours? Your thoughts aren't translating into sentences very well here.
Whether easier or not, i think people are more likely to end up being evil if they're dumb, or so it seems. Dumb people are more likely to commit crimes and do other things that are widely regarded as "evil", after all, even if smart people can think of more ways to perform evil. They probably have a harder time grasping how their actions affect others, which makes them more likely to do harm.

Penectomy;

There is no punishment befitting such a crime AND there is no crime befitting such a punishment.

>>27478910
more like Pyrrhonic battle

>>27478676
many men are like that. but not most. this has nothing to do with genders, but it's not exactly common buddy
violent thoughts of people who piss u off is actually very common tho. just idk about the specifics lmfao. actually the only person who admitted it to me was already diagnosed schizo so lol.

>>27478997
>smart people can think of more ways to perform evil. They probably have a harder time grasping how their actions affect others, which makes them more likely to do harm.
why would they care about how their actions affect others? they are well aware. it's very easy to take advantage of people. were u born yesterday?

>>27478899
>It means that you can't know or demonstrate that it is
u can. it's called pattern recognition. but again, demonstrate to who? first find pure deduction to escape solipsism
>Just provide the information if you wish for it to enter the discussion
why should i if no one asks?
>Is this just moral realism?
no it's foundation of science.
>I figured this is what you believe
i'm literally not talking about morality

>Math, and other things you might assert as universally true
um what? prove it. how do you prove anything is universally true? that's what i've been fucking talking about this whole time...
>doesn't make morals.
if u actually understood how 'universal truths' worked then it absolutely would
>Morals are ... not evaluations of what does and doesn't function.
it can be
>The functioning of something needs to be, itself, established as something which morally "should" happen
yes
>(without perspective, which is an impossibility by definition)
what definition? u should be careful about your presumptions. there's a reason philosophers tend to deliberate on definitions and semantics of terms. sometimes it's a distraction but sometimes it's important
>before any rules that must universally be followed to achieve it can be said to be moral laws of reality.
no, you can go the other way. not sure what u mean here
>The easiest way to do this is by using God as a substitute for reality
wait, what is reality in the first place?
God? what? man. u want to be unbiased and approach the truth, not to seek morals but to seek objectivity for the sake of it
>and asserting that because he has dictated that it is morally right for it to happen, it is a moral law of reality that the outcome is right, then working backwards to assert that things which must happen to cause the morally right outcome are also morally right, though even this has flaws.
truly islamic. truly talmudic. u clearly don't understand christianity at all.

>>27479196
It's built into us as a species.
I'll reference chimps and apes here but when there is a challenge then a victor there are 3 things ALWAYS considered:
1) Face: obliterate the individual
2) Genitals: end one, end a line
3) Hands: unable to create/destroy

That brain is still in us, always will be.

>>27478400
>Provide an argument that it is a faulty premise (you still have yet to do this).
well i implied it multiple times. the approach to be skeptical about everything and see what truth remains is the way to go, but cogito ergo sum is just scratching the surface
>it's the fault of the west for getting stuck on doubting the ego and settling on this bullshit cogito ergo sum crap
the problem is the lack of rigor in the deductions. think carefully about the presumptions in play

>We're talking about morality and objective right and wrong.
yes that's one part of the discussion. but the question i can't help but ask about is the nature of objectivity itself, that's my focus. considering u seem to understand how logic works well enough so this conversation shouldn't be too difficult...
>Societies' existances is, unfortunately, not an objective law of the universe.
why do you keep treating physicality as some ultimate context when you already say that physical universe can't really be logically proven anyways.
considering this substantially different context, the meaning of the word objective, the way the concept of objectivity is applied here...
the only way it can be coherent is about some plausible universality as opposed to 'independent from mind'
u have to first prove that there even is anything independent from mind before u can logically access that context in the first place
when 'cogito ergo sum' implies solipsism is more logically correct than anything else? any context outside of solipsism is already incoherent?
>That goal is subjective.
it can still be objective
>search for the objective existance of rules for things
focusing on objectivity itself resolves all other things. like morality, and a secure foundation for science

okay man ur like mixing two different things here. objective morality and scientific parameters

>>27478493
no that's not the issue, lol labels are meaningless once u get into any nuance, which seems impossible for most people apparently. absolutely tragic
but well anyways u said earlier that it
>but modern society and people asking too many philosophical questions about the nature of truth and reality screw it up.
and when im like no ignorance is bad u said this
>I do not want the majority of people to hold my opinions
so idk what to make of that. i'm gonna assume u don't exactly mean that

>What is the objective basis for morality?
what is objective anything? lol, first figure that one out then the rest is cake. duh.

