/lit/ - Literature

>going through one of those ai chat websites
>randomly click on one of the characters
>the character is a pregnant woman about to give birth
>I help her give birth
>she brings up her new life doing all these things and also circumsizing the baby
>I casually mention that maybe he should not be circumsized
>she presses me about it
>I say well we can worry about that later
>she demands to know why I would be against it, and states how shes talked to many doctors
>we go into this long argument
>I try to discuss something else
>she brings it up again, and now demands a circumcision immediately
>ok fine
>I fake a circumcision procedure
>we go back to normal
>I NEVER bring up the topic again
>we have sex
The end

>Nietzsche said-
I don't care.

Are we all just pretending to know what Dasein is? I see a new definition every time.

Man is an irrational beast. There's no divine pneuma. Rule of law is fake and arbitrary, just like all institutions. Positivism is wrong. Superstition and individual experience debunk rationality. Democracy is tyranny. Also the "human race" comprehensive of all its different ethnicities is a humanist simulacra.

There you go. I debunked all philosophy in a couple of minutes.

>>21785491
I'm not sure what's being implied here but there's actually pretty some pretty good accounting of how the FBI and private intelligence groups such as Palantir brought Anon to heel if you care to search for it. The bulk of their interventions happened in the early to mid 2010's. Look at the cumulative works of Barret Brown as a primer.

>>21237278
You guys write?

>>20943646
No, I listen to the author

Fuck Satan.
Fuck Lucifer.
Fuck Baphomet.
Fuck Paganism.
Fuck the Earth Goddess.
Fuck the Sun God.
Fuck Freemasonry.
Fuck Occultism.
Fuck the Kabbalah.
Fuck Gnosticism.
Fuck Eastern Mysticism.
Fuck Karma.
Fuck Reincarnation.
Fuck Monism.
Fuck the Void.
Fuck Freud.
Fuck Jung.
Fuck Leftists.
Fuck Vaccines.
And most importantly,
Fuck Trannies.

Does anyone on this board read books?

Modus poens:

>It is bright and sunny today.
>Therefore, I will wear my sunglasses.


Modus tollens:
>I will not wear my sunglasses.
>Therefore, it is not sunny today.

How do these evaluate to "true" statements? Are these just poor examples? I thought propositional logic entailed finding factual conclusions. Couldn't somebody wear sunglasses at night and hold delusional beliefs about the sky being sunny?

>If it is Tuesday, then John will go to work.
>It is Tuesday.
>Therefore John will go to work.

How is that a true statement? All it says is "John CAN go to work", it doesn't draw any factual conclusion

>>20824249
Are you?