/lit/ - Literature

>>22465963
soulless

>inb4 Socrates John Green dialogue

>>22465963

>>22465963
that last sentence is making me pretty uncomfortable

>>22465966

>>22466093
First time I've seen that, incredible stuff

>>22466093
KEK

>>22466093
would john green actually respond to this?

>>22466120
John Green doesn't understand logic.

>>22466136
Achilles got cucked by the tortoise

>>22466120
Only one way to find out

>>22465963
This is sort of similar to the Two Cakes comic.

>>22466093
>hypothetical between two men, one that has been dead for 2 millenimum, by some random guy on 4chan means I'm le right

>>22466159

>>22466159
show the weakpoints in the argument. John Green and Socrates themselves are variables that can be interchanged with any set of interlocutors

>>22466159
>t. seething slut

>>22466093
Kek'd.
But the logical train of thought goes off when it is stated that fornication and adultery have no difference in the state of mind.

>>22466219
So what's the difference?

>>22466225
I didn't think I'd ever use this in a serious way: Have sex.

>>22465963
Fuck Niggers
- HP Lovecraft

>>22466236
>Uhhh, yeah, there's totally a difference
>Oh, uhhh, what's the difference, you ask? uhhh, it's too complicated for me to explain with words
there's no difference at all, roastie

>>22466253
You sound mad.

>>22466093
fails at the end because the problem of adultery is it's a betrayal of trust. hence why it's wrong and makes us angry

>>22466274
seethe

>>22466236
>have sex
Wow brilliant comeback. You argue like a woman.

>>22466236
i've been with 31 different girls, many of whom cheated on their man with me or i was cheating myself. there is no difference.

'Women are considered profound. Why? Because we never fathom their depths. But women aren't even shallow'.
- Götzen-Dämmerung

>>22466276
Why is one of the aspects of a good marriage that you trust your partner not to sleep around on you?

>>22466276
The trust is the marriage. Socrates argues that marriage is not what causes pain in adultery. There would be no need to trust her to not sleep with others, if sleeping with others was not in itself bad.

>>22466276
>a betrayal of trust
>trust that she won't sleep with other people
>because her sleeping with other people makes you feel angry disgusted and betrayed
>but those 48 guys before she met you don't count
You sad little cuck, keep coping.

>>22466310
no trust because she said now she's with you she won't fuck any other men you retard

>>22466322
Why is her not fucking any other men important all of a sudden?

>>22466276
>and if he smiled why should he have smiled?
>to reflect that each one who enters considers himself first, last, only and alone
>while he is neither first, nor last, nor only, nor alone
>in a series originating in and repeated to infinity
same energy. fucking pathetic.

>>22466326
because she didn't bow to you she wouldn't fuck those men, because you didn't even know each other

>>22466334
And why do people ask for that vow in a marriage? You're deliberately avoiding something important here.

>>22466322
>I trust her to not do something bad
>the thing is only bad because it betrays trust
Why don't you lift yourself by your bootstraps while you're at it?

>>22466345
because marriage is about trust and loving 1 person for life? if you don't want to do that, people get open relationships you know. that way they can have sex with other people with the others' consent

>>22466352
>loving 1 person for life
Exactly. For your whole life. Not for the rest of your life starting at the wedding.

>>22466357
no it's the rest of your life after the wedding

>>22466366
Then what if your wife slept with 47 people on the day before your wedding? You're not gonna care, then?

>>22466366
>>22466372

lmao

>>22466352
>open relationships
You're already in a hole here, do you really want to keep digging?

>>22466372
sorry
technically it's the start of the relationship. so any sex after they're dating you and have decided to have a relationship based in trust.

>>22466395
>a relationship based in trust
>I trust her to not do something bad
>the thing is only bad because it betrays trust

>>22466395
So if your future wife slept with 47 people the day before you got together you're fine?

>>22466400
pretty much

>>22466401
1. i'm a girl
2. it's okay if you wouldn't because you don't share the same values on sexual morality. i'm just saying that marriage argument is weak because the bad thing is not necessarily the sex but the betrayal

>>22466402
What an absolute retard.

>>22466395
I went on a date once with some hipster girl and she told me a story about getting gang banged by a dozen guys at a party the weekend before. I just got up and left right there, but I guess you would consider marrying her. Cause if it happened before she met you then it doesn't matter right?

