/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14116645]

what are the best arguments against sexual deviancy and degeneracy in general?
I'm to debate a classmate on the matter and the general opinion among zoomers is "live and let live, dude" or "if it doesn't hurt someone it should be allowed"...
What are some good books/authors to read?

[Anonymous No.14116676]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r63T7zRQ6M

[Anonymous No.14116693]

>>14116676
is there something more secular?

[Anonymous No.14116704]

why would you waste your time arguing with young faggots who want to do degenerate shit anyway.

[Anonymous No.14116714]

The problem with arguing against sexual deviancy is that it is based on the axiom that the effects(degeneration of society, destruction of the family unit, etc) are a bad thing. Many normalfags are persuaded by modern media that that is not the case.

[Anonymous No.14116715]

If you deny God then all promiscuity goes. Prove me wrong

[Anonymous No.14116729]

>>14116714
This. Normies are too stupid to see the bigger picture. It's not even worth arguing with them. They'll call you "old fashioned."

[Anonymous No.14116742]

>>14116729
Why do you want to maintain the family unit?

[Anonymous No.14116751]

J.D. Unwin

[Anonymous No.14116761]

>>14116715
What is promiscuity?

[Anonymous No.14116775]

>>14116715
It makes you tired, doesn't accomplish anything and ultimately subjects you to the impulses of a lower drive thus undermining agency. You operate in a very limited, defined parameter and are set off by any passing stimulus or thought. If you're a braindead NPC, this is not a problem.

[Anonymous No.14116792]

>>14116715
*blocks your path*

[Anonymous No.14116806]

>>14116645
lgbt is only tangentially about sexuality it is a fundamentally ideological movement with its own sacraments, dogmas and standarised ideological discourses. You can compare it to 20th century soviet totalitarianism or a weird inverted version of christianity that actively sacralises sodomy, hedonism and a corrosive ethic of atomised individualism, identity politics driven consumerism and an outright contempt for western literate culture. The queer SJW's transgression of christian norms is itself ritualised, sexless, devoid of eroticism or joy.

[Anonymous No.14116815]

>>14116645
It literally makes you a low IQ hypofrontal animal. The quintessential difference between humans and other animals is our ability to think ahead and make bets with the future. Replace your ability to delay gratification with a small trickle of low effort dopamine instead and you eventually turn into a zombie that can’t do anything but seek the next easy fix

[Anonymous No.14116818]

>>14116645
You better read Plato quickly, even 2000 years on he has one of the strongest moral arguments yet within philosophy. And so of all great religions in preaching the same essential morals were in attempt to save man from himself, his own eternal damnation. But here are some ideas:

After all what is the difference between that(eternal damnation) and spending ones only lived life in the lowest of wasted forms? Atheism in the modern world has become but the dogma of the masses, unable to break from the current of the time. You could also play the Epicurean argument of "To a pleasurable life, one must live ethical, and to live ethical one must live pleasurable". So not as to say one does totally everything for individual pleasure but also not to say that one can achieve the highest pleasure without ethics. Of course I disagree with Epicurus but he'd be a swift cutting through of their argument in leading forth to the statement of :"man is at his greatest pleasure when in the thrills of self sacrifice, asserting his life by the willing destruction of it", and further, "naturally this destroys any form of intentional egoism, of belief of which can only be saved by the grace of such, an exterior self justifying principality necessarily of metaphysics (doesn't infer immaterial) which is a direct contradiction of the tenets of egoism itself; and that is the ego first and as its own justification". If they just say no to this then pull up some study of religious people being vastly happier, it's a good enough general example. And if they then suggest some resort to "but at least I have the truth" then explain to them the truth has no value beyond pleasure within the ego and so must be secondary to happiness in general. Not to mention that the total assertion of atheism is an irrational statement of belief(considering that the idea that life just exists is more idiotic than the conscious intent of a being as we ourselves have proof of the conscious by ourselves), all the more than their perception of religious faith. From faith you could bring in the relation to human nature and its necessary correlation to intuition and creativity based on their particular unconscious lumping of together. Explain to them that they have no moral basis for not only good or evil but also their own existence (in the case of the latter) besides egoism of which you shall call them cowards because of this, only wanting excuse to exist, and to exist by degeneracy at that. Talk about the family unity, bring up J.D. Unwin's Sex and Culture. Talk about collectives as the all extending wheels of history and God as the total and utter individual asserting by free willed rejection. Spirit beyond value of distance but a definitive vagueness of definite value of which only the higher minds of intuitive thought may apprehend in its total irrational consciousness.

But most of all be suited to what they are saying, not just "FACTS". Be cunning in your Socratic tricking.

[Anonymous No.14116822]

>>14116818
Asserting the physiological relation to generally perceived "psychological" benefits would be quite helpful here too.

Damn it's good be an Entp that can create arguments like these on the fly. And these are just very average ones.

[Anonymous No.14116827]

>>14116818

[Anonymous No.14116832]

>>14116775
>>14116815
Isn’t it a weakness to have agency in a world where goals can’t be justified?

[Anonymous No.14116836]

>>14116806
The pseud response.

[Anonymous No.14116845]

>>14116715
>>14116742
maybe the family unit's authority is relatively benign and circumscribed next to the totalitarian managerial authority that would be needed to create a perfect world of liberated monads. Liberated individualism, like any other ideology needs to be promoted through an extensive system of propaganda, it needs to stigmatise dissenters. We are heading to skinner's behaviourist utopia a world beyond freedom and dignity, the christian idea of the human is being abolished to make way for total transumanist dissolution.

[Anonymous No.14116856]

>>14116836
t. indoctrinated political clientele for liberalism

[Anonymous No.14116867]

>>14116856
You asserted the problem with homosexuals isn't there sodomy but the LGBT culturalism associated with it, which is a neoliberal MAGA-retard viewpoint. Homosexuals are abominations, and the act itself is inherently emasculating. The social phenomena is not separate but concomitant, it logically follows one and the other. You also imply "eroticism good" which shows how braindead and insipid of a post it really is. Go back to reading Milo, faggot.

[Anonymous No.14116868]

>>14116742
Not the quoted, but the family unit is necessary in order for a civilization to strive. If there's no role model for children they'll become full of resentment and depravity. Look at communities where children grow without a Father figure, for example; or boys raised by a dominant mother.

[Anonymous No.14116871]

>>14116868
Why do you want civilization to strive?

[Anonymous No.14116881]

>>14116871
ultimately liberalism is nihilistic culturally homogenising and actively hostile to all other forms of meaning

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14116898]

>>14116645
What you consider “deviancy” is natural behavior.
What actual deviancy was brought about by broken faithful contrarians. For example the vow of celibacy leading to rampant pedophilia.

Couples who have children together should be encouraged and supported in raising the child as a team effort, but forcing them together in life long contracts is often unrealistic and damaging to all parties.
I find it revolting that the same crowd that demands chruchly standards of morality also howl for rape and wife beating. You might want to take up the angle of *actual* degeneracy in the hypocrisy of some traditional values

[Anonymous No.14116925]

>>14116871
So we are able to live good and natural lives. And, as seem as when an Empire is at its highest, create beautiful things.

