[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 15 KB, 155x200, KANT.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13624847 No.13624847 [Reply] [Original]

>Lying bad even if someones life is on the line
What the fuck was his problem

>> No.13624856

>>13624847
Like most moralists, he was a self righteous moron.

>> No.13624858

>>13624847
the first moralfag

>> No.13624862

He never said that.

>> No.13624863

sorry sweetie but the consequences of your actions are unknowable

>> No.13624887

>>13624863
>be me
>polish villager
>1943
>allow jewish family to live in my basement in exchang for all their valuables
>hear knock on door
>ss officer
>"hiding jews in here?"
>remember that lying is immoral
>can't know the consequences of my actions anyway
>"yes"

>> No.13624906

>>13624887
and now you wont burn in hell once the nazis put a bullet in your head, so it was worth it in the end. or at least you might not burn in hell. its not guaranteed since the consequences of your actions are unknowable

>> No.13624942

>>13624887
What is this imaginary scenario where the gestapo are asking people if they’re hiding Jews? Was that the extent of their investigation?

>> No.13624953

>>13624847
Don’t tell me you’ve never imagined a world without lies? So many problems gone, and the rest nowhere the hide?

>> No.13626090

he's not wrong.

Say you are given a scenario by a demon wherein you have to kill an innocent child or else several thousand people will die. You choose to kill the child. Wouldn't you say that the child's death is still "bad"? If given the choice between two immoral things, it does not make one option a "good" just because it is set relative to another evil. And so lying is always bad.

In the scenario where you may lie to mislead a murderer, the correct action is to not tell him anything at all, and if he kills you for this then that only cements it as a saintly action.

>> No.13626095

>>13624847
he never said that

>> No.13626097

>>13624906
good thing hell is real then or else I'd have died for nothing

>> No.13626098

>>13624847
was kant black? it looks like someone erased his features and redrew them, but did a hasty job and didn't size them up correctly.

>> No.13626102

>>13626095
Uhh... he said just like that tho?

>> No.13626103

>>13626102
ur retarded

>> No.13626108

>>13624863
spoken like a true slave to deontology and destiny. only utilitarian masters can see the future

>> No.13626112
File: 30 KB, 576x206, 1473070703028.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13626112

>>13624847

>> No.13626113

You shouldn't be concerned with lie or truth. That is only true if another person knows of it. If you keep a fog around yourself, not telling what you do, you make life more exciting because nobody knows where the rabbit will come from. If everyone knows everything about you, you are an affair taken for granted. And thus you must perpetuate the image by constantly telling everyone what you do. It is more bothersome than you think.

>> No.13626116

>>13626112
the goblin formalises the life lived by chad

>> No.13626120

>>13626090
>If given the choice between two immoral things, it does not make one option a "good" just because it is set relative to another evil. And so lying is always bad.
I'm glad I'm a utilitarian and don't have to fret over this kinda bullshit. Just look at the end result lmao.

>> No.13626131
File: 54 KB, 658x501, 1558647642640.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13626131

>>13624858
I called someone a moralfag once and he literally responded with:
>Having morals is bad
Is there anyone more insufferable than moralfags?
Also,
>>13624863
If the consequences of your actions are unknowable, then lying is okay since the same logic applied to telling the truth can be applied to telling a white lie.
>B-but you're knowingly withholding the truth!
If you're assuming that consequences are unknowable, then how the hell am I supposed to assume that I know the complete truth in order to not lie AT ALL? Your argument is self defeating since it is impossible to know the complete truth about anything. Human beings are subjective.

>> No.13626132

>>13626090
The "bad" falls on the demon in that analogy, not the guy who killed the baby. If the authorities ask me for my friend I will certainly lead them down a false road; if I stay silent they might take the wrong road by chance and I will have betrayed my friend. There's nothing wrong in this because truth isn't some goddess that we must serve.

>> No.13626136

>>13626132
Right road*

>> No.13627617

>>13626131
And you know human beings are subjective? This proposition must be known in it's totality, not partiality, otherwise your argument falls apart, and if it is known in it's totality, this proposition contradicts your argument.

Commit suicide, retarded frogposter.