>>22466408
>1. i'm a girl
Let me just scan those chromosomes real quick, uh oh a discrepancy

>>22466416
as i said it's okay if you left or if you want a virgin wife. clearly your values don't match. i was just dismantling that part of the socrates argument

>>22466408
>i'm a girl
explains everything

>>22466430
>i was just dismantling that part of the socrates argument
Which part of the argument? Because you never even mentioned anything he said.

>>22466408
>I have a moral system that justifies being a slut, and places the blame for my behavior on the men who want higher standards for me
A girl you say? Wow what a shock. Here's a tip: don't bend over backwards trying to justify your behavior when you're just going to lie about it to your future husband anyway.

>>22465963
"The horror! The horror!"
-Heart of Darkness, Joseph Conrad

"horror horror horror"
-Lord of The Ice Garden, Jarosław Grzędowicz


“There is also a third kind of madness, which is possession by the Muses, enters into a delicate and virgin soul, and there inspiring frenzy, awakens lyric....But he, who, not being inspired and having no touch of madness in his soul, comes to the door and thinks he will get into the temple by the help of art--he, I say, and his poetry are not admitted; the sane man is nowhere at all when he enters into rivalry with the madman.”
― Plato, Phaedo

>>22466447
as i said, he made a mistake in why he felt angry at getting cheated on.
it's because she betrayed his trust, i'm guessing john green isn't getting mad at the idea of his wife having sex when she probably didn't know him etc etc etc

>>22466453
what? when did i say my moral system justifies that. i'm literally just attacking a badly made point.
i don't participate in casual sex or blame sexual promiscuity on men. you're spending too much time on /r9k/ you're reading things that aren't there.

>>22466459
>So you do not want adultery, yet you want the second part of adultery, the state of being married. Then it is the first part of adultery which you do not want.
Are you saying this statement is wrong?

>>22466453
>>22466468
although let's be real, the extension of sexual immorality and promiscuity is men's fault.
you have no one to blame but yourselves for putting the systems in place to allow widespread promiscuity

>>22466456
not reading all that

>>22466476
also my final point: men are more promiscuous than women. you're speaking into a void and ranting about an imaginary thing.

>>22466093
Socrates comes off as a brainlet

>>22466470
i'm saying that him being mad because he got cheating doesn't correlate with him being mad because his wife had sex before she met him.
basically, adultery and fornication aren't the same and indifference to one doesn't mean indifference to the other. you can have varying opinions on them

>>22466459
>>22466476
>>22466485
>le double standard
No-one here has suggested that it's okay for men to be promiscuous while it's not for women.

>>22466479
I know child, I know.
Lit never actually reads anything. Nobody I met here at any point has had any literary vector inside them.

>>22466476
Insofar as we're the sex capable of physically controlling what you have access to

>>22466496
yeah no one "here" but you see hordes of men saying men can cheat and it's not the same because it's just "male nature"
so clearly there are people who believe in promiscuity for some
and in general having more multiple partners as a girl is seen in a different light than having multiple sexual partners as a man

>>22466495
>doesn't correlate
Because he's subconsciously coping.
If you want to disprove the argument, you have to actually point out specifically what Socrates said that was wrong.

>>22466430
>clearly your values don't match
Those aren't my values, they are universal values. Nobody wants to marry the town bicycle, and the man who does so KNOWS he is doing something pathetic. He has just convinced himself it's okay because he thinks he has no better option. It's not his values, it's just the fact that he's fucking sad.

>>22466506
>yeah no one "here"
Then what are you getting mad at us for?
I hate promiscuous men as much as promiscuous women, so don't think I'm a hypocrite.

>>22466503
certainly in some aspects
google who created
dating apps
promiscuity culture
atheistic culture
progressive culture
divorce
supported the sexual liberation movement
who's more promiscuous
who has less traditional family values
there's only one answer! (gender wise, don't mention any ethnic groups)

>>22465963
Not an author but a review.

>>22466516
>there's only one answer!
>(gender wise, don't mention any ethnic groups)
That's a strange bit to add, is there any similarity in the ethnic groups of who created those things?

