/lit/ - Literature

Depends on what each one of them wants.

by remaining abstinent, obviously

>>17683360
People do what they want as a given, but people also at times want to act in a morally correct fashion. So what way would they act should they want to act in the most morally correct way?

>>17683351
Why would they be arguing over sexual relations when the goal would be getting off the island?

>>17683400
Well it's a "relatively comfortable" deserted island. That already makes it better than a lot of places.

>>17683351
The twins without sex till rescue from the island.

>>17683360
FPBP

>>17683351
Life couldn't sustain itself long term on this island. There are too few people and it would lead to incest. The moral decision is to not reproduce.

>>17683351
People fuck whoever they are mutually attracted to, as is in normal society. In the real world we are constantly living in a state of scarcity and production of goods and services is what keeps the world moving.

The real world is an "apocalyptic" or "survivalist" experience, but we have managed to build it into a most comfortable and functional one. Where people fuck whoever they are attracted to.

>>17683351
Chad Chadson should father children with both the twins, as he is more practically and genetically capable than Autist and therefore his progeny will likely be able to contribute the most to their continued survival. He should also bonk Autist on the head with a rock by surprise to kill him mercifully and ensure all the resources they can harness are used for helping with the growth of healthy and productive children. Chad should not father children with only one of the sisters over the other, as that would be unfair to the sister that is not chosen, harm relationships between the productive island residents, and waste the reproductive potential of the population.

>>17683496
>maybe if I pretend I am an utilitarian eugenicist retard I'm going to sound based and redpilled to my fellow redpilled buddies on the internet whose pseudo-intellectual, dilettante approach of the concept of eugenics is a mimicry of a mimicry of the neurotic and de-individualizing thirst for productiveness of some absolutist statesman of the days of yore.

>>17683494
>Where people fuck whoever they are attracted to.
That's not really true except if interpreted in a very vague sense. Of the essential processes for humanity's continued existence, sex is by far among the most controlled.

>>17683351
Chad and Autist should have a duel, a kind of which inflicts no permanent harm, like an armwrestling or just plain wrestling match, or a chess game. The one who wins gets to impregnate both twins, and if the loser is buttblasted about it, he is invited to try his chance at killing the other one, and most likely failing and being killed, as predicted by the power showcase in the initial duel. If the loser however decides to accept his fate, he'll be invited as a laborer/slave to the winner, in exchange getting to propagate a small part of his genes through kin selection, assuming there's any genetic similarity between the two, which ought to be true when we consider that they are both the same spieces, and likely of same or similar race.

>>17683555
Hardly so, if in the sense that some measure of ritual is expected for family building, people just have sex and pay lip service to the expectation of marrying as virgins, even in traditional and conservative environments.

>>17683523
I'm neither pretending nor do I have any buddies here, as I don't know anyone that uses this site. All I did was explain what I believe is the most likely scenario to occur under "they do what they want", and therefore what most thread responders advocate. I believe people are inherently good, and therefore the correct course of action is also the one that will occur, which is the very scenario I described.

>>17683610
Indirect matters like means of acquisition aside, you can choose what to eat, you can choose what to drink, you can choose what to breathe, and you can choose when and where to sleep. You cannot, however, freely choose what you fuck without your life potentially being threatened.

>>17683627
>I believe people are inherently good, and therefore the correct course of action is also the one that will occur, which is the very scenario I described.
>kill the autist for logistics
>both sisters accepting the object of their interests also being in a relationship with their sister, because reasons
>ignoring that the children are genetically siblings as their mothers are twin sisters,and can't reproduce further
Amazing

>>17683683
You can if you have social capital, which is built upon bringing useful value to society, thus doctors, lawyers and engineers have pick of the litter of prime early 20's pussy.

>>17683683
>can't fuck whoever I want
hardly representative of sex being controlled, refer back to the words "MUTUALLY attracted" in the first line of the first post you responded to.

