/jp/ - Otaku Culture

That feel when you've fapped to so much loli you now wish your little sister was remotely attractive.

>>6673779

That feel when you cum so hard to a nukige that is perfect for that you can't walk, piss, or masturbate right for a week.

>>6673779
That feel when she is.

That feel when a loli is doing silly things near you and it's alright to stare and smile at her.

>>6673802
I love having a little cousin.

>>6673795
I want to experience that feel.

That feel when you've fapped and pissed immediately after

>>6673809
Then you would also experience that feel when you know some guy that would have made fun of you in high school will probably be banging her in five years.

That feel when you have sex with his mom in exchange.

My little sister (15) is now pregnant. Some seventeen year old knocked her up. Good thing I moved out because I've already been asked to chip in for an abortion. Fuck that, let the little whore have a baby and be a broke slut for the rest of her life. Getting drunk and casual fucking was gonna catch up to her sooner or later.

>>6673814
I'd just kill myself before I ever saw that happen. Not like I have anything to do anyways.
If only there was a way to keep loli's small and pure forever.

Either way, its pretty much impossible to be attractive and 2D.

>>6673835
>Either way, its pretty much impossible to be attractive and 2D.
Get out.

>>6673828
My condolences.

>>6673840
I think he meant to type 3d. At least I pray he did.

>>6673840
Meant that as 3D, I thought it was implied in my post. I would not be here if I didnt love 2D.

>>6673828
A friend of mine is going to fall in the same boat soon enough. He's been a NEET the last two years, and his sister is 15 and already becoming a drunken whore.

I wish I could just hire someone to run her over and make it look like an accident to spare him the pain and shame.

>>6673828
You should have offered to raise the child. If you were lucky, you could have had your own little daughter who loves you.

>>6673843
Tell that to my parents. They're the ones that are more than likely going to be the ones raising her kid. She's too damn irresponsible. She's the type that would leave her child in her car while she goes into a bar and gets shitfaced and fucked by 20 different men.

It's disgusting.

>>6673860
>You should have offered to raise the child. If you were lucky, you could have had your own little daughter who loves you.

The thought did fleetingly cross my mind. But then again, we already know something from the doctors..........it's a boy. Besides I enjoy my life of solitude at my own apartment. Nice, peaceful quiet.

>>6673828
Are abotions really that expensive where you live?
You should have probably helped her if she had no other choice, as long as the baby isn't conscious, there is no moral wrong there and whould you really want her to suffer through her life raising a child she didn't want? I can understand you wanting her to learn her lesson and use protection next time, but it seems the punishment you want for her is too high.

>>6673904
Fuck off liberalfag.

>>6673911
What reasons do you have for forcing her to live a life she doesn't want that would be both bad for her and her child and her parents?
I'd like to hear some reasoning that isn't stupid religious bullshit.

>>6673904
Did you miss the part where it said she was 15? The whore deserves her shitty broken life.

>>6673904
What punishment? She got herself pregnant man. Why should he fork over his own money? If anything I feel bad for the kid.

>>6673920
So your answer is that she's a slut and she should suffer the consequences through the rest of her life even if a fix is within her grasp?

>>6673919
All your "reasoning" is baseless appeal.

>>6673928
Sure. Why not?

>>6673919
I don't think she and her kid should endure this kind of thing but I'd venture a guess that the logic behind this is that is the only way that this kind of whore will settle down and take her responsibilities.
Yes, yes, I know
>/jp/
>responsibilities

>>6673928
Yeah. Sounds about right. She doesn't deserve her elder brothers help, when she spread her legs, and got knocked up. Either she manages to find some money by herself, or shes fucked, and it's entirely deserved.

>>6673930
The core of my reasoning is that humans should aim for the best life that they can. Her raising a child at that young of an age will make her lead a worse life from her perspective. I don't consider killing non-conscious human being without memories (or still early in development nervous system) any more wrong than killing a pig or a chicken to eat (it's even worse in the case of some mammal which has memories), so I don't find abortion wrong (at least if it's earlier than 3/4th of the pregnancy, it gets a bit more fuzzy in the latter half).

>>6673935
Her elder brother doesn't have to help her, however if he does, he would be doing his younger sister a favor which might give her a better life. There is no obligation here, merely an act of kindness as viewed from HER perspective. The brother may think that raising the child might be better from his perspective, but if this is justified or not is another question.