>>22466513
i'm literally not mad at anyone. i just don't think someone who gets mad at adultery has to get mad at fornication. or that the reasons one would get mad at them are the same
>>22466511
>universal values
quickly eroding
"What percentage of individuals are in open relationships? According to a study published in the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, about 4-5% of the U.S. population is currently in open relationships"

>>22466519
i just knew someone was gonna say jews but idk if that's a myth or not so i didn't wanna have my point diverted

>>22466525
What happens when you look in to it and you find males, specifically jewish males, behind every single point? Should we ignore that they're all jewish males who are part of a tribal matriarchy? Or should we limit our comprehending to them being males for the sake of protecting your ego from reality?

>>22466531
well if they were all jews you'd certainly have a point
but for my last 2 points still stand. men have always been more promiscuous and less traditional and family oriented

>>22466535
>but for my last 2 points still stand
That's besides the point.
You're saying that the betrayal of trust is the only reason why adultery is bad. This is clearly wrong.

>>22466521
The values aren't eroding, we're just seeing an increase in the number of men who are sad and desperate enough to accept their wife getting railed by other men. Fucking hell why even be married at that point? Maybe it's better than watching her walk away with half your life savings and the kids? What a nightmare.

>>22466535
What traditions are women known for?

>>22466544
posing a fake statement in a question.
you don't have to show tits miss, just gtfo

>>22466544
being a mom is literally the oldest traditional role, being a father is fairly new. if he wasn't out hunting mammoths or getting drunk with friends in the local bar or out in some war in europe or just went off with their secretary

>>22466557
lmao you really strike me as someone who would nod your head to
>women are the primary victims of war

>>22466563
i don't think that but they certainly are victims too

>>22466570
Then if you think being a pregnant woman is a tradition what is being a man protecting a pregnant woman? Men sacrificing themselves for the women since time immemorial and you're too much of a woman to see it at all

>>22466576
i guess i was saying the figure of the modern present father is moreso new, since those fathers were also providing just in a different way.

>>22466583
So being a man in general who protects the defenseless pregnant women is the oldest tradition. Women have no traditions but being cared for by men according to your own argument

>>22466591
lmao what. that's not what i said
also i don't think most men have done that on the course of history
just look at what men do when raiding and how powerful men treated women. would you say those guys then "failed at being men"?

>this thread

>>22466597
No, because the women they raped weren't their women and weren't supposed to protect them until they became theirs. The men who couldn't protect them would have been the weak men who failed at their task

>>22466372
I’d be wondering how she found the time for 47 men in one day. What the fuck are these hypotheticals lmao

>>22466400
I don’t even think you know what point you’re trying to make.

>>22466603
well then we just have fundamental differences in what we think "real men" are
also loads of men harmed and raped their wives, so i think most would get filtered by your demands
also
>tfw you failed at being a man because you couldn't defend your farming shack from the 500 trained mercenaries approaching your home

>>22466605
If a man can come in 5 minutes, then it would only take 4 hours, if one starts immediately after the other finishes.

>>22466610
Who would be the bigger failure of a man?
>one who falls trying to protect his family
>one who willingly gives his family up to be assaulted on the agreement they let them all live

>>22466602
>threads about literature: 5 replies
>threads about why all women who aren’t virgins are whores: 5 million

>>22466612
Well first she’d need to make a Craigslist ad and get 47 men that don’t think they’re just going to get robbed.

>>22466621
No Craigslist, just Tinder.

>>22466602
>woman appears
>thread is fucked
many such cases

love is going down on your gf and pretending not to care about the amount of cocks that have been there

>>22466630
That's not love, that's simping

>>22466626
>goes to a literature board
>surprised to find women
shouldn't be many such cases but alas

>>22466453
>don't bend over backwards trying to justify your behavior when you're just going to lie about it to your future husband anyway.
this. Women will always say it doesn't matter but will always lie about it.
>>22466476
it's always men's fault. Women are sexual selectors. IF you fuck with psychos and wife beaters is your own fault. And protip>>22466485 men and women lie about this. Men always exaggerate while women understate.

>>22466670
and if you fuck with women who'll leave you divorced and take your house and kids it's your fault

>>22466113
Why can't I find this letter anywhere? I see a whole bunch of citations and quotes, but nowhere to read the letter itself.

>>22466639
Bitch you have the whole rest of the internet as your own personal hugbox. You want validation for your self-serving arguments, there is plenty of that elsewhere.