>> No.13627771
File: 54 KB, 474x535, 1565498296390.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13627771

>>13626120
Imagine this scenario: A hyper intelligent alien has a well being cube. The well being cube feels an infinite amount of pleasure. The alien can switch a lever on the cube, making the cube feel an infinite amount of suffering. The alien communicates using telepathy and tells you that unless you kill and rape every human on the planet, then xir will pull the lever. Would you kill every human on earth in order to avoid the alien pulling the lever?

>> No.13627949

>>13627771
Based

>>13624847
Kant only claimed to make a blueprint, he didn't solve it. The point is there are universal morals just ppl haven't looked for them. I would say action is necessarily away from universality but some have larger objective ranges of goodness compared to others. I would even say justice or even truth have an ability to be misused (read: >>13627771) but our goal is to find the most universal ranges. On top of that being good has a degree of perversion but it's less than truth and truth is less than justice.

>> No.13627981
File: 1.22 MB, 822x853, kantletter.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13627981

>>13624847

>> No.13628136

>>13624847
He did say that in the situation where a killer comes to the door asking where your family is he can kill them that you shouldn't lie but just say don't kill them because if you lie and say they're somewhere else then maybe some of your family overheard the conversation and tried to escape out the back door. Then the killer goes off to look for them and finds them outside the house.

>> No.13628191

>>13627981
that was based as fuck

>> No.13628200

>>13628136
There are a few problems with that. First off all, nothing guarantees that your family will try to escape after you've said either of those things. Nothing about "please don't kill them" would discourage them from leaving more or less than if you said "they're not here". Also it's a wild assumption. Hearing that there's a killer at the door might as well make them hide in the basement, or it might make crazy uncle joe grab his shotgun and splatter the brains of the potential killer down the driveway. You can't know. The only thing you can really do is make sure the killer fucks off, by lying for instance.
Kant's whole problem with lying is also that you're objectifying someone if you lie to them. How is persuading them or commanding them to do or not to do something any different? To me the latter sounds more objectifying than the former.

>> No.13628288

>>13626112
literal goblin

>> No.13628315

>>13628136
He is speaking about universal morals, they only make sense in a world in which everyone lives by those morals. I think that was his main point, that all other morals are subjective, only a maxime that can be followed by everyone and still lead to a better society is truly good.

>> No.13628351

>>13626090
>In the scenario where you may lie to mislead a murderer, the correct action is to not tell him anything at all, and if he kills you for this then that only cements it as a saintly action.
This. Besides, in this hypothetical example, you're probably being visited by the Gestapo because you're already under suspicion for harboring Jews. If you say "no", what are the chances that you will be believed anyway? If the Nazis have you on your radar, then you've already fucked up, and it's best to go down with dignity.

I know that I'm twisting the thought experiment, since it's meant to show the practical downsides of deontology, but the sterile nature of the thought experiment makes it pointless and lends the moral philosophy more credibility, not less.

>> No.13629242

>>13627771
Yeah.
Luckily infinite happiness (not pleasure) cubes don't exist. Serial killers do exist though.

>> No.13629675

>>13624887
No, retard. You don't have to lie. Just ask if you're being detained and then quote maritime law.

>> No.13629686

>>13626112
>5ft
What a manlet

>> No.13629957

>>13624953
>a world without lies would be good
watch code geass

>> No.13630244

>>13624847
>What the fuck was his problem
all ugly babies should be smothered at birth. nothing good can ever come from keeping incels around.

>> No.13630357

>idiots misunderstanding Kant
What else is new

>> No.13630379

To be honest by the time he got to the point about which supposed family and their supposed relation to you and your whereabouts being syncretic ideas I think the murderers would be asleep and that gives them at least two current earth hours in which to fall into a deep state of unconsciousness before we could establish with any system the interpreted distances and directions in a uniform space necessary to say where any such family might be said to be in relation to ourselves even if the family were in fact related to ourselves, as the case maybe.