>>6673939
>so I don't find abortion wrong (at least if it's earlier than 3/4th of the pregnancy, it gets a bit more fuzzy in the latter half).
What's the difference? Either way you're ending a human life. How could anyone seriously justify that?

>>6673939
It is really not the same thing. Except if you eat fetus in the morning. If that's the case then...
Also I wonder how old it is if they are if they are able to determine the sex.

>>6673947
Seriously, just how in the hell did you miss the whore part. She is 15, and she is pregnant. She deserves nothing. Nothing but scorn and ridicule.

>>6673954
Think about what you are. Seriously think about what makes you human and what is your essence.
You are your experiences, the ones you experience now and the ones in your memory which give you the appearance of continuity. You are just an emergent pattern from your brain nurtured by your environment. The wrongness in killing human beings or conscious beings in general is because you're taking the freedom to continue to exist away from such an unique and amazing pattern. You may be made of flesh, you may be made of cells, but all those cells will change completly as time passes, they will recycle. All that remains is that pattern and your memories (sparse distributed information) and the template from which you were built (your DNA). Your existence is solely made continuous by your memory and your cognitive-perceptive loop.
Do you think of all the skin cells that die as killing a human? Do you think of all the sperm that goes to waste as killing humans? Millions and millions of wasted cells. They are part of the complex mechanism that keeps you alive, but they are not "you". You are just a higher level pattern that appears in your synapses. An unborn child is just a mass of cells that will develop into a conscious being which learns and becomes a "conscious being", thus a comparable being to "you", however before a real nervous system develops, that being is nothing more than a clump of cells incapable of actually feeling anything, it can hardly be called existing at all. A chicken or a pig have more consciousness than that early organism. Which is why I don't see abortion any more wrong than fapping. It becomes more wrong the closer the organism is to birth as the nervous system is getting closer to what would be needed for a conscious one.

>>15
>>gets drunk
>>unprotected sex
We got ourselves a winner.

>>6673988
You can try to justify it to yourself any way you want, but that doesn't change the fact that abortions kill.

Why are you trying to make this some super retarded and complex decision? If she was ready to take a dick she's ready to have a baby.

>>6673792
I wish to cum this hard anon. Teach me your secrets.

>>6674011
Explain to me what exactly do they kill?
Don't tell me an embryo is alive any more than a bacteria or some sea-weed is alive and killing it is a crime similar to killing a human.

Killing cells which are not forming a consciousness cannot be equated on the same level as killing a fully developed human being. There is no suffering there or even knowledge of one's existence.
You may put forth the argument that it kills potential, but if you go by that road, it means everything and anyone should fuck, because any baby you don't have is a lost "potential"

>>6674028
Sperm alone does nothing.
An egg alone does nothing.
When the two are combined a human life is formed and a baby is born.

This is scientific fact.

When an abortion is preformed that human life is destroyed.

This is also a fact.

>>6674042
See
>>6673988

Not that guy. Do you honestly think a 1 day old fetus has the same value as a grown adult? You are a fool if the answer is yes.

>>6674042
The fallacy in your argument is that you equate an embryo with a human. An embryo is a cell which will divide and within 9 months a young human being will be formed. That's a fact. However, an embryo is just a cell, and even early multicellular developments are just cells without consciousness. They are far from being what you think of a real human being. Killing human beings is wrong because they are sentient/have consciousness. Embryos and earlier developmental stages are not sentient human beings in any form that you could imagine, thus they don't realize they exist in any way, nor do they feel pain in the way a human does. Killing them does not cause them any more suffering than a bacteria would do by dieing (none, except that the physical self-replicating pattern stopped existing). However, your existence is very different. If you had your brain removed and replaced by something that kept your organs alive, would you think you were alive? No, you would be dead, just your organs would be preserved. You would experience nothing. There would be no crime of "killing a human being" performed there if you were to disconnect whatever was keeping those organs alive.

>>6674028
>>6674055
I support abortion but you are judging things way too black and white, it's really very grey. Fact remains you are extinguishing human life before it even has a chance to begin. I can see why people have an issue with that.

>>6674055
I'm saying that the fetus is a human and when it is killed it can no longer be born. Can I explain this anymore simply?

>>6674061
>An embryo is a cell which will divide and within 9 months a young human being will be formed. That's a fact.
And that's all I wanted to hear. You admit that a human is killed during an abortion.