[Anonymous No.14116930]

>>14116645
it does hurt someone. you, your partner, and your future spouse.

[Anonymous No.14116939]

>>14116925
Can goodness and beauty be defined objectively?

[Anonymous No.14116942]

>>14116898
The leftist feminist perspective is ultimately rather insane, ie. insisting a happily married woman is actualy oppressed but a woman who sells sex to survive is empowered and liberated. Leftists like always end up carrying water for liberal capitalism and the finantialisation/atomisation of all aspects of human life. ie. insisting on emotional labour and sex work.

[Anonymous No.14116945]

>>14116898
Epicurus himself was in favor of celibacy you inbred tranny.

[Anonymous No.14116958]

>>14116645
you should just double bluff and argue for the sexual exploitation of animals.

whore dogs, if you will.

[Anonymous No.14116969]

>>14116827
As long as you're a charismatic confident guy they might as well not be talking, you can have the most ridiculous argument but as long as you have some, little, substance and are charismatic 90% of people will be unable to beat you. I'll tell you a story:

In year 10 of high school I was in elective history and we were learning about the Salem Witch trials. There was this stupid "le enlightened" 1/8th Jewish kid in the class who everyone would regularly bully and hate, even the kids who shared an ideological coherence disliked him because of his own character, not that his ugly face helped. Most highschoolers don't give two shits about ideology and just didn't like his pathetic nature. He would walk up to other people and they would either huddle in a circle flexing so he couldn't get in laughing or just the entire group walk away without saying a word and regroup away. In that history class one day he wouldn't shut up about Christianity being a 'cult' (never explained how this was a bad thing) and even to the point he used the word "enlightened" in the same sentence of talking about this religions stupidity. Stupid fat homosexual teacher says he tends to agree and so forth but he obviously didn't feel any connected or liking to the kid. To explain for whats going to happen:
>Be me
>6 ft 4 chad
>extremely good looking and was then too (though I've only gotten better looking with age as I am a male but I was too stupid for two and a half years to realise girls were hitting on me, but it's testament to my good looks since they never stopped hitting on me even when I couldn't of shown any less interest)
>blonde
>blue eyed
>intelligent(read Plato that same year)
>charismatic and extremely confident
>used to pitty this kid so was nice to him but after he just continued to be randomly rude (I gather because he was socially inept)
>one day playing handball with some people and girls(not hot or ugly but just the ones you know)
>he starts just jabbing sly insults, I get annoyed
>I suddenly yell at him to keep his fucking mouth shut and so forth, me standing up and him sitting down (obvious dominance roles)
>he trys to play it off like he's joking
>the girls say "ben it's not that we don't like you, it's just that you keep being so rude"
>starts breaking down and practically crying with the voice and everything
>just saying "i can't help it" in that same insecure voice
>tell him I don't care because I don't want to hear his effeminate bitching

[Anonymous No.14116974]

>>14116969


Now back to the story. I walk over to his desk in class, the chad Aryan Christian kid that I am, towing over him, just lean on the side of his table, he's quiet. The annoying lefty girls behind him and many kids go quiet watching this massive show of uncaring dominance. I tell him in the coolest way possible while leaning backwards on his work space that he can't make such moral judgement apart from a moral basis only found and developed throughout religion. Further explain that you can't explain it on pleasure either considering man finds greatest meaning in religion. He's suddenly short circuiting and talking fast while simultaneously stuttering and changing sentences in a quiet voice as if knowing he doesn't have any argument. He talks back quickly, I tell him to be quiet and to stop being such an arrogant retard while leaning on his shoulder (again, dominance display). He says to "just go away now" while continuing to short circuit. I tell him he's lost and not as intelligent as he thinks he is. Say don't speak if you just want the teacher to like you. Get up and leave, quite a few kids (including the lefty girls) watching. Sit back down next to Christian friend I was redpilling at that time. Class slowly moves back into talking and the kid looks like he's about to kill himself questioning his existence.

And that's the art of being dominant, add in a few personal quips if they deserve it but not to the point that they are the centre of the argument, only enforcers. Just be confident bro, sure my looks, height, and natural charisma helped by being an Entp but trust me, just believe in yourself and you'll destroy them. I didn't even have to use my verbal skill while talking to him, which was the reason I created the debate in looking forward to a good argument. Guess he was too much of a beta to talk, all kids arguing for atheism in an actual debate will be betas -- destroy them.

[Anonymous No.14116975]

>>14116645
Dosto didn't said that. It's a made up quote that the perfid french, Sartre, created in La Nausée.

[Anonymous No.14116978]

>>14116939
muh everything is subjective is by its own standards a subjective statement. Liberals actually have a very specific notion of the good that is incompatible with any other. By this point ideology of liberalism has become as absurd and restictive as the late soviet marxist ideology, a set of ossified formulas devoid of meaning.

[Anonymous No.14116983]

>>14116978
>muh everything is subjective is by its own standards a subjective statement.
I never said *everything* is subjective, but nice strawman.

[Anonymous No.14116990]

>>14116974
Serious question, do you envision having sex with a clone of yourself while masturbating?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14116991]

>>14116942
Hold it. I just said I advocate a happy family situation. Some people find love with one partner for life and that’s lovely, but often it doesn’t work out that way. As for sex workers, I have stated before I’m against it. That’s a sick liberal capitalist perspective and a cheap third wave feminism.

>>14116945
As a path to maximum happiness. My guess is he had his heart broken a few times. He was hardly an antinatalist trying to drive humanity into extinction. Get the carrot out of your ass, you fucking furry.

[Anonymous No.14116999]

>>14116983
modern leftism is a confused amalgam of postmodern relativism and fetishistic appeals to credentialled expert authority, 'marginalised' victim classes (who all happen to parrot the exact same ideology) are sacrosant as well.

[Anonymous No.14117000]

>>14116990
No, that's gay, just the female equivalent.

[Anonymous No.14117003]

>>14116991
>philosopher
>heart broken
do you really think people having more than half a brain think in such soap-opera terms? not to say that Epicurus had that, because he's wrong about any substantial topic he talked about

[Anonymous No.14117004]

>>14116990
No, I'm not the Zeitgeist.

[Anonymous No.14117008]

>>14116939
Care to wait some minutes? I'm currently in class and I hope the thread doesn't go away.

[Anonymous No.14117018]

>>14117008
NEVER use 4chan in public, ever.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14117022]

>>14117003
. . .

>>>/fur/

[Anonymous No.14117032]

>>14117022
does HRT mess with your eyesight?
these are two different posts

>>14116958
>>14116945

[Anonymous No.14117033]

>>14116969
>>14116974

Jesus Christ, this was almost painful to read. Thanks for the laughs, anon.

[Anonymous No.14117037]

>>14116939
Yes, beauty in concord with goodness obviously so. But the word beauty itself is much more vague and as a result used vastly different depending on the context. Give me your definition of beauty alone, then a reply to the previous point of this post and I will give answer.