>> No.13630423

Morality makes more sense when you realize that it is nothing more than a guide to self-benefit. Kant was retarded for thinking that a secular system of morality could be consistently applied in every situation, since the same moral law might not benefit you in every situation

>> No.13630446
File: 28 KB, 720x720, received_1269882089832890.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13630446

>>13629957

>> No.13630450

>>13629957
More like code gayass. Never seen so many plot holes in one show

>> No.13630658

>>13624887
It's called owning a gun, fuckwit. Only a couple of officers will approach your house so just shoot one in the face when the door opens then smack the other one with the end of the gun to knock him out, then tie him up and steal his nazi outfit, and then you can infiltrate the next nazi rally and kill hitler, which guarantees you will be a hero forever

>> No.13630666

>>13630446
anime website

>> No.13631119

>>13629242
>Would destroy your own species to make some cube not feel bad.
What a cuck. How does it feel to know that my reductio has exposed your philosophy as fradulent nonsense?

>> No.13631127

Its not whether you lie or not, it's often do you lie that is bad.

>> No.13631131

>life
>real

>> No.13631134

>>13631119
>not feeling infinite empathy for the cube
Sicko.

>> No.13631229

>>13627771
>The well being cube feels an infinite amount of pleasure
Absurd

>> No.13631438

>>13629675
Based and sovereign-pilled

>> No.13631459

>>13624847
>Lying bad even if someones life is on the line
Who are you quoting? Kant boils down to "do what you want, just take responsibility"

>> No.13631462

>>13626132
The bad always falls on prior causes outside our control, under this mindset bad doesn't exist and your definition for it is meaningless and should be replaced

>> No.13631479

>>13627771
based

>>13629242
>>13631229
cope

The idea of traditional good is a tool of egotistic self-satisfaction, acknowledge your own desires as the unjustified whims they are and own them.

>> No.13631480

>>13630658
>this is your brain on american

>> No.13631954

>>13626120
What is so good about maximizing happiness if that happiness isn't necessarily your own?

>> No.13631966

>>13630658
>partisans weren't obliterated for resisting bro, trust me!

>> No.13632056

>>13624887
proof that only power matters in morality

>> No.13632062

>>13626090
>lying is always bad.

Yes but a necessary evil

>> No.13632078

>>13627949
no philosopher knows what 'good' is because they cant admit that some people are just wiser than others

>> No.13632082

>>13628200
What if I told you that you don't need to lie but you could just not answer him?

>> No.13632085

>>13630379
smart

>> No.13632110

>>13631479
Literally just an absurd gotcha question. Define infinite pleasure or infinite suffering- an infinitely high level of p/s, or infinitely extended, or both? Even the phrasing of your nonsense, garbage morality issue is flawed.

>> No.13632128

>>13632110
Why do you care so much about maximizing happiness anyway? What's the point? Would you give up Earth and all its resources just because there are trillions of starving aliens that want everything from us? What if they took us in as slaves, too? If you could choose between their death and our suffering, why help them for your baseless utilitarian fantasies?

>> No.13632134

>>13632128
What if those 'aliens' were actually just us from the future, would you help them?

>> No.13632153

>>13626120
>do whatever the fuck you feel like
>use mental gymnastics to justify how it'll maximize total utility
>literally never immoral
The Chad Consequentialist

>> No.13632156

>>13632134
Who is being absurd now? How can the future humans kill the original humans? I asked you to make a choice. What will it be? Would you really help them just because of an extremely unlikely "what if" scenario?

>> No.13632186

>>13624847
His problem was with what was to come; the humanity filled with psychological egoists. His thought process is outstanding, but difficult to realize; that doesn't mean you shouldn't strive for what he thought, even though there are humane exceptions to it.

>> No.13632201

>>13632186
It's simpler to just adhere to a theistic moral system since it is universal and constant. There is no good secular basis for a moral law that is always valid.

>> No.13632206

>>13624847
He was a brainlet.

The intention is all that matters behind your actions.

>> No.13632211

>>13632206
>i beat her because my intent was good, i wanted her to learn

>> No.13632216

>>13632128
Why would you not wish to maximise happiness? What could be a more useful ambition?

>> No.13632227

>>13632216
I only care about maximizing my own happiness. That often includes helping others and improving overall happiness, but that's just an indirect way to benefit myself. There's no reason to maximize universal happiness if it means I will suffer as a result

>> No.13632238

>>13632201
That's your opinion. I adhere to my own moral system - which in my eyes is always valid, hence I take responsibility to my actions - and don't need a deity to guide me. Whatever suits you, anon.