>>22466714
lmao was never hugboxxing or asking for validation, in fact i know here it'll lead to the opposite you retard.
i'm just saying it's funny the majority of consumers of literature are women yet people are surprised when they see the occasional one browsing here

>>22466714
So you admit that you're using this board as your personal hugbox to seek out validation for your own self-serving arguments about women?

>>22466729
My self-serving arguments about women, that are based on women's behavior. And I get plenty of validation from simply observing how women act in the real world. A little too much validation in fact.

>>22465963
This guy watches black men fuck his wife.

>>22466729
'God created woman. And boredom did indeed cease from that moment — but many other things ceased as well! Woman was God's second mistake'.
- Der Antichrist

>>22466136
>a writer we used to like
what did he mean by this

>>22466610
>also loads of men harmed and raped their wives
Quite the victim complex you have there.
I can also say that: 'most people don't use toilet paper', because those 'most people' are savages who make up the greater population of the planet (id est: China and India), rather than the population of a civilised country.

>>22466136
How would there be infinite numbers between 0 and 1? By merit of there being a finality (1) it would mean there is eventually some end to that series of numbers, even if we cannot feasibly count them all within our lifetime.

>>22465963

>>22466416
would blow out my pants right then and there

>>22467026
I know this is philosophy hour, but all of calculus is based around the notion of infinite numbers within a limit. Your "0 to 1 not containing infinite numbers" can be said about 0 to infinity, since infinity is treated like a number in math, so it falls apart because infinity cannot have a finite amount of numbers.

>>22466093
>S: But cereal can't speak
>G: But what if they did?

>But i did eat breakfast this morning
>But what if you didn't?

Socrates was Black

>>22466136
The infinity of numbers between 0 and 1 is equal to the infinity of numbers between 0 and 2. This is because there exists a bijection between the two sets; for every number x between 0 and 1, give it the new name of 2x. For example, 0.3 goes to 0.6, 0.74 goes to 1.48, and so on. Every number between 0 and 1 gets mapped to a number between 0 and 2. Every number between 0 and 2 will be listed, for example to see that 2x = 1.99 is going to be listed, we can divide it by 2 and get 0.995

>>22466093
Socrates makes a logical argument, however anon assumes John Green would care if his wife cheated. John Green probably wouldn't care.

>>22467129
"What if <inanimate thing> was sapient and reactive?" feels like a highly semitic way of assigning an infinite number of attributes to something in a way that cannot be disproven, as fundamentally it's illogical. If you get someone to accept this theory that breakfast cereal may talk and hold opinions (that conveniently you alone may identify and define), then you've poisoned the well, which incidentally is also a highly semitic practice.

>>22467026
>some end to that series of numbers
Then what's the beginning of the series? What number would you count after 0?
The numbers between 0 and 1 can't be listed in a series, even one of infinite length, because the amount of numbers is uncountably infinite.
t. BS in Mathematics

>>22466400
I agree with the other anon. You're mistaken here, because you presume that trust is betrayed only by something necessarily negative. But trust is not betrayed by necessarily negative acts, it is betrayed by anything that violates the agreed upon terms.
In a monogamous relationship, the implicit (or explicit) agreement is monogamy. But this does not presume a moral judgement on polygamy; it's simply a statement of a contract.
In other words, a violation of a contract is immoral while the act violating the contract does not have to be.

>>22467026
Assume that there exists some finite sequence containing all the numbers between 0 and 1 (excluding 1 and 0). Then, take the highest number in this sequence (which you can do because it's a finite sequence), and name it y. Now let x = 1+ y / 2.
x is not contained within the finite sequence (because x is higher than y, which is the largest number in the sequence) but it is contained between 0 and 1 (since it's higher than 0 and lower than 1). This leads to a contradiction, meaning that the sequence cannot be finite.

>>22467255
remember to shut down any sort of these illogical arguments as soon as they appear.

"The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn't help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about.”

>>22467281
>The numbers between 0 and 1 can't be listed in a series, even one of infinite length, because the amount of numbers is uncountably infinite
Yes, but we know the last number, it's 1. If you define a beginning and an end then how could the space between possibly be infinite? It would only be functionally infinite, as we as individuals (and I guess a race) can't possibly count them all or measure that space in between. But if we confirm with certainty, somehow, that there's an endpoint (the 1) then I simply don't understand how it's infinite.