[Anonymous No.14117038]

>>14117018
Why, tho?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14117044]

>>14117032
Stop molesting your poor dog, degenerate.

[Anonymous No.14117045]

>>14117018
Shut the fuck up WHORE! I'll use chan to talk with my chad tendybros whenever I want.

[Anonymous No.14117051]

If you can't come up with any arguments for your beliefs and values, then they are not really yours, and have been programmed into you by your environment.
Consider examining them and perhaps changing your mind.

[Anonymous No.14117052]

If you have a secular and individualist mindset (as all people in the west, even most conservatives have) you HAVE to be open to sexual deviancy if you want to be consistent with your beliefs.

[Anonymous No.14117053]

>>14117037
I don’t believe in subjective concepts, because most of the criteria is arbitrary. Beauty would be a subjective concept.

[Anonymous No.14117062]

>>14117044
stop molesting your natural hormone profile, degenerate

[Anonymous No.14117066]

>>14117053
Anon, that doesn't mean we cannot categorise subjective concepts (that is going by the idea that it is subjective). So please give me your definition of beauty.

[Anonymous No.14117068]

>>14117033
How was it painful?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14117072]

>>14117062
The point is, I’m not. You know I’m not, and I want you to shut up with your damn tran-fetish

[Anonymous No.14117074]

>>14117068

[Anonymous No.14117077]

>>14117072
>"From the beginning, the psychology of race clearly teaches us that each race finds ultimate value in itself... In the final analysis it is the only factor that determines racial-spiritual values."

[Anonymous No.14117078]

>>14117066
beauty - a combination of qualities, such as shape, color, or form, that pleases the aesthetic senses (hence subjectivity), especially the sight

[Anonymous No.14117085]

>>14117078
What do you consider to be the senses? Don't worry I wont continue to go on a rigmarole with this, but just gotta get this answered first.

[Anonymous No.14117086]

>>14116761
use google.

[Anonymous No.14117090]

>>14117085
sense - a faculty by which the body perceives an external stimulus; one of the faculties of sight, smell, hearing, taste, and touch

[Anonymous No.14117094]

>>14116645
lgbt/leftists are ideological soldiers for cultural marxism, if they had their way the western cannon would be banned and replaced by 'diverse' ideologically correct YA and comic books. They don't want to be left alone, they are antiintellectual consumer cattle who want to degrade culture and drag everyone down to their level.

[Anonymous No.14117096]

>>14117090
Anon, I know this is annoying but you are being quite vague so please tell me what counts as an external stimulus? Does everything?

[Anonymous No.14117100]

>>14116693
The existence of the Hedonic Treadmill.

But secular answers to spiritual questions will always be a fool’s game.

[Anonymous No.14117101]

>>14117096
An external stimulus is a stimulus that originates from outside the organism. For example, light is an external stimulus.
How many times will I need to rip definitions from Google?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14117104]

>>14117094
Buzzwords the post. /pol/ has done a number on you

[Anonymous No.14117112]

>>14117101
But when does something 'not' originate outside of the organism when as idea?

>How many times will I need to rip definitions from Google?
Depends.

[Anonymous No.14117116]

>>14116898
I find it revolting that you still draw breath.

[Anonymous No.14117122]

>>14117104
I just listen to mainstream left wing spokespeople

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14117121]

>>14117116

[Anonymous No.14117125]

There are no real arguments. It ultimately comes down to the belief that one has the authority to dictate another's personal life. You could make the case that some acts of sexual deviancy promote disease, but only among those who engage in it.

If someone is a gay "bug chaser" and wants to get pozzed, that is ultimately their choice, and it only impacts him and those he has sex with. The medical costs come out of his insurance.

In the case of pedophilia there are laws in place to protect children.

In the case of bestiality, one could argue it is rape because animals cannot verbally or tacitly consent.

[Anonymous No.14117128]

>>14117112
I don’t know what you’re asking.

[Anonymous No.14117136]

>>14117128
Do ideas originate outside of the organism, or more better said which ideas do and do not? For can there not be beautiful ideas? It was Plato who after all devised the theory of forms, of which he talked of the idea of beauty in itself.

[Anonymous No.14117142]

>>14117125

[Anonymous No.14117145]

>>14117136
If you’re asking what is objective, I would say logic and math.

[Anonymous No.14117147]

>>14117125
leftists want to dictate everyone's personal life and exert total ideological control over culture what if i don't consent to your cultural marxism?

[Anonymous No.14117151]

>>14117122
>>14117121
cut it out you two, you are both groupthink as fuck

[Anonymous No.14117152]

>>14117145
No, I mean do you only count the physically sensory information as external stimuli or also (some)ideas?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14117155]

>>14117122
>I just listen to /pol/s leftwing
Uh-hu.
>>14117151
I’m pretty independent of most groups

[Anonymous No.14117166]

>>14117152
What is perceived is external stimuli.

[Anonymous No.14117172]

>>14117166
So ideas?

[Anonymous No.14117175]

>>14116969
>>14116974

your idea of dominance is about as respectable as walking into a classroom with 4 fingers and a thumb shoved up your own arse

[Anonymous No.14117183]

>>14117172
No, ideas are internal.

[Anonymous No.14117187]

>>14117051
/thread

[Anonymous No.14117194]

>>14116645
lgbtsjw is the definition of consumerist cattle culture. All the well read antiestablishment white guys who would have supported the left 10 years ago are turning to the radical right.

[Anonymous No.14117206]

>>14117142
Not an argument
>>14117147
Leftists don't care who you fuck.

[Anonymous No.14117227]

>>14117206
lgbt is not about sex is a cultural marxist programme of social engineering aimed at the normalisation of pedophilia

[Anonymous No.14117240]

>>14116645
Allowing sexuality to go unchecked may seem relatively harmless at first, but in the long term it has a detrimental effect on society.

Example:
>women should be allowed to raise children by themselves, without the father's involvement
>'just live and let live, dude'
>several studies have shown that children who grow up in fatherless houses are significantly more at risk for criminal behavior and drug use
>single motherhood ends up creating psychologically-and-emotionally troubled kids, which is bad by itself, but also creates problems for everyone else

Other examples:
>having sex before marriage has been shown to ruin women's pair-bonding ability, leading to unhappy marriages and increased rates of divorce (with all the pain that divorce entails for the family members)
>sex before marriage also makes some men less willing to commit, causing problems for women
>widespread emphasis on sex puts more pressure on both men and women to be sexually attractive, leading to self-esteem issues, eating disorders, etc
>the acceptance of homosexuality has caused the hiv epidemic which has claimed the lives of countless men, and made it more difficult for straight men to express their feelings of affection for other men (due to fear of being called faggots)
>once homosexuality has been normalized, the same arguments have been used to normalize every type of sexuality, including transexuality and pedophilia
>the acceptance of transexuality has ruined the lives of many children, who have been raised as someone of the opposite sex, leading to deep identity issues and in many cases, suicide
>trans rights are ruining women's sports, because biological females can't compete with trans 'women'

And so on. You just need to frame the problem in terms that don't make you sound like a religious conservative, but rather like someone who's concerned with the general well-being of his fellow countrymen.

