/lit/ - Literature

Some good arguments, some REALLY bad ones. I agree with his general stance on religion, especially the hard line on Islam. His views on moral philosophy are idiotic and poorly argued.

>>6094778
>militant atheist
>can't into ethics and moral philosophy
Shocking

>>6094757
You'd be better off reading some atheist with at least some level of credibility like Russel

>>6094778
>>6094784
Can you elaborate?
How is consequentialism (his moralistic theory) not completely sound?
You sound like an angry deist, or at least agnostic.

How is Sam Harris not absolutely right when he says that torture is morally justified if it entails positive consequences, would you not torture a man to save hundreds of lives?

>>6094787
Hitchens was against violence though, what's the point of this image?

>>6094757
I liked him in night at the museum. Second one was
GOAT
O
A
T

>>6094793
Consequentialism is 'sound' as a philosophical argument as advanced by a great many philosophers.
>How is Sam Harris not absolutely right when he says that torture is morally justified if it entails positive consequences
The inclusion of the word 'absolutely' alone invalidates that sentence but logical indiscretions aside that sentence sums up perfectly everything wrong with Harris' view of ethics.
Read more moral philosophy so you have a point of reference. Or, alternatively, study logic so you won't find yourself here in the first place.

>>6094804
>Hitchens was against violence though

http://gawker.com/5868761/christopher-hitchens-unforgivable-mistake

>>6094806
You're not really providing any actual arguments though, it was a very simple question which I think demands a very simple answer, in what way is Harris' idea of consequentialism applied to my example of torture not morally sound?
In what way are his ethics skewed?
It seems to me you're dodging the question.

>>6094793
For what it's worth I'm an atheist.

Look up the is-ought problem, better yet read David Hume. Harris constantly moves from claims about how things are to how things should be, while there is no logical connection. All morality, including Harris', is relative to the perspective and interpretation of the subject. Ulm

>>6094815
That's because I'm not arguing anything, merely suggesting that if you read more moral philosophy you'll see the problems with his implementation of consequentialism for yourself.

>>6094757
Another hate meme like Ayn Rand.

People hate him for no reason because people around them do.

>>6094834
I'm pretty sure you can find plenty of logically structured arguments out there for why Sam Harris is a hack. Also disagreement and even a categorization as a fallacious arguer are not 'hate'.

>>6094827
Then why comment at all if you're not willing to elaborate, again, it appears to be a very simple question, how exactly is consequentialism problematic?
You said the implementation would be the flawed aspect of it, I don't see how.
Are you suggesting that there's no way of knowing what consequences certain actions entail?
Because that's not exactly true and we can rely on probability and averages here.

>>6094844
No one ever provides any arguments though, which is why it's so memetic in nature.
>He's stupid
>>Why?
>He's a new Atheist
>>But what about his ideas is stupid?
>I don't know I just hate him
Meme.

>>6094852
>No one ever provides any arguments though
Not on 4chan, no. What the fuck did you except from this place? Do you even know where you are?

>>6094820
The is-ought problem in no way invalidates what Harris' said, this immature wanking around relative morals, about moral nihilism and such is completely pointless.
Harris argues consequentialism from a utilitarian point of view, if a consequence is the maximization of happiness, it is morally justified.

Torturing a man saves a hundred lives

Hundreds of lives ought to be saved to maximize human happiness

For that reason the man should be tortured

>>6094869
>Hundreds of lives ought to be saved to maximize human happiness

[citation needed]

>>6094872
t. sociopath

>>6094852
>discussing Robert Nozick's ingenious idea of a "utility monster", Harris asks "if it would be ethical for our species to be sacrificed for the unimaginably vast happiness of some superbeings". His answer is astonishing: "Provided we take time to really imagine the details (which is not easy), I think the answer is clearly 'yes'."

he's a utilitarian who would literally feed you to the utility monster. he's not worth engaging with

>>6094879
Why do you disagree with this notion?
Because -you- personally don't want to give up your life if it meant everyone was happier?
So if you got cancer and plagued your family with it for decades with certain but slowly-approaching death, you wouldn't want to die for some selfish agency?

>>6094875
Ad hominems aside, the lives of a hundred guilty men are not worth the torturing of one innocent.