>>22467326
It's strange that I understand the explanation and why this is a fallacy, yet at the same time by definition I still view "1" as the defined end.

She's right though the fake Socrates argument is crappy. I read through it expecting something actually good. John Green is a massive faggot though.

>>22467307
>>22467416
thank you thank you

>>22466093
The last argument "Socrates" has here is wrong. It's neither the adultery nor the state of being married that might upset John Cuckreen but the combination of the two, which isn't any "part" at all.

Having said that, many other arguments could and should be used against this shame of a "man", Mr Green.

>>22465963
Thread: Favorite quotes from books <3

Thread replies: John Green is a cuck, women are whore and a mathematical discussion of whether 1 is finite or infinite.

>>22467499
>images btfo text yet again
How can lit recover from this?

>>22466728
>the majority of consumers of literature are women
I bet that's skewed by gossip magazines the same way "majority of gamers are women" is skewed by mobile and trannies

>>22467807
no one says the majority of gamers are women though
and everyone knows that's not true
whereas most people know how many women read, even if it's corny romance models
i hate this new era of "give me studies studies give me a source this has been skewed on the x and y axis", sometimes you just know by observing and living in society

>>22465966
Thanks for using inb4 correctly.

>>22466299
I'm a brainlet, why does he say "But women aren't even shallow"? So is he saying women are shallow or not?

>>22467404
>If you define a beginning and an end then how could the space between possibly be infinite?
NTA but it's because there is always another number (infinite numbers actually) in-between any 2 numbers you can name within the boundaries of such a set. That means the set is infinite. There are also different sizes of infinite sets (i.e. countable sets where you can attach cardinality to the members and uncountable sets which are larger because you can't).
>endpoint
There isn't an endpoint between any two members of the set because there are infinite members between them.

>>22468238
I think he’s saying that they’re so shallow that they’re not even shallow. Basically, they have no depth whatsoever.

>>22466459
Who the fuck likes green bananas

>>22466764
>>22466728
>>22466639
r*dditor detected

>>22468269
Ah I see, how did I not see it that way Thanks anon

>>22467499
There is no discussion. The real numbers set is dense, thus there is always a real number between any two other given real numbers, thus there is an infinite amount of real numbers between 0 and 1, thus everyone here denying such a simple mathematical fact is a retard.

>>22466693
Got curious, so I looked for it.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170113081847/http://www.fiu.edu/~cookn/cuneo1.pdf

>>22465963
John Green raped an underage, terminally ill girl.

>>22467499
Oh please OP knew what he was doing. Don't delude yourself into thinking that faggot had any intention of making a serious thread.

>>22466093
I don't remember that from my Hackett edition

>>22466639
>>22466728
>majority of consumers of literature
majority of "literature" is chicklit and softcore porn

>>22466093
>>22466225
The physical act is much the same, but in the case of adultery the partners have agreed not to have sex with others.
That's meaningful because it's a vow to renounce some desirable privileges for the partner's sake, so a breach of that trust is very significant and potentially hurtful because of both the deception involved in having an extra-marital relation and because of the stark imbalance caused by one partner making an effort to renounce the privilege of sleeping with whoever while the other is very much exercising it.
If this is not plainly obvious to you you should go outside and have social relationships with other people, in the hopes that you might, someday, become close enough to normal.

Also John's wife is hot and interesting and I would make him a cuck at the fist occasion.

>>22467281
>make a post that makes sense
>follow it up saying your opinion is worthwhile because you have a bullshit in maths
way to sound persuasive anon

>>22466093
Doesn’t really feel much like Socrates up until the “why did you marry? If you didn’t she couldn’t have adulterated!” That’s very on point. The problem with the first part is that Socrates himself made nonsensical comparisons and analogies all the time so cheerios shouldn’t confuse him as much as it did. I also don’t know enough about John Green or his views on marriage to rate that part because it presumes that John Green finds monogamous, long marriages desirable which I wouldn’t bet on.

>>22465963
The disgust for slutty women is the same as the disgust for virgin man. So there's no "double standard".

>>22466093
It would be better if Socrates says something like “what about horsemanship? Does a good horseman/ trainer devote himself to one horse or to all horses?” “Ah, if the horseman could improve every single horse that would be ideal but it is not the case.”

