User Controls

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. ...
  5. 10896
  6. 10897
  7. 10898
  8. 10899
  9. 10900
  10. 10901
  11. ...
  12. 11466
  13. 11467
  14. 11468
  15. 11469

Posts by The Self Taught Man

  1. MAY FAVORITE TIME OF THE MONTH CRIB LEG BAG O CLOCK
  2. you need better production quality. I would actually listen to your shit if you did.
  3. I dont think it works that way hamface.
  4. ^ I noticed it, but I'm not gay enough to mention it

    [greentext]>not gay enough[/greentext]

    but you are by your own admission somewhat gay though.
  5. ^ Actually I like a lot of good music. You guys are just very dense and prolly listen to cuckstep and trap music.
    Why do you make such stupid assumptions?
  6. I like to think people are what they do.

    That would make me... nothing.
  7. Ahahahahah holy shit, you could pull the old "you know know what literally means" line in like half of the posts on this site, and it would have been just as stupid there as it usually is, but here TLN actually used it in the literally correct way making your inability of figure out english usage heroically bad. Trash to the core.

    You should give him a custom user title that reflects his worthlessness and stupidity.

    PS: When do I stop being a wigga?
  8. He aint talking about legos if you know what I mean ;)

    fucking degenerates.
  9. Drugs and autism? Hmm…drugs and autism incarnate…That does describe a number of people here quite well.

    I am convinced this is a honeypot of the IPA to study drug fueled autists. Fuck you Sandor Ferenczi and fuck the horse you rode in on.

  10. I was about to post something about how your question is unrelated to the argument but as I was doing so I found the connection. Excuse my drunkenness and please pardon any gramatical mistakes I make make and the potential word/idea salad that may ensue.

    What you are trying to do is gear my argument away from homosexuals explicitly and reign it in to any sexual relationship that will inherently fail to produce offspring, no? In reality I must inherently be a hypocrite if I say that heterosex without production is not preferable given the fact that I have pursued intercourse not as a means of production. But we must remember that we are beings capable of a higher thought and this higher thought can lead to depravity. Perhaps a point that must be considered is that non-productive sex can play an important role in the bonding between two mates. Now it is important that I used the term mates because we can describe mates as two individuals capable of the mating ritual and its subsequent (or the antecedent considering the time frame) child rearing potential.

    Thank you O mighty nigger faggot for your wisdom. When I incur a less drunken state and meditate upon the subject I shall revise my argument and come back with something that shall be more substantial and logically consistent. I praise your wisdom and kindness in responding to what you thought to be a thread seeking keks and I look forward to engaging you in the next round when it occurs.

    For now I must, regrettably, admit that my argument was not an end all be all and that it must be revised in order to reach the conclusion I am seeking. This does not mean that I admit any inherent flaw in my original argument other than the necessary and foreseeable flaws of a rough draft but rather that I must expand the original draft to fit the criticism of my opposition.

    Of course if I am completely wrong on each and every count I have visited in this post you must simply respond with a polite "Fuck off faggot" and I will indeed understand the sentiment.
  11. It is important to note that I have not endorsed heterosexuality without chance of conception. And the difference between the two situations is that in a tiny minority of cases a heterosexual encounter will not produce offspring under conditions that would normally produce them (i.e. no birth control, ovulation time and other biological factors) whereas there is no case in which a homosexual relationship will produce an offspring. The normal of heterosexuality is production. The definite of homosexuality is no production.

  12. Nothing has ever happened for no reason.
  13. Does everything happen for a reason?
  14. Considering that is not the case you seem to just be running in circles. Is there a point you are getting at or am I just pulling my own pud?
  15. That is another argument entirely is it not? If we are to include an extraneus discussion on the preferability of masturbation we could certianly argue that the solo form is more preferable with a partner as with the solo you will not spread disease to another. And perhaps you will say the heteronormative may spread disease. This is true but there is the fact that it has the potential outcome of a human being. The homosexual does not have this upside and must therefore be less preferable at the least in terms of risk and reward. And no hedonism for its own sake is no reward.

    Im assuming you arrived to quickly to address my above post so I will give you time.
  16. To reify: I've taken a rough sketch of your argument to be "every species ought to provide for its survival, humans are a species of life, thus humans ought to provide for their survival" but I deny your first premise on the grounds that it comes from nowhere. You might say "oh but everything (mostly) always tries to survive" and OK, generally true, but that's an "is" claim, a statement about how the world is, not how it ought to be and thus not a defense of your first premise as described above. If that's not your argument then now's the time to make that clear.

    I have yet to read your link but I quickly wanted to respond to this as well. What I gather from the segment of your post I quoted and bolded my understanding is that you are making arguments geared towards how the world ought to be rather than how it is. Perhaps I am still misunderstanding but it seems to me that the way the world is trumps the way it ought to be because to say how it ought to be is a rather subjective idea and the way it is is, well, objective concrete and extant. Perhaps my confusion will clear once I read the article but it seems to me that this is/ought conundrum is silly because you are arguing against what is and promoting what you ought. Again correct me if I am wrong in this but that just seems like ought is philosophical masturbation rather than any substantive understanding of how a thing really is.
  17. I will respond to the rest of your post in time but this I believe needs adressing

    What we're discussing is the ethical permissibility of certain sorts of m8ing, no?

    Mating: the action of animals coming together to breed; copulation.
    What is called homosex cannot be called mating as it cannot produce offspring. This is where I am critisizing your naturalism. You can take two things, in this case two actions, and equate them even though their inherent outcome is different. Sex between a man and a woman is copulation, mating, real sex with the potential of real offspring. Gay "sex" between a man and a man or woman and woman is nothing more than glorified masturbation. Refute that.






  18. I literally only use literally because I know it literally makes people mad. Literally. Reply to my post in our philosophy discussion nigga. Learn me sum good.
  19. The above two posts are the epitome of truth. Grab a 9x9 tarp, a fixed blade knife, a flint and steel, a few gallons of water, and a couple cans of beans and put yourself under real stress. Or clean the fucking basement and show your parents you are a completely worthless sack of shit.
  20. Once upon a time, people would have gone into the woods for a week with a tent and a couple cans of beans if they wanted to deprive themselves temporarily and "man up".

    Here you are saying you're going to lock yourself in a basement for 1 whole day.

    That's barely even being a boy.
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. ...
  5. 10896
  6. 10897
  7. 10898
  8. 10899
  9. 10900
  10. 10901
  11. ...
  12. 11466
  13. 11467
  14. 11468
  15. 11469
Jump to Top