>>6094883
I disagree with this notion because the entire idea of assigning numbers to levels of happiness is silly. The utility monster is supposed to be an obvious example of an extreme case where that is true: there simply isn't a "desirability index" for different states of the world.

But yeah, I actually love having cancer and making my family mad, or whatever your bizarre interpretation of this very simple point is.

>>6094883
ebin fallacious argumentation skills bro.

>>6094894
I don't see how that is true though, obviously there is no palpable way of measuring happiness, in my example though it's quite clear that the grief over a single death is greatly overshadowed by the happiness that concludes from saving a hundred lives.

Oh look, arrowfag has returned.

>>6094907
Unfortunately for both you and Harris, "quite clear to me" doesn't mean "objectively true." He thinks it does, but there's still time for you to get out.

Even more unfortunately, we can get a lot more gray-area than "one death for a hundred lives saved."

When "utilitarian" and "obvious" overlap utilitarianism isn't useful anyway.

>>6094793
Because torture is an inherently immoral act and should never be performed

>2015
>consequentialism

>>6094947
Would you define the catagorical imperative as some vague form of utilitarianism.
>>6094957
I think that while torture is an inherently immoral act, there are a small, small number of hypothetical situations where it is somewhat more gray. However, I can't think of such a situation for something like rape, that isn't the comical/unrealistic MAN PUTS GUN TO HEAD AND INSTRUCTS ANON TO RAPE OR DIE.

>consequentialism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Jx_7kkuJfI

Sam Harris BTFOd

>>6094907
You cannot justify things as absolutes on this basis of 'quite clear' and this sort of thing. It's fucking ridiculous. I don't have time for this Mickey Mouse bullshit.

>>6094778
>I agree with his general stance on religion, especially the hard line on Islam.

But those are his stupidest beliefs. They certainly aren't supported by 'good arguments.'

>>6094820
The is-ought "problem" is being abused to a degree, that it must be the philosophical equivalent to Schroedinger's cat.

>>6095180
Wow, shut the fuck up.
Islam is the subject he's most correct about.

>>6095185

>Holy fuck you're wrong
>The truth is the opposite of what you said and I am angry

Great posting, 'Motoko.' Thanks for using a trip; otherwise I wouldn't know who to thank for quality contributions like this one.

>>6095200
It's funny because you made the same kind of post prior to mine.

>>6095206

You upped the butthurt level quite a bit.

>>6095215
Because I said 'fuck'? That massively increased the level of anger in my post?
I think that's not true.

>>6095216

I think we're veering off course here. Weren't you about to be wrong about something?

>>6095228
Sam Harris' claims on Islam are that it's inherently more violent than other Abrahamic religions, and that the Muslim community is also much readier to engage in violence acts because of this violence-approving scripture, and also because Mohammed himself was an advocate of violence, such as murder and rape.
He cites verses from the Quran and the Hadith to back his argument, aswell as statistics that show that +70% of Egyptians believe that Apostates deserve to be killed and so on.

I think his construct of arguments is really solid when it comes to Islam.

>>6094815
Firstly, I'm not absolutely opposed to torture. However, utilitarianism is a bad argument for it, and Kant explained why: utilitarianism is flexible enough that you can use it to justify just about anything, from Stalin toe Elliot Rodger, so long as you do the right mental gymnastics.

>>6095241
The idea that the text of any scripture is constitutive or determining for any culture frankly just seems prima-facie ludicrous. There's such a gap between scripture and practice of any religion. So I have a hard time taking that argument seriously. Similarly, I have a hard time taking seriously the argument that because a given Islamic society is violent, Islam as such is necessarily violent.

I mean, if you go back to European society between 1618 and 1648, I don't think it would have been hard to construct a parallel argument about Christianity. Or Northern Ireland in the 1980s for that matter.

>>6095241

Sam Harris doesn't know dick about Islam or the Qur'an or Muhammad, but he insists that the only 'true' understanding of the religion is one that aligns with the retarded caricature he cobbles together out of stereotypes and quote-mined translations of scripture. When religious people (and especially Muslims) do bad things in the name of religion, we are to take their stated motivations at face value and should under no circumstances attempt to discern any kind of context for their actions, political or otherwise.

It's silly bullshit that takes advantage of ignorance and current popular attitudes concerning Muslims and Islam.