[Anonymous No.14117243]

>>14117147
have you only just heard about democracy?

[Anonymous No.14117249]

>>14117183
So are you saying ideas cannot be beautiful?

You should read Plato, anon.

[Anonymous No.14117254]

>>14116974
seems like your foremost interest was a physical display. if you were interested in discussing the validity of his claims about religion, you would've done so in an appropriate manner. it's also peculiar how infatuated you are with the ideas of power, domination or so-called 'aryan' beauty, which are not part of the Christian idealism, because it understandably focuses more on piety, humility and more subtle grace. but you're probably a modern catholic, so that probably explains it.
you're even saying that you're 'intelligent' and you read plato 'that year' which even more demonstrates either your extreme arrogance, ignorance or plain stupidity, since based on your described personality you wouldn't be interested in a socratic level-headed dialogue.
if you were to be born as a roman soldier in the time of the supposed Jesus, you would've been one that mocked and beaten him (of course, you couldn't comfortably do that to the guy at the your school) because, if anything, Jesus was no 'Aryan beauty', and most certainly more than '1/8th' jewish

[Anonymous No.14117268]

>>14117249
> So are you saying ideas cannot be beautiful?
From an objective, non-arbitrary standpoint, no.

[Anonymous No.14117269]

>>14117240
This Op, it's good to have the philosophical intelligence behind it but "fax and logic" with tests and the likes are what normies really appeal to.

[Anonymous No.14117287]

>>14116704
Because he’s zoomer fag himself that larps as a right wing tradcath that nonetheless jerks it to futa every night

[Anonymous No.14117294]

>>14117254
Anon, you're a retard. Everything about this post goes from plainly wrong to irrational advantages of thought. The latter seen in your own beta understanding of dominance to be the foremost interest, I simply did that along the way. I did first try to talk to him normally but he was not having it. Besides, do you really think the Republic, being an authoritarian state, would settle matters by Socratic discourse? You show your own inferiority, it's glowing.

And Jesus was not jewish, I've debated this so many times and always won, on 4chan or not. Any man that seriously think he was jewish just doesn't care about looking into it.

>>14117268
If you mean "no" as in ideas cannot be beautiful, then you should know all sensory data once received is by your knowing of it, an idea. And so the distinguishing between idea and sensory experience is a flawed one. And so ideas must have the potential to be judged in contrast to the beautiful whether ugly, indifferent or attractive.

[Anonymous No.14117296]

>>14117240
>Allowing sexuality to go unchecked
who on earth is gonna start 'checking' this?

[Anonymous No.14117300]

>>14117294
The Republic is an allegory. Have you ever heard about Laws?

[Anonymous No.14117308]

>>14117294
sorry dude, but true dominance is about achieving the respect of your peers without the necessity of intimidation. if people who you support, support you back and will bend over backwards for you out of deep-rooted respect, and not merely fear then well done, until that point, try working on your emotional intelligence

>I've debated this so many times and always won
sounds like pure beta male vibes to me

[Anonymous No.14117314]

>>14117300
>imagine thinking something cannot be both an allegory as well as of literal application
Yes, I'm sure Plato thought that when talking about how states aligning with the Soul and as a result must be ordered the same way it was useless for him to learn about the soul this way from its larger representation as it's just a throw-away allegory without any practical application even though he did that anyway and it worked

[Anonymous No.14117320]

>>14116715
True. That's nihilism.

[Anonymous No.14117332]

>>14117308
>sorry dude, but true dominance is about achieving the respect of your peers without the necessity of intimidation. if people who you support, support you back and will bend over backwards for you out of deep-rooted respect, and not merely fear then well done, until that point, try working on your emotional intelligence
Ohh dude come off this bullshit. Firstly when did I ever say my primary intention was to be dominant? Secondly I don't want his respect, thirdly there is obviously a greater difference between respect and the experience I spoke of than a linear continuum of dominance; As example he would be unable to gain the respect of.

[Anonymous No.14117337]

>>14117294
>all sensory data once received is by your knowing of it, an idea
Proof?

[Anonymous No.14117347]

So far the only half decent argument is the one about family, but I can see them countering that with muh unconventional polyamorous family unit. I think you are doomed OP

[Anonymous No.14117348]

>>14117314
>>>imagine thinking something cannot be both an allegory as well as of literal application
It's irrelevant if they can or not, since Plato also wrote Laws which is infinitely less ambiguous and more practical. You dodged the immediate question so I'm guessing you never read it. Also, your idea of 'authoritarian' is likely off, I can assure you the philosopher kings wouldn't have been cutting heads left and right, owning libtards and/or spewing miscegenation statistics or talking about 'Aryan' beauty. For Plato, the highest form of beauty has nothing to do with your power-driven hubris and material representations.

[Anonymous No.14117351]

>>14117337
Anon, what defines an idea? It being individually formulated within ya psyche. Deres ya proof.

[Anonymous No.14117366]

>>14117351
An idea is a concept. An external stimulus is a percept. Dude, are you banned from Google or something? You ask for a definition with every post.

[Anonymous No.14117375]

>>14117347
true, because where someone puts their dick and how they maintain their family are completely different areas of the human experience

[Anonymous No.14117383]

>>14117068
Because it's an absolutely delusional rant, and the writer himself probably didn't believed a quarter of what he said. If he actually was being serious about it, that would only make it worse.

[Anonymous No.14117406]

>>14117347
The family is the argument itself, you fool! It counters itself.

>>14117348
>Ignored my entire point showing how the allegory of the Republic for philosophical reasons, cannot exist without a practical application
>accuses me of ignoring a minor detail
Hypocrite that you are! And imagine being so small minded to think "the philosopher kings wouldn't do that because I don't believe that". The idea of action for the philosopher king should only ever be left as doing the morally good which has been arrived at by philosophical means, based upon already given core concepts of which have been philosophically justified within the past. Stating that Plato would not admire the beauty of the physical form is both opposite to what he says but also by no means one of those key concepts. Let me guess "blablablabla mind over physical beauty"? The highest form of beauty exists immaterially and so inexperienced by the physical sensory unit, however that does not deny the layering of the idea of beauty within that of the world of phenomenal experience. Think along the lines of Shelling.

>>14117366
They are only terms for their arrival into the world of ideas -- the psyche -- not that the term concept doesn't infer a more so complex idea, it still remains an idea as does the perception.

>>14117383
Come now, it was pretty funny anon. Not that it wasn't true, just truthful entertainment.

[Anonymous No.14117415]

>>14117332
>Firstly when did I ever say my primary intention was to be dominant?
and i quote
>>14116974
>the kids go quiet watching this massive show of uncaring dominance

>And that's the art of being dominant

not sure what you want me to say

i honestly thought you were trolling and was lolling my ass off til your response

[Anonymous No.14117416]

>>14117406
>it still remains an idea as does the perception
Are you trying to tell me a camera has ideas? Seriously, what the fuck is this argument you’re making?