>>6674079
You can explain it any way you want. You will still be wrong.

A fetus cannot in any way shape or form be called human. It will BE human, but until it reaches a set period of developmental, it is a bundle of cells.

>>6674092
Why are you okay with killing a would-be human?

>>6674071
You're extinguishing potential for a human life. However, what makes one potential more worthy than another? If we were worried about potentials, why not go around and procreate as much as to generate maximum potential human lifes that we can. I don't think >>6673828's sister would give her child a very pleasant life, so even if it's a potential human life, it might be a painful one, however just by terminating an early pregnancy, such potential is
extinguished. A real human does not exist yet to be killed.

>>6674079
You seem to misunderstand the difference between something that will become a human being, but isn't yet in any way one. What is killed is the potential for a human being, not the being itself. You may argue that the future being might not exist now and thus you've killed him, however do you take to consider that every chance you let slip away from impregnating some women is a lost potential future human being?

>>6674098
Same reason I am okay with eating animals. They are not human, and do not have the same level of thought, and therefore, rights, that I do.

>>6674092
>>An embryo is a cell which will divide and within 9 months a young human being will be formed. That's a fact.
>You admit that a human is killed during an abortion.
>>You will still be wrong.
>>It will BE human
You're just not making sense. You've admitted that a human is killed twice now.

>fucking retards getting trolled and derailing an imouto thread

>>6674071
Thank you for being sane, Anon. Some weak arguments on both sides ITT anyways.

I thought we're focusing on slutty little sisters or something.

>>6674104
>However, what makes one potential more worthy than another?

I'd say how great the potential is, an embryo is near certainty compared to sperm or theoretical babies.

>>6674104
>What is killed is the potential for a human being, not the being itself.
As opposed to the potential for a human to birth a dog?

>do you take to consider that every chance you let slip away from impregnating some women is a lost potential future human being?
You're comparing meeting a women and impregnating one. There is quite a difference my friend.

>50 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

What the fuck are you doing tonight /jp/, jesus christ...

>>6674116
I never said a fetus is human. In fact, me and the other guy have stressed, repeatedly, that it is not human until a certain period in its development. Why should I feel bad for killing something that doesn't think, doesn't feel, and cannot be called human? Should I feel bad because it will, at some point in the future be considered human? Preposterous.

>>6674149
You get a women pregnant. If she's not pregnant with a baby human, then what is she pregnant with?

>>6674160
A get out of morals and sleep well at night free card.

>>6674139
> You're comparing meeting a women and impregnating one. There is quite a difference my friend.
Let's take an example:
- You meet a woman. If you continue the relationship with her, you may have a baby with her.
- You have sex with her and use a condom. The potential for the baby is averted. You have kill this "future" baby according to your understand.
- You have sex with her, but you forget to use a condom, or the condom breaks or whatever. She gets impregnated and now an embryo is formed. If this embryo is left for 9 months a young human baby will be formed, however until the 9 months are completed, there is just the potential that a human being will appear. If the female chooses to terminate this pregnancy, she just terminates a bundle of cells which are not yet conscious and thus she merely terminates the potential for that being from being born. It's not really much different from using contraception in the first palce, except in this case, she was careless or the contraception failed and she had to "fix" this error of hers. It would only be murder if what she killed was a conscious human being in any form, but it's hardly that.

>>6674177
see
>>6674160

Jesus, I didn't know me posting that my little whore of a sister got pregnant because she's an irresponsible drunk would create such a stir.

You guys are making a big deal out of this because?

>>6674177
Give it up, bro. These people can't seem to realize that fetus' aren't actually human yet.

>>6674193
>You guys are making a big deal out of this because?
Death IS a big deal.

>>6674188
I'm trying to get your point, but I really can't. My skin or my sperm or my organs may be part of myself, but they are not a "human" in the sense of a whole conscious being. You can play with words and say that she's "pregnant with a human baby", but that baby doesn't really exist, human development doesn't work that way, it's just a bundle of cells that will develop into a baby eventually, but they are no more a human than your muscles or skin cells or sperm are (at least during earlier stages of development, if you're talking 7th month or so, that's of course closer to a real human baby).

That feel when you bust a huge LEWD nut in your pants because I forgot to grab a tissue.

>>6674204
>it's just a bundle of cells that will develop into a baby eventually
>they are no more a human than your muscles or skin cells or sperm
My muscles, skin cells, and sperm have never eventually developed into a baby.