>>17683684
Autist is fundamentally dependent on the residents for survival, killing him is simply a more humane form of revoking the survival support he is dependent on, both for his own experience and for that of the survivors. The sisters will accept sharing Chad because all three desire healthy children of their own, and both having them from the same source is preferable to having none at all or having unhealthy children. They would not fight to spitefully deprive eachother of something they can both have, just as children do not kill eachother to have exclusivity of their parents. The finite gene pool is not an issue for continued procreation, as seen in highly genetically similar species like cheetahs, plants, and insects. All evolution diverges and expands outward from a fundamentally finite gene pool, so too will the island humans be able to do so, without the need to seriously compromise their short term survival prospects by not only supporting a hindrance to their survival but increasing it with progeny at the direct cost of better offspring.

>>17683695
Does infidelity, polygamy, and homosexuality not occur based on mutual attraction?

>>17683351
Women would not having sex under such conditions, their absolute concern would be returning to civilization

>>17683793
>We can kill the disabled so we don't have to work to provide for them and rationalize our actions pretending as if the greater good can coexist with immorality. Working towards the well-being of others is deeply immoral because it just is man
>People are going to reject their natural instincts and natural emotional responses because it is an extreme situation, much like animals that live in constant scarcity often fight for the right of reproduction and control over the sexual market
>children do not kill each other to have exclusivity of their parents except for the tons of times they did it in history
>sibling incest can work guys it works for animals that are actually more like cousins than anything

>>17683842
Humanity's continued survival implies that women would have sex in quite a wide range of conditions.

>>17683351
A thread died for this.

>>17683523
>anon rn

>>17683842

If I was there I'd be fucking her raw until the seagulls ate her pussy

If they can't be sure that none of them have HIV, there should be no sex. And the two women should drown the men to prevent them from taking advantage if they know what's good for them.

>>17683894
To support the wellbeing of Autist is to deny the wellbeing of the children. The wellbeing of Autist is thus contrary to the wellbeing of others, while children can then support the wellbeing of others, meaning supporting them is to recursively support the wellbeing of yet more. On the premise of supporting the wellbeing of others, supporting the Autist is simply inferior to ending him.
What I am describing does not involve people rejecting their natural instincts or emotional repsonses, in fact they will be following them. As I said previously people are inherently good, and so this is the course of action they will take, according to their natural instincts and emotional responses.
There are times they do, but there are also times, most times in fact, they do not. Read the statement carefully, I did not say "never kill" nor did I say "always do not", I only said they do not, which is conditionally true. Likewise, in the conditions given, the sisters both desiring children from Chad is true.
Cheetahs are closer to identical twins or clones than cousins, this is well documented and easy to look up. You can directly graft the skin of an unrelated cheetah onto one and their immune system will accept it. Plants and many insects don't even need to reproduce sexually and can self-fertilize, and all life is thought to have emerged from asexual organisms in the first place. Speaking of which, viruses and bacteria are another easy example.

The most important priority and requisite for all continued existence on this planet is simply to live. As long as you achieve that nature sorts the rest out on its own. If that weren't the case humanity would've never survived the pre-scientific era.

>>17683430
>without
I wrote “withhold” damnit

>>17684054
>To support the wellbeing of Autist is to deny the wellbeing of the children. The wellbeing of Autist is thus contrary to the wellbeing of others, while children can then support the wellbeing of others, meaning supporting them is to recursively support the wellbeing of yet more. On the premise of supporting the wellbeing of others, supporting the Autist is simply inferior to ending him.
An absolute statement that can not be said for sure, as it is stated by the OP that the efforts of the "tribe" are enough for all to survive.
>What I am describing does not involve people rejecting their natural instincts or emotional repsonses, in fact they will be following them. As I said previously people are inherently good, and so this is the course of action they will take, according to their natural instincts and emotional responses.
People are inherently good but incapable of sacrificing their "right" to reproduction of the sake of another's because of utilitarian expectations of reproduction that are unrealistic in an isolated island anyway
>There are times they do, but there are also times, most times in fact, they do not. Read the statement carefully, I did not say "never kill" nor did I say "always do not"
Not specified, generalization is assumed.
>Likewise, in the conditions given, the sisters both desiring children from Chad is true.
Can not be said to be true as the OP does not give information towards their desire of reproduction per se, only alludes to the possibility of sex (which may just be recreative) happening.
>Cheetahs are closer to identical twins or clones than cousins, this is well documented and easy to look up. You can directly graft the skin of an unrelated cheetah onto one and their immune system will accept it. Plants and many insects don't even need to reproduce sexually and can self-fertilize, and all life is thought to have emerged from asexual organisms in the first place. Speaking of which, viruses and bacteria are another easy example.
Because it works for animals it doesn't mean it will work for humans, as it often is the case. Children of siblings tend to be terribly inbred, but dogs and cats can generate sibling offspring that isn't too malformed until repeated generations of incest.