>>6095265
>>6095278
>The idea that the text of any scripture is constitutive or determining for any culture frankly just seems prima-facie ludicrous.
How so?
Islam hasn't gone through an enlightened period of exigesis and dissecting the Bible like Christianity, or even the Jews went through, in many ways a large portion of Muslims still view it as a literal understanding of God's words.
>So I have a hard time taking that argument seriously. Similarly, I have a hard time taking seriously the argument that because a given Islamic society is violent, Islam as such is necessarily violent.
You have your causal relations mixed up, Islam is violent, and for that reason Islamic societies and communities tend to be more violent, I have to ask: Have you ever even read the Quran, or the Hadith?

>I mean, if you go back to European society between 1618 and 1648, I don't think it would have been hard to construct a parallel argument about Christianity.
Sam Harris is also a great opponent of Christianity, however the Christian scriptures contain much less violence than the Islamic ones.
Jesus is a pacifist hippie after all, Mohammed was a warlord who kept sex-slaves and advocated murder, there is a great asymmetry in dogma that you cannot equate so easily just because Christianity had its dark times.
Sam Harris responds to this in this way: We don't have centuries to wait out until Islam fixes itself, especially not in our current times when technology has made it possible for the single person to inflict greater damage than ever.

There are passages in the canon of Christianity that justify for example slavery and anti-semitism, however in terms of frequency, Islam contains more violence, not only in their scriptures but also in their real-life manifestations of their doctrines.

To be sincere, you sound incredibly ignorant and naive, the very first sentence of your post is so incredibly baffling, you do not understand the extend to which Muslims obey to their religion.
Let me say this again: There is no other community than the Muslim community, which advocates the murder of Apostates to this extend, which has suicide bombers or practices female genital mutilation.

You simply do not find this level of evil in any other religious community, the Quran is the imperative that calls for the conquering of the world, to consume everything in the name of Allah.

Neither Judaism nor Christianity demand the same thing in their current translations of actions.

I'm going to go so far and call you an evil person for tip-toeing around this issue so much and defending Islam, when there are clear and absolutely palpable issues with this religion, which you are blindly defending because of sheer ignorance and naivety.
People are getting murdered, raped, mutilated and you are not contributing at all to changing this.

>>6095295
>Islam hasn't gone through an enlightened period of exigesis and dissecting the Bible like Christianity, or even the Jews went through, in many ways a large portion of Muslims still view it as a literal understanding of God's words.

that argument in and of itself supports the idea that these things are cultural, and not something that follows inevitably from the scripture or the nature of the religion

you dumb fucking idiot

>>6095278
You greatly misunderstand Sam Harris' aim, he's calling for a reformation in Islam, Sam Harris almost never focuses on what the Quran says or what Mohammed says, Sam Harris focuses on what is happening in the Islamic world, and why it's happening (this is where he will talk about the Quran or Mohammed's teachings).

Sam Harris always mentions poll-statistics that show what Muslims actually believe, and they do believe insane things which can only be rooted in their faith.
What political context drives people to supporting the mutilation of female genitalia or the murdering of apostates?

>>6095295
>There are passages in the canon of Christianity that justify for example slavery and anti-semitism

Care to give some examples ?

>>6095300
Did you read the rest of my post?
This coupled with the fact that Islam is inherently violent is the reason why we find such extreme manifestations of evil in Islamic communities.

Do I really have to post Quran verses like some asshole?

>>6095305
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery

>"you testify against yourselves that you are descendants of those who murdered the prophets...You snakes, you brood of vipers! How can you escape being sentenced to hell?"
>—Matthew 23:31-33

These aren't problematic at all though because Christianity has moved on a long time ago.

>>6095314
>This coupled with the fact that Islam is inherently violent is the reason why we find such extreme manifestations of evil in Islamic communities.

But it points to the fact that the problem is not Islam qua Islam, it's the specific practice and manifestation of Islam that we see in these cultures. It's not inextricable from the religion any more than the same kind of violence was inherent in Christianity.

>>6095295
>Islam hasn't gone through an enlightened period of exigesis and dissecting the Bible like Christianity, or even the Jews went through, in many ways a large portion of Muslims still view it as a literal understanding of God's words.

This is patently false, just like 90% of the garbage you are spewing.