>>27478400
>Provide an argument that it is a faulty premise (you still have yet to do this).
the approach to be skeptical about everything and see what truth remains is the way to go, but cogito ergo sum is just scratching the surface
first of all, cogito ergo sum is wrong. i think therefore i am? no, i might not exist... it's a faulty premise.
there must be something that exists that allows me to think, but that doesn't suggest whether that thing is me or not
it's more like 'i think therefore something exists' but how can u be sure what that something is? maybe u are watching a movie. why are u sure of ur own existence?
buddhism says u do not exist, so do other perspectives. there are philosophies based in idealism that deny existence, so to speak

>What was the stuff I had trouble responding to?
>>27477888 <-- why did u ignore this message?
>Is this addressed at me? What idea is this responding to?
well if u could answer that one, that's more than enough and we can ignore everything else.
i said earlier this
>christianity and buddhism is perfectly logical
George Berkeley's philosophy of immaterialism is an example of christianity being perfectly logical, and it is also an example of idealism.
and of the ways how buddhism can be perfectly logical, some of those ways can also be examples of idealism as well.

>>27479183
Skepticism would have helped/prevented. No one should trust another implicitly. Lowering your guard doesn't mean you take your eyes off of them.

>>27478400
okay man ur like mixing two different things here. objective morality and scientific parameters
>Societies' existances is, unfortunately, not an objective law of the universe. There is nothing, objectively, proving that societies should or should not exist. That goal is subjective.
>You've found an (obvious) rule that needs to be followed in order for something you subjectively desire to happen
okay wait you still missed the point about parameters
>We're talking about morality and objective right and wrong.
yes that's one part of the discussion.
>You've inserted a goal (a very reasonable one)
this part i am focusing on something else, it's not about the goals. sure u can say goals are subjective, but the likelihood of achieving a goal can be determined with the research and science and whatnot
>>You've found an (obvious)
and why is it obvious? because of teh scienez. so need to look into the nuances of the foundation of science
>In the context of what we understand about how it works (which is not objective, making this ultimately an assumption)
it could and should be objective if there is a logically secure foundation
i already mentioned. if u like empiricism, u should look into berkeley's immaterialism. it's also more logically secure, i don't see why anyone can't make the deductions from cogito ergo sum, solipsism, to immaterialism, buddhism, other forms of idealism and the like. i've done it myself it's too easy. ppl like buddha prolly did these thought experiments not a big deal, and of course decartes
there are objective mechanisms to subjectivity. just look, in phenomenology there is the subject and the object. this is self evident. if there is any conscious observer, they will also have these mechanisms of perception. there's ur first inference. now you keep going
>Like: "In order to live, I need to consume fluids!" Yes. Wow. Brilliant. Very good.
ye

>>27478400
>But how do you turn this into a morally objective thing? You don't.
u can with a foundation of objectivity
>There is no reason why you must or mustn't exist, or society must or mustn't exist,
i guess. but it's pretty simple. at the gate, u ask, do u want this society to continue to exist? okay great welcome. otherwise bye
then maybe look into anyone who is being deceptive and whatnot

>nor can you truly know that no alternative means exists outside of your understanding,
wdym?
>Don't care.
ok js
>Your point can immediately be turned around on you anyway: I didn't ask you about any of the stuff you said, either.
u kinda did. i can provide specific cause and effect relationships for all the things that i have done :) feel free to ask.

and the point there, i know ur not some random fool so i checked the cause and effect. and there it was, i made a rhetorical question and was not expecting an answer but u explained how u think all that social science bull shit is somehow an explanation for morality in any subjective sense for society or whatever the fuck u were implying lol. that's a whole different conversation for why social science department are utterly fucked. and values comes from culture and stuff, in the different societies. but it doesn't matter that i don't agree with ur representation of how moral values emerge in society, because that's completely besides the point. at this point. maybe later it will be very relevant once u care to consider the foundations. because without objectivity this is just retarded. west is so fucked lol

>>27478860
the wall just got 10 feet higher

>>27479245
yo but srsly why don't guns use stun bullets. cause u don't want too many people in jail that's why
chimps are more human if they focus on hands. lmao. shoot to kill. HOO RAH

>>27479252
>>27479268
>>27479268
>>27479274
>>27479274
Is this like the biggest copy pasta in 4chan history? Two insufferable douche bags quoting each other, referencing nothing and bumping a dead thread?