>> No.13632240

>>13632216
Ad.
You bring up aliens and infinite pleasure cubes, but you don't seem to understand the basic value -not of pleasure necessary, but of "happiness" (taken here to mean the span of emotion from contentment to mirth). From a pragmatic and personal emotional standpoint, generating human happiness is important - why care about the happiness of things that may well not exist?

>> No.13632248

>>13632240
Why care about the happiness of humans?

>> No.13632253

>>13632238
What moral system?

>> No.13632271

>>13632110
Infinte pleasure: an infinite amount of extremely pleasent emotions.
Infinite suffering: An infinite amount of extremely unpleasent sensory data.

>> No.13632275

>>13631229
It's a hypothetical. Answer the question.
>>13631134
>Caring more about emotions than moral facts

>> No.13632278

>>13632253
I'm not here to discuss my moral system, I'm only here to comment on OP's post.

>> No.13632281

>>13632271
You only need to add the stipulation that the cube will experience more pleasure than the collective of all other organisms will possibly ever achieve in the future. No need to bring in infinity

>> No.13632285

>>13632227
If your philosophy is so personally and morally insular, what's the point of discussing it? If you've made it your decision to act like a perfectly normal, pleasant person but spout half-baked egoist tripe, why would that be of interest to anyone but you?

>> No.13632286

>>13632278
Scared

>> No.13632291

>>13632240
He wasn't the guy that wrote about pleasure cubes. It was me bro

>> No.13632295

>>13632285
Because I'm tired of people speaking about morality in error. Our thinking should be clarified and explainable or else there will be endless pointless discussion when we could be discussing more pertinent details and topics

>> No.13632296

>>13632248
Because A) a sense of morality and responsibility commands it and B) the proper range of positive emotions amongst the macro and individual parts of society is necessary for the function of the social system we all rely on.

>> No.13632303

>>13632296
>A
So becuase of your emotions? Do you believe that emotions are a valid way of gaining knowledge?
>B
Why not skip the middle man and base a morality on maintaining the social system we rely upon?

>> No.13632304

>>13632291
He did write about starving aliens so you're only marginally less sharp

>> No.13632308

>>13632304
Yeah, but in said scenario, do you value the pleasure cube over humanity?

>> No.13632311

>>13632286
Everyone can critique on everyone's thoughts, or let's say in this context everyone's moral system: if you believe in a deity, and think that the moral system of that specific religion is the ultimate one, you are blatantly mistaken in my eyes, because I don't believe in a made up deity, but you have the right to do so. Why would I discuss with a person who believes in a moral system of a religion, if I'm irreligious? Does that make me scared? No, that makes me uninterested in talking to you.

>> No.13632314

>>13632296
> a sense of morality and responsibility commands it
But if you're utilitarian, then shouldn't you also be concerned about all sentient beings? Even aliens who are our enemies?

>the proper range of positive emotions amongst the macro and individual parts of society is necessary for the function of the social system we all rely on.
What? Here's a simpler, more logical explanation: we care about other humans because
A) we share the same genes
B) when the community flourishes, so does the individual
C) when you help others, they are likely to help you in return, or at least you will have a better reputation and benefit in other i direct ways

>> No.13632322

>>13632311
>assuming God is made up
Yeah, you're just low IQ. I dont want to discuss with you anyway

>> No.13632333

>>13632322
Enlighten me why God isn't made up.

>> No.13632338

>>13630666
... on /lit/ board...

>> No.13632346

>>13632333
You claimed God is made up. Why would you claim something without being able to back it up? I never said God isn't made up, but you are the one who said God IS made up. So why did you say that?

>> No.13632366
File: 4 KB, 249x250, 1560817477335.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13632366

>>13632346
Everyone is agnostic, no shit, but I never said God is made up, I said I don't BELIEVE in a made up deity.

>> No.13632374

>>13632240
This span of emotion you describe falls under the term pleasure. But there is more to well-being than emotions, for there is engagement, the level of performance and satisfaction thereof in domains of life (work, family, hobbies), meaning (e.g., eudaimonia), and peace of mind as well.