[Anonymous No.14117436]

>>14117155
Fuck off

[Anonymous No.14117441]

>>14117416
are you telling us that camera has experience?

[Anonymous No.14117445]

>>14117415
Yes, to be dominant so he can get a -- *polite -- word out while debating. I was simply explaining to a 4chan anon (whom often struggle with social dominance) how to be dominant for the sake of debate. And imagine thinking the seriousness of what one thought was a troll makes it any less funny.

And you didn't respond to my post, can't handle getting verbally pulverised? Guess that's just cause you aren't an Entp chad like myself.

>>14117416
>Are you trying to tell me a camera has ideas? Seriously, what the fuck is this argument you’re making?
A camera doesn't have a perception anon. It's like saying a mirror does.

[Anonymous No.14117451]

>>14117445
>A camera doesn't have a perception anon.
Actually, it does. It reinterprets and recreates the light that passes through.

[Anonymous No.14117464]

>>14117406
The platonic Idea is by definition not layered. I don't know why you would use such words. The role of so-called 'empirical' beauty for Plato is like a staircase towards the true, immaterial form. It's contradictory to say you can 'attain' several at the same time (i.e. saying that you are worthy of the immaterial form of love or 'Love for love', while still practicing 'Eros' or nonreproductive sex). It is as clear as it could be that Plato argued that 'non-romantic' love is superior to 'romantic' love, it's not simply my opinion. But there isn't much power, dominance or hubris in non-romantic love, so I'm guessing you have some false arguments about how your 6'4 Aryan ass can have both the lowest form of whore-loving 'love' and the love as an ideal>

[Anonymous No.14117473]

>>14117445
>And you didn't respond to my post, can't handle getting verbally pulverised?
hahahaha, dude i can't even work out what half of your sentences mean.

not sure if i'm quite pulverised yet, but if you are still trolling, i'm still laughing

[Anonymous No.14117485]

>>14116645
Why do you hold that opinion if you have no arguments to back it up? Sounds almost like you just heard it somewhere and didn't come up with it yourself.

[Anonymous No.14117501]

>>14116806
Idk i just like dick...

[Anonymous No.14117508]

>>14117451
No, it just imprints light onto paper. That isn't a perception, you might as well say a painting is a perception just in and of itself given the same context of the camera hypothet. The only thing that has a perception is a conscious being, besides even if we did define cameras as perceiving that wouldn't matter, we do perceive and as a result have a psyche and with that ideas so it isn't an applicable allegory.

>>14117464
>beauty doesn't exist in its physical representation.
Have you not read Plato?

Firstly however, what does dominance have to do with (what Plato calls) seeing the beautiful in itself? Secondly, dominance is all pervading, I love my wife whom I share a lets say almost entirely Platonic relationship with, there is still the dominance of masculine and feminine. Thirdly, you seem to think everything Plato said was right and as a result have gotten lost on a purposeless tangent.

[Anonymous No.14117531]

>>14117451
No, it just imprints light onto paper. That isn't a perception, you might as well say a painting is a perception just in and of itself given the same context of the camera hypothet. The only thing that has a perception is a conscious being, besides even if we did define cameras as perceiving that wouldn't matter, we do perceive and as a result have a psyche and with that ideas so it isn't an applicable allegory.

>>14117464
>beauty doesn't exist in its physical representation.
Have you not read Plato?

Firstly however, what does dominance have to do with (what Plato calls) seeing the beautiful in itself? Secondly, dominance is all pervading, I love my wife whom I share a lets say almost entirely Platonic relationship with, there is still the dominance of masculine and feminine. Thirdly, you seem to think everything Plato said was right and as a result have gotten lost on a purposeless tangent.

>>14117473
>hahahaha, dude i can't even work out what half of your sentences mean.
A brainlet too it seems.

>not sure if i'm quite pulverised yet, but if you are still trolling, i'm still laughing
Good to hear, there'll be more to smash then.......

[Anonymous No.14117544]

>>14117508
If you’re saying the external world is an idea, you do realize that would make you a solipsist, right?

[Anonymous No.14117548]

try going back to the 1500s retard

[Anonymous No.14117560]

>>14117508
>beauty doesn't exist in its physical representation.
Have you not read Plato?
by the Platonic definitions of 'beauty' and 'exist', no, it doesn't. The beauty that you can perceive through empirical means is a 'mere' shadow of the platonic Idea, nothing more, nothing less. Have you not read Plato?
>Secondly, dominance is all pervading, I love my wife whom I share a lets say almost entirely Platonic relationship with
>almost entirely Platonic relationship
kek, now this proves your actual dissonance. There's no grade of comparison in that term. It's either a Platonic relationship or a non-Platonic relationship. A sexual relationship is by definition non-platonic. You could simply say that you don't care about what Plato said about love or Ideas or that he was wrong on this subject, but in your specific manner you want to seem 'cultured' because you've 'read' Plato. Your wife and I are the product of mere contingency. There's no intrinsic (i.e. valuable, if we're talking Plato) link between two humans. Your wife makes your pp hard, your self-control is that of a common dog in heat, and so you marry her, have sex with her regularly, etc. Were she the same soul, but with a different body, you'd certainly look the other way for some other wife and don't give 2 shits about her.
Plato and the Bible share essentially the same view on love, so you're also going against your oh-so-dear Christianity ideal of beauty, just so you can COOOOOOOOOOOOOM a few times a week. lol
pathetic

[Anonymous No.14117566]

>>14117560
your wife and you*

[Anonymous No.14117589]

there is no actual purpose to heterosexuality and monogamy. it has no value above other sexual practices.

[Anonymous No.14117595]

>>14116645
>and the general opinion among zoomers is "live and let live, dude" or "if it doesn't hurt someone it should be allowed"...

There isn't good arguments against those opinions though, only subjective beliefs. If you were right, crime would not be dropping across the board in societies that allow their citizenry to do most anything that doesn't harm others.

[Anonymous No.14117603]

>>14117544
No anon, I'm not.

>>14117560
>The beauty that you can perceive through empirical means is a 'mere' shadow of the platonic Idea
Doesn't mean one is not seeing the beautiful in a lesser form.

>kek, now this proves your actual dissonance. There's no grade of comparison in that term. It's either a Platonic relationship or a non-Platonic relationship.

I meant as in the exceptions of having children, which Socrates did after all. Would you claim him to not of lived a Platonic life?

>Your wife makes your pp hard, your self-control is that of a common dog in heat, and so you marry her, have sex with her regularly, etc. Were she the same soul, but with a different body, you'd certainly look the other way for some other wife and don't give 2 shits about her.
Plato and the Bible share essentially the same view on love, so you're also going against your oh-so-dear Christianity ideal of beauty, just so you can COOOOOOOOOOOOOM a few times a week. lol
>pathetic

Fucks sake anon, you really went off there.