>>22466093
>>22466225
Why do most people dislike being rained on, but quite delight in taking a shower?

>>22466093
>S: How would you feel if you found out your wife had slept with 47 other people yesterday?
>G: I would feel angry, disgusted and betrayed.

>>22468882
cause they're naked in the shower

>>22468888
Checked. I kneel.

>>22465963
>women are held to a different standard than men?
How many men have fucked hundreds of different women by the time they are in college? Can you really call those men the "standard"?

>>22469157
How many women do you know that fucked hundreds of men?

>>22469176
Personally? At least a dozen. Through the grapevine ~100

>>22469185
Bleak

>>22466093
Has John Green's wife actually slept with 47 other people

my favorite honest politician

>>22469202
He wasn't perfect. He made some misjudgements.

>>22469185
So if only these twelve already fucked at the very least 1200 guys and you say that that this is just a small part of a bigger phenomenon, shouldn't there be less male virgins around in the world and not more? Or do you think that thousands and millions of girls in your city/country fuck the same 1200 chads and don't care about anyone else?

>>22469202
And then russia invaded, raped and genocided the poles.
>>22469216
Yes it's all the same men, Well over 40% of men <30 are virgins and most non-virgins have only had 1 or 2 partners in their whole life.

>>22469227
not before germany invaded as agreed upon through the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact, and raped and genocided the poles.

>>22469233
If we only have photos from after the orcs invaded then I will assume it was the orcs until proven otherwise, I find it hard to believe that germans would rape and murder many white women or even jews.

>>22469240
what
I'm genuinely startled, are you trolling? Even going by your nonsensical evidence standard nazis didn't consider poles and jews to be aryan in fact all slavs where subhumans according to their ideology and jews weren't even human, and I'm pretty sure there's plenty of photos of german the german invasion taken on the first of september

>>22469255
You are making shit up. There are plenty of shoops yes.

>>22469258
what am I making up, nazis considering nearly everyone besides them as subhuman??? you can always just read mein kampf and/or nazi speeches and find out for yourself, they're available online

>>22469265
Find one nazi party memeber that specifically says the poles are untermensch and I will find ten that say that they just aren't Aryan.

>>22469278
not him but here

>>22469308
Weird that they are speaking English. How about not a quote mine?

>>22466605
The record is 919 men in one day. If you scheduled it ahead of time 47 men is very achievable.

The people who say that women have body counts in the 100s and 1000s before highschool are just as silly as the people who say the germans killed millions of civilians in a few years.

>>22469321
You are delusional and retarded beyond all belief. I can only conclude that you're either an amerimutt, which is indicated by your outstanding ignorance to even the simplest to understand and most widespread historical data, or a Pole/Slav trying to reconcile your Nazism and love for Hitler with your ethnicity. Either way I kindly ask you to leave this board and never return, raising its average IQ by a few point.

I could never love a non virgin woman. I mean, I could love one, but I know that she could never be my wife. I lost my virginity to a beautiful girl who was also a virgin years ago, but fate saw us separate. If a man has sex with a woman, he takes part of her forever. Everyone knows the romantic archetypes. If I can't have a perfect virgin, I would rather have several wives, all of whom I might love, but none of whom are ultimately special. Vessels for my genetic propagation.

>>22469357
Deflecting from the fact that Third Reich quotes are often dubiously attributable, intentionally misconstrued in translation, and reposted out of context and the reasonable request of that poster to demonstrate a source.

>>22469361
>not a virgin
>wants a virgin girl
what makes you think you deserve one?

>>22469390
I don't even know what it would mean to "think I deserve one". I don't think I deserve anything, but it doesn't stop me from wanting things.

>>22469403
By that logic it's ok for women to want cocks, no?

>>22469412
I never said it was a moral failing for a woman to not be a virgin. Just like it isn't a moral failing to have a sexually attractive appearance.

>>22469424
To not have a sexually attractive appearance*

>>22466485
>>22466476
I can almost imagine it know, the Cock, not attached to any individual man, not a mere average of all men's cock, but rather the cockness of all cocks poured into one, the Platonic ideal of a cock, the Schrodinger's cock which all at once assumed the girth and size of all cocks yet mightier than the sum of all its cocky parts, pounding the walls of your vagina and stretching it even passed its current flappery state.
In other words, in the same way you would only fuck chads and not the average man said average man does not necessarily approve of your or chad's conduct you fucking whore.