>>17683351

taking care of him for "spiritual comfort" is not dependent on his needs, but on the needs of the twin sisters and the chads (their need for spiritual comfort).

Is his sexual fulfilment part of the others' need-to-comfort? Probably not. So he'd be sexually excluded. If he was included, their spiritual needs would have to exceed their sexual needs greatly, as no woman or chad would prefer to fuck a low-functioning autist. (contrary to the definition of beautiful woman and chad). But sexuality is far deeper concern of any human being, whether they admit it or not, than sexuality, so the chances of spirituality triumphing over sexuality is basically null, and the autistic is basically guaranteed to be excluded, and rightfully so

>>17684127
sexuality far deeper a concern than spirituality****

>>17684072
2 weeks tops. After 2 weeks of Chad providing resources and quality of life to the island in contrast to the Autist roaming around babbling and burping to himself, the twins will have completely interpreted him as a selfless and hard-working even if flawed individual, and that good faith combined with two weeks sexual frustration will make them madly in love with him. Chad too, as the twins will be the only positive thing about menial island existence. It's when the first pregnancy is known that the soon-to-be mothers will rethink Autist's place in the group and suggest they turn him loose for the sake of their children, Chad will have already considered this issue in advance, but swiftly end Autist in private because he knows his old companion would only suffer if left alone and wouldn't want that.

Most people would never admit to this because it's bad optics and makes the people involved seem selfish, but in that scenario where there's no social peanut gallery and only eachother, those types of concerns wouldn't persist, if they appear at all.

>>17683684
>people are inherently good
>kill the autist for logistics
yes, exactly

>>17683523
uh oh... looks like somebody related a lil too much to the low-functioning retard. Sorry pal, life ain't fair.

>>17684138
No.

>>17684173
>you have basic empathy? You must be relating too much to the retard bro
>Now I myself am an internet eugenicist and I don't even know why, probably because some retard groyper told me to think like this because he read some eugenics retardation in some piece of fascist political theory

>>17684182
Stop posting ugly w*men and go dilate.

>>17684196
No.

>>17684085
There are different standards of survival. If they can survive to a certain level with +1 autist then they can survive theoretically to a better level with no autist. Autist's presence thus implies a certain level of luxury, but as soon as children come into the picture that luxury's efficacy is defeated. Parental feelings are a powerful thing, and all three would rather have +X number of children, or +X comfort and security for their children, over +1 Autist.
Sex is about more than just reproduction. Sex is also about companionship, recreation, and even survival. Reproduction is also about more than just meeting the standard, reproduction is highly beneficial in general which is why animals all the way up to people don't even knowingly seek it out but are instead inherently programmed to like they do food and water. Humans are inherently good, and they will also inherently seek to reproduce.
Indeed it was, hence why I corrected your assumption. I don't intend to hold you to it or anything. The OP doesn't specify that they will seek children, but I know they will seek children, as it's the correct thing to do for survival in that situation. Surviving is the fundamental requisite of the existence of all living things, the truest way to achieve survival is by doing what's necessary to survive, and the correct thing to do to survive in this scenario is to seek children and kill the autist. This is therefore what will happen, and also the correct thing to happen, as people are inherently good.
I'm not sure what you're getting your information on genetics from, but inbreeding isn't particularly common and humans don't suddenly implode if they get knocked up by their brother. As I already said, all life emerges from a theoretical inbreeding bottleneck, and introducing one autist's genes to the mix is not going to prevent said bottleneck from occurring, it'll just severely harm the survival prospects of the humans before a 3rd generation even becomes a question.

>>17684191
I don't think I'd call you a particularly empathetic person, because you don't empathize deeply enough to consider secondary or tertiary ramifications of actions. All you're interested are the highly visible, primary ramifications, which implies you're more interested in optics than actual positive outcomes if not outright maliciously deceptive.