Go read some serious literature on the subject. Read A History of the Arab Peoples. Nobody here is more ignorant than you on this subject.

Slaves like you bash FGM but are completely fine with circumcision because it happens to appear in your holy book as well.

>>6095314

>2015
>still thinking in terms of 'good and evil'

untermensch

>>6095362
> it's the specific practice and manifestation of Islam that we see in these cultures.
Based on the superficial meanings extracted from Islam.
I can only urge you to read the Quran and about Mohammed.
Mohammed is the supposed role-model in Islam, he's not only the Messenger of Allah but also the prime example of a good Muslim according to Islam.
And the facts about Mohammed are that he murdered non-believers, apostates, had sex-slaves and took the virginity of a nine year-old girl.

The assumption that every Abrahamic religion is equal in 'quality' or in violent content is laughable, not only does this claim fall apart once you actually read into this subject, on a probability basis it already sounds ridiculous.

And again, and again and again, I do believe that Islam is much more violent than Christianity in general, but this ultimately does not matter.
The issue is that Islam is violent -today-, at a time where we absolutely cannot have religious extremists roaming this world when it's possible for a single man to potentially murder thousands of people on his own.

>>6095372
>Slaves like you bash FGM but are completely fine with circumcision because it happens to appear in your holy book as well.
I'm an Atheist, you have not provided a singular argument against anything I have said.
It is forbidden to dissect the Quran like it has happened with the Bible.
You simply cannot refute the things I say, because I'm rarely making value judgments, I'm posting absolute facts such as poll results and if you wish I could also post Quran verses with would clarify things for you.
This isn't my opinion, these are literal facts.

I can't believe Muslims like you actually browse /lit/.

>>6095374
There is no such thing as an untermensch, there is only mensch and ubermesnch.

>>6095377
>facts

>>6095384
>reaction image counter-argument
I am amazed that /lit/ harbors Muslims like this, I am seriously amazed at this.

>>6095295
>Islam hasn't gone through an enlightened period of exigesis and dissecting...

Why do people who have obviously never studied Islam or its history (e.g., you, Harris...) feel like they can make sweeping claims like this? What do you know about the Muslim exegetical tradition?

>>6095295
>Islam is violent, and for that reason Islamic societies and communities tend to be more violent

Prove this. Define 'violence', define 'Islamic societies', prove that more violence exists in Islamic societies, and prove that this is solely or primarily because of 'Islam.'

>you do not understand the extend to which Muslims obey to their religion.

You don't understand that there is no single, uncontested formulation of Islam for Muslims to obey.

>which has suicide bombers

This has only been associated with Muslim groups for the past several decades. They picked it up from nationalist (and mostly Hindu) Tamil Tigers.

>or practices female genital mutilation.

My Christian Ethiopian gf is circumcised...

>the Quran is the imperative that calls for the conquering of the world, to consume everything in the name of Allah.

There is no command in the Qur'an to 'conquer the world.' It's possible to interpret the text to support expansive conquest, but it's also easy to tie each warlike exhortation to specific circumstances affecting the early Muslim community. There is nothing that makes the former sort of reading more obvious than the latter, and different Muslims at different times have favored both positions.

>Mohammed was a warlord who kept sex-slaves and advocated murder

>I don't like him and I'm going to express my disapproval through dumb pejoratives!

There's nothing inherently wrong with being involved in warfare or killing. Appending 'sex' to 'slaves' is deliberately misleading and plays into a long tradition of attempting to shit on Muslims by portraying them as lecherous.

>I'm going to go so far and call you an evil person for tip-toeing around this issue so much and defending Islam

Don't be a fucking dumbass.

>>6095304
>You greatly misunderstand Sam Harris' aim, he's calling for a reformation in Islam

Ideologies rise and fall within religions according to the circumstances faced by their practitioners. Lots of different kinds of Islam have been practiced over the course of history. It has never been static or monolithic, it isn't now, and it will continue to change and adapt in the future, like every religion.

'Reform' the political climate in Iraq and Syria and ISIS loses the primary basis of its support and existence.

>Sam Harris focuses on what is happening in the Islamic world, and why it's happening

But these are things that he completely fails to understand.

>and they do believe insane things which can only be rooted in their faith.

Why? Why can bad things done by Muslims ONLY be rooted in their faith? This is the idiocy that lies at the core of Harris's take on religion.