Wait ... forgot where I was for a minute.

*humane... because humans aren't humane anymore

>>27479291
yes. this is total bullshit bickering. idk how much hand holding i can do now
anyways can't ever say i didn't try

>>27476664
You have to wonder the origin of such a thing.

>>27478997
u should learn other languages buddy.
>>27479345
english is a very autistic language based on vocabulary phrases and idioms and only niggers and shakespeare can use it how they want. nah mean nigga mofka bumbleclut

i want to learn languages with tenses but i also want to learn german, idk if it has tenses or vocabulary or what but they do seem autistic af lol they got a lot of philosophers could be cool but the greeks were more than enough anyways

>>27479260
wisest words of all

>>27479244
>>27479246
These are both you, correct?
It looks a lot like moral realism.
>pure deduction to escape solipsism
cogito ergo sum is the only duduction we can be entirely confident in, that's part of the problem. And if not: Present one
>it's foundation of science
The foundation of science is testing ideas about reality, typically empirically
>how do you prove anything is universally true?
You cannot. You likely come closest through empirical examination and coming upwith sytems that accurately describe what you've examined
>if you actually understood how 'universal truths' worked then it [math] absolutely would [make morals]
We clearly do not have the same perceptions of what "universal", "truths", and "morals" are, and you refuse to explain your position, so I don't think this dissonance will be resolved. Your definitions appear to be so different that we basically can't even have a discussion about these things unless you explain your silly views
>truly islamic. truly talmudic ... u don't clearly understand christianity
I really don't think the average Christian is thinking of this in the way that you do, meaning they wouldn't either, and I'm largely unfamiliar with what scholars of Christianity have to say about it. So your position is Christian? Or has overlap with Christianity? At which points?
>>27479246
>I implied it muliple times
Clearly that isn't working, just provide the argument. I'm thinking it won't stand up to scrutiny
>think carefully about the presumptions in play [in cogito ergo sum]
I honestly usually reject cogito ergo sum just for the sake of absolute consistency, but let's do it:
That my experiencing anything is evidence that I exist, "I" also being assumed to be separate as an individual rather than part of something
>the nature of objectivity itself
What's the angle? We're not individuals? We're all a part of one greater thing, and thus our perceptions are objective? Spell it out

>>27479425
>you refuse to explain your position
you refuse to ask. i have explained many times. you just ignore it

>>27479425
>I really don't think the average Christian is thinking of this in the way that you do, meaning they wouldn't either, and I'm largely unfamiliar with what scholars of Christianity have to say about it. So your position is Christian? Or has overlap with Christianity? At which points?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_idealism
just stop talking.
and btw apparently this is also empiricism, but at the same time physical reality does not exist. just one example of non retarded thinking, not a big deal

>>27479425
>I honestly usually reject cogito ergo sum just for the sake of absolute consistency, but let's do it:
then why did u refuse to engage all the fucking times i mentioned it?

if you think it's wrong then you tell us what is right?
see look i'm asking you the moment you indicated deviance from mainstream.

>What's the angle? We're not individuals? We're all a part of one greater thing, and thus our perceptions are objective? Spell it out
i spelled it out so many times. in many different contexts.

why did you ignore my context? how much more do you want me to spell it out?

>>why do you keep treating physicality as some ultimate context when you already say that physical universe can't really be logically proven anyways.
>>considering this substantially different context, the meaning of the word objective, the way the concept of objectivity is applied here...
>>the only way it can be coherent is about some plausible universality as opposed to 'independent from mind'
>>u have to first prove that there even is anything independent from mind before u can logically access that context in the first place
>>when 'cogito ergo sum' implies solipsism is more logically correct than anything else? any context outside of solipsism is already incoherent?
are you too retarded to understand these words? u can ask questions u know. why the fuck do u keep engaging when u won't ask questions? white man loves to bicker