>> No.13632391

>>13632366
Why didn't you just say that you dont believe in God, or a deity? You're explicitly implying that God is made up. Then you basically respond with "prove that God ISN'T made up" and after I correct you, you resort to cowardly sophistry. Sometimes I forget that there are people with sub-100 IQ's, and that they occasionally post on /lit/, but you are a reminder

>> No.13632406

>>13632391
Do you even know the difference between a deity and God? If I ask "Enlighten me why God isn't made up", I don't make any statements only that I previously said I don't believe in a made up deity. Stop being offensive for no reason, people with above 100 IQ's don't see a reason to be offensive.

>> No.13632447

>>13632303
Emotion and morality are by no means interchangeable - adultery is a product of emotional drive that quite clearly has nothing to do with morality. More than that, to attempt to act morally knowledge, and attempt to think properly and critically are vital. I see why you might conflate emotion and morality but they must necessarily be separate in their expression.
And you rather have the cart before the horse there- the social system we rely upon is based, to a greater or lesser degree, on our own morality and on the clarity with which it can be expressed through our collectives
>>13632314
The chief issue I took with both of the alien arguments is their frank absurdity, I don't feel a coherent observation of true morality can be made when you mix in suppositions without the necessary data. If a race of aliens met us, able to truly communicate, it would be our duty to help their troubles to the best collective ability of mankind- but as I previously stated, the ability of humans to practice morality with the handicaps of circumstance, emotion and intelligence is limited. Only a divine creator, should you believe in Him, would be able to make unequivocal moral judgements in that way as He would be seperate from each of those hindrances.

>> No.13632465

>>13632447
Denying the possibility of a hypothetical is a sign of defeat. I'm asking you plain and simply, if you could choose between two outcomes, one being the extinction of a huge alien race, and the other being the destruction of Earth and the eternal slavery anand mistreatment of humans for the aliens' sake, which would you choose? Note that by keeping the aliens alive, you will maximize happiness more so than by exterminating them.

>> No.13632521

>>13632314
Would the greater direction of the universe be better with a small, inobtrusive mass of sentients on one little corner of the planet or a great, amoral swarm travelling planet to planet? Is there any point fighting an enemy so vastly superior that they could just destroy our planet from orbit, thereby removing any moral issue on our part entirely? Since I would personally say that nobody can truly be morally perfect, and that self defence is primarily an act of circumstance, I certainly wouldn't consider it unjustified. But again, morality is discovered through use of knowledge, and with hypotheticals incomplete data just leads to pointless conjecture.
>>13632295
Came to the wrong place if you don't like endless pointless discussion sunshine

>> No.13632529

>>13632391
I'm leaving this discussion since you don't know the difference between a deity from a religion and God in general. This conversation is completely a waste of time because of your lack of knowledge and understanding. Shouldn't have fallen for your "Scared" bait anyway. Thank you for your negative, stubborn and arrogant contribution to the board.

>> No.13632537

>>13632521
>well, I'm not perfect so I would totally go against my own moral system in favor of self-preservation, but trust me, morality isn't totally derived from the self, ok!
Everytime

>> No.13632551

>>13627771
If the humans do not suffer eternally after being raped by me and killed then yes.
Eternal suffering outweighs 8 billion human lives.

>> No.13632555

>>13632521
>amoral
How? Aren't they moral by your standards?

>> No.13632557

>>13632465
Again, more information is needed. I'll say that, in your given hypothetical, I'd support humanity with the main exception of divine intervention- if an ultimate moral arbitrator were to decree, from a position outside circumstance, my path forward I would take it.

>> No.13632590

>>13632557
What if God told you that helping the aliens would actually maximize universal happiness in the long term? Then you would have no choice but eternal slavery of humanity, or risk being a hypocrite

>> No.13632634

>>13632551
I respect that you're honest and doesn't try to dodge the question, but personally I care about rational agents and not emotions when it comes to morality.

>> No.13632636

>>13632537
You can know what you are doing is wrong, you can disassociate or become utterly revulsed by your own actions but still carry them out. I stand by the fact that morality judgement can only be achieved through thought, and while it's easy to speak with self-awareness outside moral decisions, when they concern immediately weakness and failure are the rule.
To my mind, regret is the punishment for failure of moral judgement- felt here or in the Afterlife- and the mercy is often it is easier to fail morally and live with the regret than to make a difficult moral decision.