>>6095377
>Based on the superficial meanings extracted from Islam.

well sure, but I'm not sure how that matters

>The assumption that every Abrahamic religion is equal in 'quality' or in violent content is laughable, not only does this claim fall apart once you actually read into this subject, on a probability basis it already sounds ridiculous.

My whole contention is that practice and social mores are not particularly closely tied to the scripture of a religion in most cases. So while Islamic scripture may be more or less violent, I don't think that has any particular relationship to Islamic society, necessarily. And I don't think there's any kind of transhistorical nature of any of the Abrahamic religions. Just their particular manifestations in specific societies.

In other words, the upshot of this is that if we want to understand contemporary Islamic extremism, we should understand it as an outgrowth of these societies, not as something that necessary falls out of Islam.

I don't think that's a hippie argument or something that in any way points towards any kind of leniency btw.

>>6095295
Actually, suicide bombing was invented by the Tamil groups in the Sri Lankan civil war and has been used by a number of different groups.

The idea that it is uniquely associated with Muslims is literally objectively wrong. you numbskull.

but female circumcision isn't an islamic thing, it's an african thing

>>6095409
>>6095419
as a rationalist, i can say with some certainty that spreading these facts makes you evil because it limits your ability to hate muslims. the fact that they happen to be true is no justification.

>>6095390
First of all, when I say "Muslims" or "Islams" clearly I'm not making a 100% generalization, this should be obvious but you you seem to be thinking that I actually tried to say this.
>Why do people who have obviously never studied Islam or its history (e.g., you, Harris...) feel like they can make sweeping claims like this?
When has Islam experienced a dissection and questioning of the Quran, and eventual acceptance of the fact that it was man-written, like it has happened with Judaism and Christianity?

>Define 'violence',
The everyday understanding of inflicting physical harm upon others.

> define 'Islamic societies'
Islamic nations and Islamic communities in Western nations.

>prove that more violence exists in Islamic societies
I have to reword this, Islam is more approving of violence.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/01/64-percent-of-muslims-in-egypt-and-pakistan-support-the-death-penalty-for-leaving-islam/
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/egypt-worst-arab-state-for-women-poll-shows.aspx?pageID=238&nID=57813&NewsCatID=359
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

Hitchens worded this well: The suicide bombing and Apostate killing community is almost exclusively an Islamic one.

>and prove that this is solely or primarily because of 'Islam.'
What other cause could there be?
Islam permits these acts of violence, Mohammed himself has engaged in these acts, which makes the probability incredibly high that this is the fault of Islam.
What other political context could explain these things?
What non-religious reason could justify the murder of homosexuals and people who left Islam?

>This has only been associated with Muslim groups for the past several decades
The Islamic issue of today is Sam Harris' major concern.

>There is no command in the Qur'an to 'conquer the world.'
Yes there absolutely is.
>61:9 It is He Who has sent His Messenger forth with the guidance and the religion of truth, to make it triumph over every religion, even though the idolaters may be averse. (An Interpretation of the Quran, New York: NYUP, 2004

There is no doubt that Mohammed himself was an imperialist warlord.

>Appending 'sex' to 'slaves' is deliberately misleading and plays into a long tradition of attempting to shit on Muslims by portraying them as lecherous.

Again, the Quran approaches this.

>Qur'an (23:5-6) - "..who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess..."
>Qur'an (4:24) - "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess."

>>6095390
>Why? Why can bad things done by Muslims ONLY be rooted in their faith? This is the idiocy that lies at the core of Harris's take on religion.
Because what they are doing happens in accordance with what their religion dictates, again, there is no other possible explanation for suicide bombing, no man would willingly kill himself and others if he didn't believe he will receive divine reward if he does so.
No man would want to kill another man for leaving his religion if he didn't believe in divine reward and that what he's doing is the correct thing.

I ask you again, what other motivation can there be if not a religious one?

>>6095446
>Because what they are doing happens in accordance with what their religion dictates, again, there is no other possible explanation for suicide bombing, no man would willingly kill himself and others if he didn't believe he will receive divine reward if he does so.