>/lit/ users got beat in a debate by a woman
Lol'd

>>22469201
Seeing how hot she is I wouldn't be surprised.

>>22467807
It's true but it's because they read their porn instead of watching it like men.

>>22469508
>hot

>>22469739
She is one of the ugliest women I've ever seen.
>>22465963
It's crazy how far charisma towards the insipid masses can take one nowadays. I don't give a shit about John Green, but I do envy his wealth. All of these public "intellectuals" make me sick to my stomach. A randomly /lit/ anon would probably be better than John Green, but I doubt they would have his "charisma" towards the insipid masses.

I find it difficult to smile in public any more.

>>22469774
>It's crazy how far charisma towards the insipid masses can take one nowadays.
>A randomly /lit/ anon would probably be better than John Green, but I doubt they would have his "charisma" towards the insipid masses
Truth.

'and in the second place, the revulsion of the masses for every outstanding genius is positively instinctive'.
- A 'literally' H

>>22469739
>>22469774
>hot
Yes.
She's also cultured and intelligent, unlike her husband.

>>22466093
which one is worse?

ASS

>>22470347
you know what he says

>>22469381
Based Nazi general

>>22470310
>Yes.
Not even when you can't clearly see just how huge her nose is. She looks like a trannie.

>>22466276
>>22468855
>muh trust
Version 2

>>22465963
would you eat cheerios that 47 other guys jizzed in though

>>22465973
What a twat. Worse than OP's fag in fact

>>22470443
add a cheeseburger and you're basically just at a grocery store

>>22466093
>S: Is the difference in the mind? Does adulterating look or sound or feel different from fornicating? Is the memory of the first more permanent than that of the other?
>G: No, I do not believe so.
This is where anon fucked up.
"Green" wouldn't say "no". He'd say that, "yes, it feels different from fornication because of the inherent impact of knowingly betraying a partner on the part of the one having sex with an outsider".
It is not the same as mere fornication because of that mentality of knowingly acting in a corrupt and unfair way towards your marriage/relationship partner.
From that point then "Green" would be able to properly distinguish them from each other.

As well "Socrates'" conclusions at the end are too easy for this to be at all rigorous.
The meme has too much effort put into it for the writer to claim, "it's just a joke".

>>22470644
>"Socrates'" conclusions at the end are too easy for this to be at all rigorous.

So just like the real dialogs

>>22470655
You aren't wrong.

>>22470659
hey guys, chapter three here to send you back to chapter 6

>>22470655
Nah, it needs horsemanship and cobbling to be a real Socrates dialogue, Socrates’ two favorite topics to make false equivalencies about.

>>22465963
"Mammy could smell a republican like a horse could smell a rattlesnake."

>>22468884
Under rated

>"Gibs me dat fo free"
-Hungry Santa

>Dogs are the hieroglyphs of blind emotion, inferiority, servile attachment, and gregariousness—the attributes of commonplace, stupidly passionate, and intellectually and imaginatively undeveloped men. Cats are the runes of beauty, invincibility, wonder, pride, freedom, coldness, self-sufficiency, and dainty individuality—the qualities of sensitive, enlightened, mentally developed, pagan, cynical, poetic, philosophic, dispassionate, reserved, independent, Nietzschean, unbroken, civilised, master-class men. The dog is a peasant and the cat is a gentleman.

>>22465963
I'm not a sex-haver, but that's an insulting thing to say, right? If your partner is hurt because they don't feel special to you why would you say that you enjoy their "whole-grain crunch", ie confirm that you only view them as a sexual object.

>>22470411
Nice

>>22466808
sounds like he's referring to someone, probably someone popular, that's been canceled

>>22468855
>Also John's wife is hot and interesting

>>22472369
sounds like this literally got, to me, as bad as it can get

>>22466093
is this written by a person or is this AI/GPT?

>>22465963
i have never seen anyone used weird unironically and not have a really bad take

of course it's weird to judge women by their body count if the consensus consists of troons and fags and HR roasties. especially if you're a weak man you'll derive your social needs from groups with high probability to default to the consensus because that's how they find their tribe

>>22465963
The state of the modern 'man'.