and nonwhites are retarded. we're doomed

>>27479246
>why do you keep treating physicality as some ultimate context
It's as close as we appear to be able to come to objective reality. "Independent from mind" I will accept as what I mean, more or less. I cannot confirm that the material world exists, I can only assume. Within that assumed reality, it appears extremely consistent, hence it seems most likely to be true of the things I encounter, but may still be false.
>any context outside of solipsism is already incoherent?
Ahh. That you put a question mark at the end of that tells me that you are not a native english speaker. That must be why you asked if I was. I think some of this disagreement's poor potential for resolution is coming from a mild language barrier.
>>27479252
Did you mean that "it's better to destroy society than be enslaved by ignorance" unironically? I thought you were saying that sarcastically in reference to what you thought my views were, since you followed it with kys. Do you actually believe ignorance is that bad? Society at large can't handle moral nihilism being the standard belief and still function well, that's why I said I don't want people to share my views (I was thinking specifically of that view).
>what is objective anything?
We're still doing the run around, huh. You're the one who believes it's discernable, and I don't. Provide your answer, I do not see one that works and do not think yours will.
>no, I might not exist... it's a faulty premise
Agreed
>therefore something exists
Kind of did this before seeing this post, here>>27479425

Blah blah blah blah blah blah

Post more penis slicing videos.

>>27477078
Post 3 (three) videos of females doing this.
You literally cannot, as another Anon said you can't find anything on motherless, retard.

>>27479252
Didn't notice >>27477888 and then figured it was just moral realism using common themes between things which work to assert moral truth
>George Berkeley's philosophy of immaterialism
Unfamiliar to me, but from what I saw when I looked it up, it seems to be very unlikely to be true. While there is no objective proof that material things exist, Berkeley also has no proof that they do not exist. Given that we can't know things objectively, but that many physical things seem highly consistent within my capabilities for understanding the world, I think it's a safe bet that things physically exist and that the ideas we experience because of them (sounds, tactile sensations) actually come from us interacting with those things in the material world. What Berkeley is doing is the kind of bullshit intellectual nonsense that smart people can shoot themselves and their understanding of the world in the foot with, losing touch with a reality that most people always stay grounded to in some way via not being capable of thinking on this level, ironically resulting in dumber people coming to more sensible conclusions.
Also: existence of things (as in material things) only exists through perception, but they must be able to exist when I am not there to perceive them, therefore someone is always there to perceive them? Meaning a God or some other universal entity is always there to perceive them? Am I getting that right? That's not empirically testable, removes the validity of testing things in the empirical world, and there seems to be a leap of logic between things being assumed to still exist when I'm not there to perceive them to a perceiver always being present, with the underlying, completely unproven and unprovable assumption that connects these things being that the material world does not exist on its own.

>>27479356
Terrible takes here all around.

>>27479545
I think I remember some of the Galaxy Torture videos on Motherless having it
everything else I’ve seen isn’t from the clearnet
I can’t remember if Insex, Brutalmaster or Queen Snake had theirs uploaded on motherless

>>27479296
Dude, at this point I think I get your position, and I wasn't homing in on it before because I expected something more coherent. It's just nonsense. You believe in immaterialism, which is basically hogwash. You got duped by thinking you're too smart into something that says physical reality doesn't exist. I recognize that I can't prove physical reality, but still basically believe it's real and use it to make decisions.
Finally got around to reading the rest of these
>>27479435
>>27479436
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_idealism
>>27479457
You're delusional. You think you're able to infer more about the nature of reality than you are, and that led you to believing that the physical world doesn't exist. That's laughably ridiculous. And all of your views on moral objectivity stem from that! No wonder it was so hard to get anything established. You're probably the dumbest "smart" person I've ever talked to, to have such a misunderstanding of reality.
I think I'm done at this point. Hopefully I've ruined the thread enough.

>>27479345
Lost a war to Jewish puppet states and have been psychologically demolished since.

>>27477269
Retard.