>> No.13632643

>>13632590
Read my post. If I was commanded by God to condemn humanity I would, because logically it would be His moral judgement that could not be blemished or twisted.

>> No.13632652

>>13632643
I only said that God told you which choice maximizes universal happiness. I didn't say God commanded you to choose a certain action.

>> No.13632680

bunch of disgusting hedonists in here

>> No.13632690

>>13632680
Everyone is a hedonist but most dont admit it. To say that it is better to be a non-hedonist is itself hedonistic

>> No.13632697

>>13629675
>Hiden sie die juden in your bashement, Monsieur Anon?
>I have a right not to answer your quesstion! Did I do anything wrong? Tell me what law I broke! Unless I'm being detained you have no right to enter my house! Do you have a search warrant? Say goodbye to your job Hanz, I can't wait till I tell my lawyer about this!
>Well, it zhe time to break zhe fingears!

>> No.13632731

>>13624847
Probably trying to find something willing to fuck his hob-goblin ass.

>> No.13632735

>>13627771
This is such a contrived, bizarre scenario that anything one might conclude from examining will have no bearing on anyone's real world behaviour. This, among other reasons, is why nobody takes these stupid arguments about ethics seriously.

>> No.13632751

>>13632735
>>13632128

>> No.13632767

imagine being a utilitarian

>> No.13632809

>>13632767
Obviously it's beneficial to have happy populations, but to make a rigid maxim that universal happiness is our moral end is retarded. They get swept away with the aesthetic of their morality and not the reasons behind it. It's easy to imagine that a world full of happy people necessarily includes you, but that isn't always the case.

>> No.13632811

>>13632652
In which case, you're asking me the same question as before. God communicates moral judgement through our own morality, and it is within our free will and circumstance that moral judgement is carried out or not. I personally would not be able to sacrifice all of humanity, even knowing that it would be a correct moral decision, and would have to live with the blood of an entire alien species on my hands. Judgement is meted out to me by regret in this life.

>> No.13632849

>>13632811
So if you made the correct moral decision, you would have less regret? If you saw the Earth pillaged and every living being discarded as nothing but a potential resource and every healthy human taken as a slave, you would have less regret for this, than if you were to save humanity?

>> No.13633026

>>13632849
I doubt in those extra-ordinary circumstances the Lord would be so cruel. But if it were to be a direct commandment, in my lifetime, I think I would. I'd probably be killed, and I'd probably kill anybody who did the same- unless this is a commandment for all to see

>> No.13633040

>>13633026
Here's an impossible scenario but I'm interested in your response: God tells you that you can only go to heaven if everyone else goes to hell, and everyone else can go to heaven only if you go to hell. In either scenario, your experience of heaven or hell is the same as anyone else would experience them outside of this scenario. So if you choose heaven, you will not be burdened by your decision at all. If you choose hell, you won't remember your sacrifice. What do you do?

>> No.13633524

Anyone here who believes Kant is wrong consider the idea that someone being held hostage may lie so they don't get killed. There is a reason why lying is bad.

>> No.13633673

>>13633524
I'm so happy I dont read philosophy. This whole conversation is bullshit

>> No.13633683
File: 21 KB, 800x894, 1531028464959.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13633683

every utilitarian should be shot and thrown in a mass grave. why? because it'd make me happy lmao

>> No.13633722

>>13624847
I kind of wonder if he was autistic, because he viewed things in systems instead of as individuals.

That said, I think it's good to take the categorical imperative very loosely. Be a pragmatist, but recognize that it's good to tell the truth, be generous, and generally BE good, because it makes the world a better place. But yeah, use your judgement - there are plenty of situations where telling the truth is a bad thing to do, so in those situations, go ahead and lie. But generally be an honest and open person. If Janie says Billy's a hideous, retarded piece of shit, and then Billy asks you what Janie said, go ahead and be like "I think she's mad at you, and I don't think she's really interested. But what about Katie?"

>> No.13633732

>>13624942
Yes, and since we all know lying is wrong. Many were caught that way.

>> No.13633786

>>13624887
Protecting Jews is immoral already

>> No.13633806
File: 629 KB, 505x283, 1466296765316.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13633806

>>13627981