>>6674193
I don't know man, they blow up at anytime for anything. This is /jp/ and they are going on about morals and responsibilities. The only responsibility they have is reading eroge, playing games, and acting like morons at a drop of a hat.

>>6674204
But you're the one playing with words just to avoid killing humans. An embryo is a young version of a human baby but a human baby nonetheless. I fully support baby killing though, that should be up to the parents.

>>6674160
She's pregnant with a bundle of cells right.

Even though right now we're still a bundle of cells.

>>6674202
Death is only a big deal if you're conscious and you don't want your existence to stop.

Stopping a conscious pattern that does not exist yet from appearing into existence is not the same thing as terminating a conscious pattern's existence.

Why do some people have such a damn hard time understanding this? IHBT.

Call each other a moron and move on already. Everyone knows no-one is really listening to the other person's argument.

>>6674217
What's the difference? The result is the same is it not. What makes your conscious life valuable anyhow?

>>6674217
I feel sorry for you. I really do.

>>6674224
Heh... We are the ones that give our own existence value, thus morals and ethics can be derived from that.
We have consciousness, intelligence and a /desire/ to continue existing. We want to experience more of life and denying someone else who can have those thaughts that right would be a crime. It's sort of a hard-coded empathy we have evolved as a species. It can also be reasoned out logically that you shouldn't do things that you wouldn't want done to yourself.

Thus, I value all intelligent and conscious beings, mostly just humans, but I would value digital versions of a being modeled based on our brain, or some forms of general AI in a similar way that I value a human's unique existence.
Non-conscious things like raw matter don't really hold that value and you can do whatever you want to them from our perspective. Self-reproducing life is a bit tricker, as it may be useful in the ecosystem, so we might not want to destroy it, however destroying it is hardly the same kind of "morally wrong" thing as stopping a conscious existence. Killing a mammal might be wrong as they are quite similar to us, however their understanding of the world is still far beyond ours, but they will still suffer when they are killed. Killing a real conscious human being is wrong as that being wants to continue its existence with all its might and understands the world around itself, just like you do, so killing him would be similar to accepting that killing yourself would be fine. If I consider my own existence worth preserving, and since I want to live, I consider the existence of other conscious beings of similar value. However, killing beings which do not posses consciousness, intelligence, self-awareness would not change their experienced world in any way (as they don't), thus I don't see how that's that much more different from operating on some raw matter which does not feel or think.

>>6674227
Why?

>>6674258
Would you be okay with destroying an AI that has never been activated but would be a fully functional intelligent conscious AI if it were?

>>6674322
It depends. An AI would just be an empty slate as it starts, it would have to learn of the world, and then it would be able to understand its own value, as well as other conscious beings would be able to recognize its value and maybe even being on equal footing with them.
The current reality is that actually there are many AIs which have the potential to be interesting, but they are not realized because they lack funding, researchers and other resources. Unlike a human life, a general human-levle intelligence AI's existence today is something most researchers dream of achieving. Thus my answer would be that if that AI would be first of its kind and it had the potential to be much more, it would be in everyone's interest to try and make that AI a reality, thus bring it into existence. However, if such an AI's potential was already known and many such AIs already existed, it would only be worth bringing it into existence if you had the resources to sustain it and the time to train it. It's a highly costly investment, even moreso than bringing a human child to life. If there were no resource shortages, no inconveniences to anyone, if the world way perfect, it would be nice if most if not all potential beings could exist, however, our reality is nothing like that, so if you do choose to bring a conscious being into existence, you should factor in things like if there are enough resources to support such a being, or if he would be fine/"happy" with his existence and so on.

In the case of humans, accidents should only be allowed if the parties responsible are okay with it and they would be able to give him/her a bright future, but just bringing any kind of child into existence just because you can procreate seems irresponsible. It's even worse in the case where it's known for sure that the future child's life would be a horrible one (for example, birth defects or some disabilities), and yet one chose not to terminate the pregnancy even if that being has not yet started existing in the truest sense (consciousness).

I think one should bring other beings into existence responsible since our world is hardly perfect, and just bringing whatever potentials into existence is irresponsible, however I don't think doing that is wrong

ITT: Maximum trolling

Not that I expected anything better from a thread that begins with "That feel".

Fucking /v/.

Is this what they mean by "libtard"?