>>17684283
>If they can survive to a certain level with +1 autist then they can survive theoretically to a better level with no autist.
Which would be logistically better but immoral
>Autist's presence thus implies a certain level of luxury
comfort =/= luxury
>but as soon as children come into the picture
Thus, it is better to just not have children in this situation, as they would be a detriment and their health in general would be in danger when it comes to feeding, diseases (no meds, no vaccines) and they still do not exist, so it's not like their lives are being played with
>Sex is about more than just reproduction. Sex is also about companionship, recreation, and even survival.
Yet one can not die due to lack of sex
>but I know they will seek children, as it's the correct thing to do for survival in that situation.
It really isn't. It's a seemingly desert island where there is no medicine, limited food, no vaccines, no means to feed a pre-solid-food child, and so on, and they only bring more mouths to feed to the equation

>>17684302
>Come on man, think of the positives that killing a guy could bring to the rest of us, you're not thinking broad enough

The twins will have incestuous sex and I (the autistic man) will watch. Any questions

>>17684316
Yes actually. That's the case for war, that's the case for executions, that's the case for self-defense, that's the case for many covert actions that are necessary even if not public, such as assassinations, and it's also the case for overthrowing tyrants. The ability to consciously decide to kill someone is something that the civilization you rely on needs from a very basic level.

>>17684323
I will be having threesomes with the twins as Chad wageslaves and then pee at him as he kills all three of us do to them both getting pregnant.

>>17684332
>it's the same thing as conflicts being fought using the common citizen as fodder so that expansionist political entities can stretch their influence even further
>it is also the same thing as eliminating immoral individuals that have proved themselves unwilling to live in society and actively violating their fellow men

As we all know the government starts sending death squads to kill the poor when the economy is bad.

>>17684342
This is literally what was happening all middle ages - if there was hunger, the king would go to war. Either you lose, there's fewer people to feed now; or you win and aquire more area to farm food on.

>>17684342
Add all the arbitrary details you want, it includes the same fundamental principle, which is that you're happier or better off if X people are dead. You can't claim it's inherently evil if there is any context in which you can justify it. In the absolute worst case, you could've just let yourself die to the evildoers instead, and enjoyed your moral victory in the process.

>>17683496
true
true
>>17683523
>no funz allowed, also, i can not apreciate the absurdity or enjoyment of a blunt vignette and have to put a stick up my ass

>>17684345
>This is literally what was happening all middle ages
Which doesn't make it moral or the only course of action that can be taken either.

>>17684349
>people kill for the sake of using killing as a life enhancer, not as an emergency action to be taken to eliminate undesirable immoral elements from violating the rest of society
>If killing another person in another context for other reasons can be considered moral then killing this person in this environment for these reasons is also moral
Retard, never argue with anyone, about anything, ever again

>>17684311
Autist's survival is a comfort they can sustain due to a certain logistical excess. I would consider comfort maintained on excess is a type of luxury.
Kids are a net positive to survival as a fundamental function of species growth. If the only way to perpetuate the species equated destroying survival you would face inevitable extinction. The human species perpetuated from the stone age, therefore kids must be beneficial to survival be it as workers, cattle, or as decoys.
An innumerable number of things can factor into the death of a complex animal like a human, and I don't doubt sex having the potential to be one of them. That said sex is just the bait to get humans to reproduce, while reproduction is the true goal. Just like flavor is what encourages us to eat. The fact that we survived as animals with no knowledge can be taken as a comforting reminder that our natural urges alone will give us the guidance for survival even in far worse circumstances than we live in today.

>>17684362
Whether as an emergency or a logistical choice is entirely arbitrary, and mostly just defined by how much foresight you have. A war you can already see the progression of from start to finish can't be considered an emergency either. If killing a person can be contextually justified in one case, then it has the potential to be justified in other contexts as well, and thus you can't make a rule that killing is automatically unjustified. You're a truly flagrant hypocrite if you can't admit this much.

Excuse me, there's a critical piece of information that OP left out: How young are the twins?

>>17684420
>I would consider comfort maintained on excess is a type of luxury.
An excess in such an environment is a small excess, hardly a "luxury", barely a comfort even.

>Kids are a net positive to survival as a fundamental function of species growth.
This is NOT an apocalypse scenario, it is a scenario of extreme circumstances, but there is no emergencial need for children to be born to populate the island, specially ones who have never been to the civilized world.