[Anonymous No.14117606]

>>14117603
>I'm not.
Yes, you are. You just told me the external world is only an idea.

[Anonymous No.14117612]

>>14116645
Of course everything is "permitted". We have a responsibility to decide what's moral and immoral ourselves. Are you saying you'd go around killing people if it weren't for the Bible telling you not to?

[Anonymous No.14117617]

>>14116942
>insisting a happily married woman is actualy oppressed but a woman who sells sex to survive is empowered and liberated.

I know you won't take the time to consider it, but the argument is not that sex workers are empowered or liberated, but that they shouldn't be stigmatized for something that shouldn't be shameful.

[Anonymous No.14117619]

>>14117603
>Doesn't mean one is not seeing the beautiful in a lesser form.
Yes it does.
>I meant as in the exceptions of having children,which Socrates did after all. Would you claim him to not of lived a Platonic life?First off, so you never have sex with your wife except when you're trying to procreate? Secondly, Socrates most certainly did not live the Platonic life, most precisely not when it came to sexual intercourse (he also liked men in this regard, and Plato was clearly against that).

[Anonymous No.14117623]

>>14117595
there has to be tho. some are of the opinion that assisted suicide is every persons right, even if the person is not afflicted by a mortal disease which causes them to suffer. so the mentally ill could just kill themselves. then there are some who think that it's not a problem that people are increasingly normalizing their sexual fetishes and parade them in the public....

[Anonymous No.14117625]

>>14117619
*
>I meant as in the exceptions of having children,which Socrates did after all. Would you claim him to not of lived a Platonic life?
First off, so you never have sex with your wife except when you're trying to procreate? Secondly, Socrates most certainly did not live the Platonic life, most precisely not when it came to sexual intercourse (he also liked men in this regard, and Plato was clearly against that).

[Anonymous No.14117630]

>>14117531
>Good to hear, there'll be more to smash then.......
ahh yes, more of your world class dominance theory on display then. pure caveman idiot with club in hand

baby go boom boom

[Anonymous No.14117639]

Why is it that everytime someone says "Plato" you have to justify your very reasonable and very practical ideas?
What is this "beauty itself" or that ideal anyways? Isn't it possible that Plato's idea was just pretentious BS?

[Anonymous No.14117641]

>>14117612
>Are you saying you'd go around killing people if it weren't for the Bible telling you not to?
Unfortunately one of the most terrifying things about this is that yes, there are people who would rape/murder/commit horrific crimes if not for their fragile religious views. Most often, they end up committing those crimes anyway, after bottling up their desire to be evil for so long. I had a thief of a coworker when I was younger that found jesus in jail, humped his bible for years, then stole thousands from the company that gave him a second chance without a hint of remorse.

[Anonymous No.14117651]

>>14117566
>your wife and you*
Freudian slip?

[Anonymous No.14117656]

>>14117606
No I didn't.

[Anonymous No.14117669]

>>14117595
>crime would not be dropping across the board in societies that allow their citizenry to do most anything that doesn't harm others.
is it also safe to say that these societies are generally on a higher socio-economic standing than societies that don't allow their citizenry to do most anything.
my point being of course that liberalism might in fact have nothing to do with the drop in crime rate but that it's rather a consequence of the higher socioeconomic standing of those communities that is responsible for the drop in crime rate.

[Anonymous No.14117679]

>>14117641
I have no hard data but I find that unlikely.
I would say that yes, some people who would otherwise commit crimes don't do it because of the indirect effect of religion, but it's not religion itself in most cases.
It's the community, if a community follows Christian values the individual will usually do the same, but it's not because of a deep understandin of scripture most of the time.
If your community is sexually conservative because of religion you will likely be sexually conservative, if your community is sexually conservative because of econimic reasons you will still behave the same way.

[Anonymous No.14117682]

>>14116645
The best and simplest argument is the degeneration of fundemental trust. The lack of structure does not allow for any amount of trust, and thus destroys the capability of fundemental interaction.

if for example, there is no protection for fidelity, what then is the basis for stable and safe reproduction? A father not required to be one leaves a single mother to struggle, and a higher probability of fundemental failure both in the pregnancy and in development. the pedeatrics and psychological data is clear on these things. if you cant produce the next generation with regularity or security, it ceases to exist. Waste increases as potential is devoured by degeneracy.

if there is no protection for exchange, then what is the basis for trade? if i cannot trust the opposite to uphold a deal, why then would i gamble my own goods and services? if i cannot trust in the exchange of currency, how then do i make anything but the most simple exchanges? How then does wealth grow? how then can charity be requested, and tyranny of force curbed?

without trust, born and protected by the structures of life, how do we function? humanity has already experienced degeneracy, and lawlessness and choose and strove to replace it with lawfull fidelity, and the capacity for trust. History proves your argument, for the wilds always civilize or die out.

[Anonymous No.14117684]

>>14116645
Christ cultists have yet to explain how God saying something is right would make it so. Just because he is mightier than man does not make his whims any more petty and subjective than ours.

[Anonymous No.14117693]

>>14117669
You'd be right except statistically(at least in the US) people on the bottom are actually worse off than they were thirty years ago in terms of hours worked and the worth of their labor. Individualism paradoxically makes people less likely to commit crime and increase altruism and empathy.

[Anonymous No.14117696]

>>14117619
>>14117625
Meant to reply, and yes I would only procreate with my wife. And Socrates clearly lived a Platonic heterosexual life. The only things that say otherwise are modern translations by homosexual jews of PLATONIC dialogues.

[Anonymous No.14117698]

>>14117641
I think that most people, OP included, actually wouldn't rape/murder if the Bible didn't forbid it. The truth is just that they're being dishonest with themselves: they say to /lit/ that their morality comes from the Bible when the truth is that it comes from their humanity and the Bible just provides a written approximation of that.

>>14117682
You're implying that a disbelief in God and the Bible leads to a "degeneration of fundamental trust", which isn't true.

[Anonymous No.14117712]

>>14117682
How do 2 gay dudes having sex with a condom destroy that trust?
How does a couple doing BDSM destroy that trust?
How is it guaranteed that a heterosexual married couple will forever stay married and care for their children?

[Anonymous No.14117722]

>>14117712
It doesn't. He's illustrating a bunch of obviously bad effects on society... without logically explaining how "social liberalism" actually has those effects.

[Anonymous No.14117729]

>>14117696
>the aryan chad only has sex with his wife a few times every 9 months AT MOST(assuming she's popping out kids like crazy)
noticed any shawarma smell in your bed lately? I think some colored BVLL might be having some fun with your wife

[Anonymous No.14117739]

>>14117698
What I think that most people don't want to admit is that Christianity has shaped the ethos of Western Civilization over centuries so that most people take for granted that the notions of rape and murder is wrong.

[Anonymous No.14117752]

>>14117729
>the aryan chad with advice on how to win 90% of debates using a whole lot of charisma and only a little substance
goes on to win 0 debates

[Anonymous No.14117756]

>>14117739
Rape and murder are illegal in completely un-Christianized societies, but it's true that "western" morals have some unique and admirable qualities, but if I were to attribute our modern western morals to anything, it would be to the Enlightenment and our long history of philosophy - not Christianity, whose lessons and commandments are stolen from philosophy or are simply wrong.