But there are plenty of cases where people sacrifice themselves for basically secular or this-worldly reasons. Is a soldier who stays behind for a doomed last stand necessarily doing so out of hope in a future reward? No, he's doing it because this is what people do. You're far underestimating the complexity of the human organism here. We sacrifice ourselves because of loyalty to others, because of our belief in the morality of our cause, or for hundreds of other reasons.

I would also point out that your argument here does go against the serious analysis - I would recommend looking up Bob Pape's work which is a pretty thorough analysis of suicide bombing that fundamentally disagrees with your reading of it. It's just objectively not true that suicide bombing works how you think it does.

>>6095446
>what are economic/political reasons
justification comes after intention, you should know this.

>>6095456
Sacrifice in this context is dying to protect others, see you have provided an explanation for this type of behaviour.
Find me an explanation for people running into cities and blowing themselves up and killing large groups of innocents, what agency is there if not a religious one?

You are simply not providing any arguments here, the reason why suicide bombing occurs in Islam is because Islam specifically talks about Martyrdom, it is the religion of the death cult.

Islam teaches you that you will receive divine reward, your 70 something virgins if you die in the name of Allah.
I can't understand why this concept is difficult to understand.

>>6095460
Explain it, stop throwing around random shit without actually addressing anything with intellectually sound arguments.
You keep doing this with your low-case typing, be an intellectual Muslim and defend your case.

>>6095464
Do you think anyone in this thread is an actual Muslim, and do you really think that is a requirement to go against what you are saying?

>>6095470
I'm quite confident the guy who attacked me and made the assumption that I'm a hypocrite for attacking female genital mutilation while approving of male circumcision is a Muslim, yes.
With this guy, I'm not so sure.

>>6095463
For political reasons. Because they want to accomplish some political end and suicide bombing presents a way of doing so, by harming those they view as their opponents. In the same way that the LTTE assassinated Rajiv Ghandi because they disagreed with his political actions. This is, as strange as it may seem, a thing that people do: when they are committed to a cause, they give their lives for it. Whether it be religious or political. This is just a fact.

>You are simply not providing any arguments here, the reason why suicide bombing occurs in Islam is because Islam specifically talks about Martyrdom, it is the religion of the death cult.

lol @ this sentence. seriously just lol, can't take you putting these thoughts in conjunction seirously

>I can't understand why this concept is difficult to understand.

It's not difficult to understand at all, it's just wrong. As shown by the fact that non-Muslims have done the same shit - a fact you refuse to recognize.

>>6095464
>>6095464
You have a strong opinion, you are invested into believing a narrative.
Several people adressed your points but you chose to ignore and/or move the goalposts.
If you hate muslims because they killed your little brother or something, just enlist to your local army or extremist right wing activist group.
btw you also commit the fallacy of believing things that fit your narrative and dismiss contradicting facts.

This is why it is futile to engage with you in a serious debate.

>>6095437
>When has Islam experienced a dissection and questioning of the Quran

Muslims have dissected the Qur'an since there was a Qur'an to dissect... I don't even understand what you're trying to imply. Do you think that there haven't been different interpretations of the nature and significance of the Qur'an, the meaning of its contents, etc.?

>and eventual acceptance of the fact that it was man-written

>Muslims have to agree with me that their holy book isn't real or they're mindless terrorists

...

>The everyday understanding of inflicting physical harm upon others.
>I have to reword this, Islam is more approving of violence.

Than who? Than Americans who approved of atomic bombs and bombing densely-populated cities? Than Germans who approved of extermination camps? Than any group of people that has ever gone to war or exercised any form of capital punishment?

'Inflicting physical harm upon others' is extremely broad; it encompasses a lot more than you seem to realize.

>What other cause could there be?
>What other political context could explain these things?

Are you actually this dense, or are you just pretending? Do you really need this to be explained to you?

>Yes there absolutely is.

There is no mention in this passage of conquest or even any clear indication that it refers to the entire world. Those are subjective interpretations of the text.

>Again, the Quran approaches this.

Sexual slavery is 'slavery for the purpose of sexual exploitation.' Having sex with a slave doesn't make him or her a 'sex-slave.' Sally Hemings wasn't Thomas Jefferson's 'sex-slave.'

>>6095446
>no man would willingly kill himself and others if he didn't believe he will receive divine reward if he does so.

But men have done exactly this. A lot. Since forever.

>>6095446

>>6095166
holy shit my dad's sperm is delicious