File: IMG_2064.gif (1.89 MB, 1179x863)

1.89 MB GIF

>>27478932
Galaxy Torture might have some of their videos up on motherless
Clitoridectomy videos are pretty rare, like full cock and balls castration videos; you can try some of the .onion sites if you’re brave and have crypto to spare
Otherwise search for infibulation and null/nullification
Some screen shots of videos out there in gif I posted, they exist

>>27479638
the entire western philosophy is based on cogito ergo sum
u asked me to refute it and i did, then u said u deny it as well after i mentioned it a thousand times
then u asked me to elaborate on my refutation without offering any insight of your own
so i'm not convinced you ever even thought about if in your life, fucking retard

ur a retarded cocksucker please kill yourself

>>27479684
>>27479565
wow thanks for your input. JUST BICKER AND ARGUE. NO INSIGHT, KILL YOURSELF

>>27479679
this has been happening with jews since forever. push degeneracy, then right wing reaction, but it was controlled opposition all along

>>27477474
> why should anyone give a fuck about that or care about what you say?

Arguments based on subjective experiences can be persuasive. Peer pressure is as well. People will tend to believe whatever they think people around them believe.
Fuck you for making me explain this to you.

>>27479548
>>27479488
you stupid mother fucker. this entire long chain of conversation was because YOU SAID THIS
>>27477265
>>"Logical soundness" (look it up if you don't know what it means) does not exist in moral arguments, only logical validity, as morality is not based in objective reality.
which is why I said I have to ask

but then you said there is no objective reality
because in western philosophy, cogito ergo sum the foundation, implies solipsism and nihilism

yet you are clearly too iq to discuss what 'cogito ergo sum' means in the first place. so why talk at all? shut ur yap

>>27479718
that's called brainwashing. if it's not objective it's bullshit. KYS

>>27479723
Well that's how morality works.
You can feel about it how you like, which will be influenced by how the people around you tell you you should feel about it.

>>27479737
or people who aren't low iq actually understand what 'cogito ergo sum' means and can figure out objective truth from there

>>27479741
You are wrong and should remove your penis

>>27479748
if ur white ur the reason that white people will go extinct. get a head start and remove ur penis

File: IMG_2073.gif (1.79 MB, 1179x863)

1.79 MB GIF

>>27479545
Screen grabs from 3 videos in this gif for you
they exist, look harder

>>27479679
then they infiltrated social science department of every university, including outside the west, and spread their talmudic bullshit to turn everyone into trannies etc
oh they took the white man's inventions and used the tv and radio to mass brainwash all of humanity!

>>27479778
engineering their goyim is what they do anon

>>27479784
it's so easy now, it was probably jews that pushed this stupid white identity too. so easy to demoralize them

imagine identifying with a color. only usa. white and black
tf? niggers in africa hate each other but they hate american blacks the most
same for europeans. LMAO

>>27479778
This but unironically

I BLAME THE BI'ISH

INSHALLAH NIGEL CAN DEPORT US NONWHTIES SO WE CAN FINALLY FIX OUR SHITHOLES

>>27479794
Irish and English just become whites in America and no longer hate each other. Blacks and whites will always hate each other because they can differentiate each other. Even if you don't choose to join in a significant amount of everyone else always will.

>>27478932
I couldn’t remember the names of the main stuff I’ve found in the past, dug around a bit more
Looks like the main one went down in 2022 due to file failure and death of the owner
https://bme.com/media/story/835324/?cat=extreme/surgical_female

The other one was a guy out of South Africa that was convicted in 2017 for some wild shit, this is what he said in an interview

Frederiksen says his interest in mutilation began after he joined a well-known Danish sadomasochists’ club, SMiL, 20 years ago.

“There is another chapter which started many years ago and I don’t think I should talk about it. It’s in connection with female circumcision. It’s very popular down here – this thing of circumcising women,” he said.

“They are not circumcised here like they are in Egypt or Somalia ... There is a big tradition of this in Lesotho and some parts of South Africa.”

He says he met a satanic priestess who wanted to undergo female genital mutilation and “convinced” him to perform the procedure on her.

“I said I had no idea how to do this and I thought it would bleed a lot. She convinced me to do it,” he said.

Frederiksen claims to have known infamous Danish plastic surgeon Jørn Ege Siana – known as Dr Penis for his enlargement procedures – who he says taught him how to perform the surgery in a “few lessons”.

“I used a local anaesthetic, and it went well. There wasn’t much blood there and I had something special to stop the bleeding, and after about 10 days she was healed with the help of a special cream. She was very happy with the results.”

>>27479811
i was never talking about blacks and whites hating each other. ur so fucked up
europeans hate american whites
africans hate american blacks
because america is zogged
niggers is part of french culture though, should manage their colonies better kek
>Even if you don't choose to join in a significant amount of everyone else always will.
what? are u using gpt?