[Anonymous No.14117757]

>>14117630
>ahh yes, more of your world class dominance theory on display then. pure caveman idiot with club in hand
>baby go boom boom

[Anonymous No.14117763]

>>14117739
>fucking idiot thinks neighbours in pre-christian society just rape and murder each other because they have no fundamental notions of injustice and wrongdoing

[Anonymous No.14117768]

>>14117763
>fucking idiot fell for the 'le noble pagan/savage' meme

[Anonymous No.14117771]

>>14117757
is that your wife?

[Anonymous No.14117774]

>>14117756
Be that as it may, it was still Christianity that took the responsibility of educating those ideas to the common man.

[Anonymous No.14117778]

>>14117768
>fucking idiot fell for 'le noble christian and preisthood' meme

[Anonymous No.14117797]

>>14117729
>noticed any shawarma smell in your bed lately? I think some colored BVLL might be having some fun with your wife
So now you shame my platonic lifestyle? However I hope you realise this is hypothetical. I regularly find women flirting with and looking at myself, how often or if I do at all sleep with them is up to you to find out.

>>14117752
Firstly I want to clarify that I never made out substance to not be important, only that it wasn't always necessary. And secondly, imagine thinking I'm losing.

[Anonymous No.14117799]

>>14117768
It's absolutely true that Ancient Greece - perhaps Sparta excepted - was no less ethical or moral than medieval Christian societies. I could cite a dozen other reasonably ethical completely non-Christian historical societies - Indus Valley comes to mind, even if much of their history is shrouded in mystery.

>>14117774
Sure, and only because Christianity became popular. And at this point, all you're describing Christianity as is a conveyor belt for the ethics and morals that came from elsewhere - not a source of ethics and morals itself.

[Anonymous No.14117803]

>>14117771
AHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.14117805]

>>14117763
what a sheltered life you must have led. you've obviously never seen true 'humanity' in action. i can assure you it is quite brutal and without conscience.

[Anonymous No.14117821]

>>14117774
>>14117805

What in your right mind are you saying? I can't believe you think Christianity invented and popularised the idea that rape and murder is an injustice

[Anonymous No.14117846]

>>14117698
>You're implying that a disbelief in God and the Bible leads to a "degeneration of fundamental trust", which isn't true.

im not? i am making a sommewhat secular argument for the perils of degeneracy, but i didnt place any sort of qualitative point on where the protective structure comes from. I argue that degeneracy must be avoided because its chaotic nature harms l cooperation and community. If your protection agaisnt degeneracy is religion, go for it. Likewise if it is the teachings of plato, or elmo go for it. As long as you find a sustainable means of protecting trust between you and others, it is good. I argue that there is no state of degenerecy that fosters trust.


>>14117712
It doesnt destroy trust to be a homosexual. it does harm trust to exhibit unchecked promiscuity. if you cannot create trust between yourself and your choosen partner, regardless of who the choosen partner is, your relationship will fail. BDSM actually requires quite a lot of trust, and so is a great means of building shared trust between partners, as long as both parties agree to it. Forcing another into bdsm is degenerate. Likewise a hetero couple may not stay together, but they have a better chance of remaining together if trust can be fostered between them. If promescuity prevents the growth of trust, then the pair will not remain a couple, and the degeneracy of promescuity is to blame.

[Anonymous No.14117863]

>>14117722
OPs post was about degenerecy, and the arguments against it. Social liberalism wasnt the topic.

[Anonymous No.14117866]

>>14117821
i don't know, what was the original argument again ?

[Anonymous No.14117871]

>>14117846
Fine, make your argument as secular as you like; you're still arguing from the same viewpoint. Here's the problem:
>that degeneracy must be avoided because its chaotic nature harms cooperation and community
Who defines "degeneracy"? Can you provide a specific example of "degeneracy" leading to a breakdown of "fundamental trust"?
>it does harm trust to exhibit unchecked promiscuity
It doesn't if people are simply honest with each other. If a couple wants an open relationship, then they're free to communicate with each other and establish that. Conversely, if people want a monogamous relationship, they can verbally establish that expectation up front. It's so simple. It just feels like all conservative rants about the "dangers of degeneracy" just break down under virtually any scrutiny.

[Anonymous No.14117939]

>>14117871
>Fine, make your argument as secular as you like; you're still arguing from the same viewpoint.
yeah i am, because most religions strive to provide humanity with a fundemental basis for sucessfull living. it has been understood since humanity first emerged that numbers increase survivability, and in order to live in groups, you need cooperation. Cooperation requires trust, so everyone works to define concepts that create trust. If you want, i can quote bible, or torah, or quorran paasages?

>Who defines "degeneracy"?
anyone can, but i define it as "anything that destroys the fundemental trust which allows for safe and healthy communication and cooperation." i admit that isnt the webster's definition of the word though. if you have a better definition, im willing to edit my stance.

>Can you provide a specific example of "degeneracy" leading to a breakdown of "fundamental trust"?
cheating on a spouse, leading to divorce? plenty of those cases in civil court these days.

>It doesn't if people are simply honest with each other. If a couple wants an open relationship, then they're free to communicate with each other and establish that.
Correct: if it was communicated and agreed, then trust is maintained, and the promescuity isnt unchecked? this is like the bdsm argument. kinky isnt degenerate, and that isnt a part of my argument. If your actions cause a failure of mutual trust: it is degenerate.

[Anonymous No.14117951]

>>14117871
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand we're back to >>14116714

[Anonymous No.14117972]

>>14117033
>>14117068
>>14117383
It *was* really funny though. The ideal kind of entertainment we all hope to encounter on this site.

[Anonymous No.14117984]

>>14117871
>Who defines "degeneracy"?

the dictionary defines it as:
1. having lost the physical, mental, or moral qualities considered normal and desirable; showing evidence of decline.

2. lacking some property, order, or distinctness of structure previously or usually present.

i argue the "quality" is the concept of trust as long as degenerate is used to describe human interaction.

[Anonymous No.14117989]

>>14117972
You're under the impression I'm not shitposting?

Philosophically though I was right.

[Anonymous No.14117999]

>>14117984
>I trust my fellow egoists to be egoists
>I trust my fellow Marxists to be Marxists
wow that was difficult.

[Anonymous No.14118006]

>>14117972
definitely. thanks all anons above, especially Aryan Chad and Revisionist Christ, it's been fun

i'm off to an early bed for some well needed dominance sleep. my testicles will be full again by daybreak. sayonara

[Anonymous No.14118030]

>>14118006
>i'm off to an early bed for some well needed dominance sleep
nerd, men don't sleep.

[Anonymous No.14118048]

>>14117951
Not really what I'm saying. The effects spoken about in >>14117682 aren't 'effects' I'd advocate for. I'm saying that """degeneracy""" doesn't necessarily lead to those effects.