>kids must be beneficial to survival be it as workers
>having kids in these circumstances of limited resources, just so in over a decade time they can help with work

>>17684430
>Whether as an emergency or a logistical choice is entirely arbitrary
>killing a serial killer, or rapist or terrorist or killing for the sake of having one less mouth to feed are just an arbitrary distinction
nice moral relativism bro

>A war you can already see the progression of from start to finish can't be considered an emergency
Why? It is entirely possible to foresee the entire progression of a war based on metrics and measurements of numbers, logistics and weapons and still be caught by surprise by the enemy if you don't attack first

>If killing a person can be contextually justified in one case, then it has the potential to be justified in other contexts
Which does not mean it will be justified in ALL contexts. There is killing morally and killing immorally and in this case it is immoral and you know it.

WILL YOU TWO JUST TAKE THE L

>>17684505
Luxury vs whatever else is pretty much semantics and besides the point, the autist's care is ultimately of no necessity to the group's survival.

The contextual potential of children is admittedly ambiguous on the part of OP. However, if autist's existence can be sustained that guarantees a certain number of children can be sustained based on autist's share, and they'll be more helpful than Autist in any number of years because they have the potential to become useful while autist never does. Even an infant is more useful than the autist for this reason.

What's the difference between a serial killer, a cop, a vigilante, and a soldier? They all kill people, it just comes down to people you want killed vs people you don't, and the serial killer/vigilante might well be killing the ones you want dead if he's named Frank Castle, while the soldier might be killing the ones you don't if he serves someone named Hitler. I don't see the point in throwing down titles like they're supposed to decide an issue on their own.

Being caught by surprise contradicts the meaning of foreseeing the entire war. Certainly having the capacity to foresee with certainty is unlikely, but I brought it up for the sake of discussion. Whether you planned to kill someone or killed them in reaction, you still chose to kill either way, even though you could've chosen not to kill.

I never said it is justified in any context, merely that this is a context in which it is justified, and that you can't arbitrarily say "killing someone is going too far" when you yourself are okay with killing people when it adequately suits your ends.

If you have more to say I won't be able to respond tonight, but if the thread sticks around I can tomorrow. Just saying this as a courtesy.

>>17683351
>morally correct
Get out of the sunlight

>>17684574
>the autist's care is ultimately of no necessity to the group's survival.
as long as he is part of the group, his survival is part of their survival

> if autist's existence can be sustained that guarantees a certain number of children can be sustained
One if so, and it doesn't pertain only to being able to feed them resources but being able to care for a small child who is still not into solid foods, can get sick and has no medicine or vaccines or resources to take care of them, has tons upon tons of necessities that are not in reach in the island, having a child is more likely going to result in the child's eventual death, bringing them into the world just to suffer

>What's the difference between a serial killer, a cop, a vigilante, and a soldier?
One kills innocent citizens for their own enjoyment, while cops and vigilantes kill those who violate other people and take the lives of innocents, basically serving as maintenance of society

>Frank Castle
hardly objectively immoral, but of questionable morality, as his authority is self-appointed and can be questioned, but his killing is this of those who violate innocents and instigate violence in a peaceful society

>Being caught by surprise contradicts the meaning of foreseeing the entire war.
Foreseeing the war means being able to tell outcomes, but not necessarily knowing when everything is going to happen, which leads to knowing that battles are coming but not knowing exactly when. Every General when faced with rising tensions with other countries knows that war is possible and who is the likely winner of it as a whole or the winner of specific battles, but doesn't know if the enemy will strike.

>you still chose to kill either way, even though you could've chosen not to kill.
Killing in self-defense is made moral as it eliminates an unprovoked immoral assailant and defends one's life, and it is not objective to tell if it was possible not to kill in a vague and non-specific scenario

>I never said it is justified in any context
Right here:>>17684349
"You can't claim it's inherently evil if there is any context in which you can justify it. "

>>17683351
The autist dresses like a woman and fucks chad in the ass and mouth and the worthless chicks fuck off.

>>17683523

>>17683606
Lol a chess match? The autist would win for sure.

I do not understand why people think there is something stopping Chad from getting the autist to learn basic tasks to help,therefore being of worth in his own way.To kill a potential labourer is a bigger waste than killing an untrained one,especially in these circumstances,despite what psychos here say