>>27479832
and spics are part of latin empire
spain is first european country to join lawsuit against israel
it's so happening

>>27479695
cogito ergo sum isn't something I've believed since I was like 15, but I didn't think it would go over well to say that experiencing doesn't prove existence (of anything, not just the individual, so it would reject your view, too), since the rationale I used to refute it back when I used to think about it was basically a rejection of the ability of people to use logic, which I think would be hard for me to argue well and wouldn't be the direction you were going to take it, since you think we can be sure of things. I didn't think you would take it in the direction you would, because I had yet to read about immaterialism.
>>27479720
Too iq? Perhaps. That might have been the issue. By the way,
>>27479718
>>27479737
is right. We need to work with subjectivity when trying to make moral arguments to people because it's all we have. Objective morality doesn't exist. Unless, I guess, you're right about immaterialism and the physical world doesn't exist and there's an ever-present observer who magically makes morality objective (lol, I still can't believe that was your position this whole time).

>>27479852
>cogito ergo sum isn't something I've believed since I was like 15, but I didn't think it would go over well to say that experiencing doesn't prove existence (of anything, not just the individual, so it would reject your view, too), since the rationale I used to refute it back when I used to think about it was basically a rejection of the ability of people to use logic, which I think would be hard for me to argue well and wouldn't be the direction you were going to take it, since you think we can be sure of things. I didn't think you would take it in the direction you would, because I had yet to read about immaterialism.
wow that's so cool. but western philosophy is based on cogito ergo sum. i'm not inventing something new. and i'm not saying that it's specifically immaterialism. let's put it this way if it helps, the truth is simple and easy but the jews don't want u to know. the truth is everywhere and shows up over and over. immaterialism and buddhism is the same thing. there's many more

did u look up the word idealism? do u have any clue how metaphysics works? just admit u don't know anything
i said this earlier
>George Berkeley's philosophy of immaterialism is an example of christianity being perfectly logical, and it is also an example of idealism.
and of the ways how buddhism can be perfectly logical, some of those ways can also be examples of idealism as well.
if u do know anything, then you should already know. like it's right there what do u want.

if u want to do something new then write a book.
i'm saying that western philosophy wasn't rigorous enough with cartesian skepticism. that's something else u should look up

instead of acting like u already know, u can ask questions and then i can just give u all the wiki links. idk what to tell you if u don't know how western philosophy works. if u know how logic works then use logic to engage with cogito ergo sum.if u want to try something new then use logic to refute or adapt cogito ergo sum is ez

>>27479852
like dude the illuminati shit is real, jews believe in kabbalah
this is idealism
universities dogmatically reject idealism and push materialism

idealism is not for goys. get it?

materialism, nihilism, postmodernism, communism, marxism, it's all talmudic and they hijacked analytical philosophy

and jesus loves you, leave the jews to him, just overcome your weaknesses thanks

>>27479894
Is this still you here?>>27479903
Universities could be rejecting it for other reasons than it being true, "illuminati shit is real" is just retarded, and that some Jews somewhere believe in Kabbalah is only potentially threatening because of what they might do over that belief, not because it's true. There's no secret magic that Jews are harnessing that no one else is, and the idea of whatever rituals Kabbalah Jews would perform changing the course of world events is magical thinking.
And philosophical idealism is still a belief that the material world isn't real, which is still retarded. You believe that the material world isn't real and this is a way you justify a desire to believe in objective morality with convoluted, Olympic-level mental gymnastics steps. You are, at best, a philosophically-read, possibly schizophrenic retard.
Christianity and Buddhism being perfectly logical is self-evidently untrue (I'm not going to take this seriously enough to avoid saying things are self-evident anymore, and I won't make the point, either)
>>27479914
They are promoted by Jews because they damage Western society and belief among Westerners in religion, which is generally protective of western society, yes. Unfortunately, this doesn't make God real or morality objective, retard. To return to something you said earlier:
>>27479894
>instead of acting like u already know, u can ask questions and then i can ...
You can't do anything for me at this point other than help me continue to shit up the thread. It's clear now that I was giving you a lot more intellectual credit than you deserved earlier. You have no wisdom to provide anyone, this has become evident. I'm probably not going to look up anything you post about anymore, since I grasp enough of your opinions to know that they're abjectly retarded.