>>14117984
Yes, nice dictionary definition, but I'm asking about specific examples of "degeneracy" conservatives are referring to.

[Anonymous No.14118076]

>>14117999
if they declare themselves an egoist, then the understanding that they will seek only self agandisment should temper and shape your trust in them. come to terms with their actions, and it ceases to be degenerate, or acceptably degenerate.

in the same way, if you act as an ignorant and helpless babe in the woods, you attract degenerates, who will seek to exploit you.

>this is also why the containment threads on certain boards are almost requirments

[Anonymous No.14118078]

>>14118048
'Degenerate' has become an inspecific term to refer to the destruction and replacement of (inextricably Christian) foundational western values, roles, identities, practices... ultimately culture with ones which are apparently repugnant and sordid, born of contempt for the former.

[Anonymous No.14118096]

>>14116818
based thank you anon

[Anonymous No.14118115]

>>14118078
this, we all know degeneracy when we see it. some people just want to argue: but nah, it's actually okay.
it's not.

[Anonymous No.14118140]

>>14118048
you seem to act like this is a religious/political debate, but im here to offer OP grounds for arguing against widespread acceptance of degenerecy.

>conservative references
the skyrocketing divorce rate, based on infidelity. clear breach of trust, leading to degredation of human interaction.

if you want some other 'conservative references' go to >>>/pol/

ive made my case for why degenerecy is bad, if you have legitimate counter arguments, i would love to see them.

[Anonymous No.14118178]

>>14116645
I think that if there was no God, nothing would be permitted.

[Anonymous No.14118229]

>>14116645
Read On the Shortness of Life by Seneca. Exempting the Stoicism meme, it's got some really great points about how desires--food, drink, sex, etc.--all need to be kept in check and balanced in order to truly live a good life.

Basically, if you're going out and sleeping around a lot, while that may not seem bad, transfer that kind of over-indulgence to another vice--what if you were eating a shitton of junk food every day? Would that be good for you? Even if you can't see the effects of over-indulgence in a vice readily, it doesn't mean that you're not doing yourself harm. It's better to keep those things in their place--you can have some fast food every once in a while. You can have a drink or a smoke. You can sleep with someone if you want. But to over-indulge in any of those areas will lead to personal, and certainly physical, ruin.

[Anonymous No.14118249]

>>14118076
But wouldn't I just simply trust in them more so to do something different then?

>>14118096
Welcome m8.

[Anonymous No.14118269]

>>14116645
Sexual permissiveness is actually the key to all deep destructive immorality, especially in policy, because it removes the moral strength necessary to tell somebody "no." Imagine telling someone not to drink bleach and having them shout back, "how dare you say that,
you masturbate to doujins, therefore organic chemistry isn't real." This is the actual central creed of pseudo-educated NPR types.

[Anonymous No.14118272]

most of what we refer to as degeneracy has long term physical and psychological effects when taken to excess that will destroy a person, despite the fact that it may make them feel good in the moment and make them feel happy in the short term, and when your entire culture and all social norms begin to revolve around normalizing and encouraging such things, more and more people will fall into a downward spiral of mental illness and misery, birth rates fall, the family unit falls apart, standards are lowered, people have a hard time working and being productive, suicides skyrocket ect., all sorts of bad things begin happening and the society as a whole begins to rot from the inside out.

just look at the modern western world, we've collectively run ourselves into the ground with excess degeneracy to the point where people are killing themselves left and right, struggling to function properly and be productive, the family unit is falling apart and birth rates are plummeting rapidly, and we pretty much have to import a constant stream of millions of 3rd worlders just to keep the current economic system functioning because the native populace is simply broken and not functioning as it should because of degeneracy

[Anonymous No.14118282]

Women may get cystitis more often than men because their bottom (anus) is closer to their urethra and their urethra is much shorter, which means bacteria may be able to get into the bladder more easily.

[Anonymous No.14118295]

>>14116969
Shut the fuck up you larping fat faggot, you didn't do shit.

[Anonymous No.14118313]

>>14118229
>But to over-indulge in any of those areas will lead to personal, and certainly physical, ruin.
That relies purely on the utilitarian assumption that the fallout of these actions will cause harm. Harm that will out-weight the pleasure they caused. If a wealthy person over-indulges in fucking around and partying, but it only leads to greater self-confidence and network of friends without major drawback; then such argument would be negated.

[Anonymous No.14118360]

>>14118272
He could have prevented it lads. I miss this nigga like you wouldn't believe. instead we have a world order that profits off of this downward spiral, and when people are too sick to function and make kids and be productive after being milked to death like cattle, theyre simply put out to pasture to die, and replaced with a new populace harvested from regions that are kept in a state of constant warfare and chaos to ensure there is a constant stream of fresh meat being born who are eager to come to the west to meet the same fate as us.
what a fucking nightmare this world has become

[Anonymous No.14118373]

>>14117684
>Christ cultists have yet to explain how God saying something is right would make it so
Yeah how could someone who's omniscient and who can't go against his own nature possibly be right

[Anonymous No.14118380]

>>14118295
>jealousy sets in

[Anonymous No.14118384]

>>14116645
just tell them if they have not become immanent you will never embrace the "live and let live" meme.
tell them to read spinoza

[Anonymous No.14118483]

>>14116836
when your movement attempts to deconstruct the principle of life then there is nothing in that movement that will strife in the long run.
The LGBT just serves to destabilize and nothing more

[Anonymous No.14118492]

>>14118048
>Yes, nice dictionary definition, but I'm asking about specific examples of "degeneracy" conservatives are referring to.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/11-year-old-drag-kid-dances-in-popular-nyc-gay-club-as-patrons-toss-money-a

[Anonymous No.14118509]

>>14116898
stop using condoms and let's see how "natural" having so much sex is

[Anonymous No.14118510]

>>14118048
>Yes, nice dictionary definition, but I'm asking about specific examples of "degeneracy" conservatives are referring to.

[Anonymous No.14118537]

>>14117501
And there's nothing wrong with that, anon. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise, seriously. I'm sorry that a large portion of the population harbor such negative attitudes towards people of your background.

[Anonymous No.14118573]

>>14118509
>condoms
don't you mean birth control pills that cost less than a cent to produce and which are readily given by healthcare insurance for free or nearly so and prescribed by doctors for teens without parental knowledge or consent and also intrauterine devices which neutralize sperm and also pregnancy termination pills and also free or cheap abortions?
Sexually facilitative technology has always been marketed toward or with young women in mind.

[Anonymous No.14118835]

>>14116969
>>14116974
lmao, based chad poster.

[Anonymous No.14118914]

>>14118360
He was a good man.

[Anonymous No.14118999]

>>14118492
So dancing/entertainment as an occupation is degenerate?

[Anonymous No.14119110]

>>14116969
>>14116974
Fucking hilarious you vane cunt. This... this is why I come to /lit/.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.14119151]

>>14118509
I’ve never even touched one.

[Anonymous No.14119587]

>>14118999
>Context? What's context?