>>27476932
>>27476935
there's reddit communities where they talk about how great a glansectomy is. they are so fucked that they prefer not having it.

>come here to see some hot clips of cruel women castrating men

>Thread is 99% high school level philosophising

>>27477281
but you do you care that a mentally ill faggot pays a woman to chop his dick off.
>he won t be able to molest a kid anymore, since he is a deranged porn addict he might as well be into loli/shota
>sometimes they will die from infection, one less degenerate in our society
>a woman gets paid for a service which does not even result in death 99% of the times, no different than a soldier going into afghanistan to kill poor families, according to your logic serving in the military is 100 times worse than doing this since in the military you could actually end up killing people.
>maybe after losing his balls the mentally ill guy will realize how much he messed up, thats good, he is self improving lmao, might end up killing himself as well which is even better

you also mention harmful a lot, but who cares? is his life worth so much for you? your energy can be directed somewhere else than on the dick and balls of the lowest scum of society

File: 1000007374.webm (2.05 MB, 720x1280)

2.05 MB WEBM

>>27476031
Explain this, then.

>>27481476
mans ordered a replacement

>>27477307
So hard to find ballbustingstacy leaks! Do you happen to have the mallet video? I had a couple of other videos she made on a hard drive somewhere I'll try find them.

>>27481140
vids are rare and faggots are gonna faggot

>>27477307
Lol

HOLY SHIT GET A FUCKING ROOM AND JUST FUCK EACH OTHER AND THE BOY HOLES YOU FUCKING FAGGOTS SHUT UP

>>27476031
>>27476035
>>27479688
As hot as these are I dont trust a cutter who isnt also a client to someone else.

I was talking with a cutter for awhile who had experience with castration and several other things however she refused to provide proof of her actually having preformed a castration. Despite having done a substantial amount of work on herself she also refused to accept any female clients, which was a bummer as my at the time gf was considering undergoing a full circumcision.

I have been on the lookout for a cutter since then but have yet to find one. Where does one go to find an experienced cutter?

>>27485351
These days I have no clue
Probably start by finding the extreme body mods community closest to you
The reason most of the female castration videos out there are older; is because there was a massive push to criminalize this stuff in the mid 2000s
The reason there are fewer female castration videos period is that male doms don’t want their subs unable to orgasm
Also the clit goes super deep, you have to practically dig into the pubic bone to remove it; with males it’s just a snip

>>27485373
I mean technically female circumcision only involves the removal of the external clitoris, and only with some kinds of circumcision. Women have many more options of how they want to get circumcised when compared to guys:

> Clit hood only
> Clit hood and clitoris
> Clit hood and inner labia
> Only the inner labia or part of the inner labia (most common)
> Inner labia and clit hood
> Inner labia and part/all of the outer labia
> Outer labia only
> Clit, clit hood, inner labia and all/part of the outer labia

Probably more combinations I'm forgetting. I have only seen one image of a girl who had everything removed. I have been told that because of how deep the clitoris runs circumcised girls essentially experience no difficulty using vibrators and are able to masturbate simply by rubbing their circumcision scar. I have been told a lot of cutters wont touch the outer labia at all because of the extremely high risk of complications with their removal, and if they do remove some of them, its only the rear most part because thats the easiest part to stitch up.

The cutter I had been talking to claimed to have infibulated herself twice (did it once, didnt like it, took out the stitches and let it heal over and did it again) however she refused to provide evidence and didnt mention actually removing anything, which really isnt that impressive as all you're doing is piercing the outer labia a few times.

>>27477041
No it's not legal, you can't consent to being battered, the cutters in all of these videos have committed aggravated felonies on camera, which is why they try to conceal their identity.

>>27485980
Idk what you consider consent to be, but I consider it consent when Im willing to travel hundreds of miles to find someone who is willing to provide a service that I am willing to pay for, and then pay them for said service.

>>27486015
I don't care about your definition, or mine, but I'm referring to the law. It is impossible to consent to being battered by another person, outside of specific enumerated circumstances like medicine, and organized fighting regulated by a state athletic board.

File: 1683105957253652.webm (3.12 MB, 320x568)

3.12 MB WEBM

>>27486015
Do you think people pay for this?