/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18787065]

>X is immoral because if everyone did X society would collapse
Name a more retarded argument.

[Anonymous No.18787067]

>>18787065
>morality
miss me with that gay shit

[Anonymous No.18787075]

Being a priest is immoral because if everyone was a priest would collapse.

[Anonymous No.18787077]

>>18787075
this, but unironically

[Anonymous No.18787125]

>>18787065
I think the solution for those kind of problems is to have a select group of people who are allowed to do something and to avoid systems which lead to that sort of problem (which themselves can be thought of as immoral). For example, private property gets rid of the issue of the tragedy of the commons, other arrangements which do not scale and which are based on the concept of sharing are immoral because they came to solve the problem of TOTC.

[Anonymous No.18787136]

>>18787125
I'm sorry, I meant to say other arrangements which fall victim to TOTC are immoral. I'm phoneposting rn, my bad.

[Anonymous No.18787141]

>>18787065
tell me about this girl is her anime good

[Anonymous No.18787151]

>>18787065
literally the best argument but ok

[Anonymous No.18787164]

>>18787141
It's got great production values and the main girl is very loveable. I've only seen a few episodes but it's pretty comfy, if you don't mind that it's a children's show you should give it a go.

[Anonymous No.18787169]

>>18787065
>[being a tree] is immoral because if everyone [was a tree] society would collapse
Seems legit what's your problem

[Anonymous No.18787206]

>>18787141
If you like magical girls anime you will like this one. One of the most seminal of the genre. Madhouse at its peak. Grossly overrated too, especially on /a/, but still a very good show

[Anonymous No.18787258]

Arguing against the categorical imperative? Very dangerous path you’re on OP, don’t allow pic related to happen

[Anonymous No.18787265]

>>18787258
Why would I wipe up someone else's shit? Who else suffers if you don't wipe your ass?

[Anonymous No.18787268]

>>18787065
X isn't immoral because X feels good

[Anonymous No.18787273]

>>18787268
This takes the win as the most retarded argument. Congrats!

[Anonymous No.18787295]

>>18787075
>Being a priest is immoral because if everyone was a priest would collapse.
Holy...I kneel...

[Anonymous No.18787300]

>>18787125
this is just nietzsche and yes having a morality that applies to everyone equally is a blunt hammer but it is so vastly more simple (and necessarily always more popular by virtue of this being a literally anti-popular policy, because this policy is based on the idea that the "weak" are more and that this is harmful) than delegating special classes of people that don't have to follow the same rules as everybody else that this is nothing more than a vain thought experiment - and even Nietzsche didn't even begin to answer the important questions: how do we choose these people? why shouldn't I (the voter) be one of them? how even should they be elevated and by how much? do we have checks on these people, or would that defeat the purpose? and every one of these questions perspires the obvious, that this policy needs popular support that it will absolutely never get outside of post-apocalypse combined with a series of wild events

[Anonymous No.18787334]

>>18787268
>>18787273
Also another equally retarded one:
>X isn't immoral because X doesn't directly harm anyone

[Anonymous No.18787348]

>>18787334
That one's true :^)

[Anonymous No.18787350]

>>18787334
Yes, that does mean that it isn't immoral.

[Anonymous No.18787379]

>>18787065
Why is retarded? Morality was obviously an essential element to the formation of first societies. While the original animal-like gangs of hunters and gatherers could be united by a simple desire to survive, accumulate food, and ward off dangers, complex civilization cannot afford to develop with such menial incentives. An inherent strive to uplift others was necessary to push humans into the ages of industry and empires. Morality can be pretty much defined as that which is good for the society as a whole above the needs of an individual.

[Anonymous No.18787394]

>>18787350
By that logic homosexuality and consensual pedophilia is moral.

[Anonymous No.18787403]

>>18787379
Because not everybody does X. With something like lying you could make a case that it destroys trust and that is why you shouldn't do it, but the argument in the OP doesn't do that, it assumes that people are likely to follow suite when this isn't the case, in fact it's an almost impossible outcome.

[Anonymous No.18787417]

>>18787394
Homosexuality isn't immoral (I know you're probably a troll but I'll humour you) and pedophilia by it's nature can't be consensual because children cannot consent. The fact you would say that consensual pedophilia doesn't harm anyone is troubling.

[Anonymous No.18787453]

>>18787403
You didn't get me, it's irrelevant whether a principle works in practice or not. My point is that morality is that evolved part of the human character which enabled him to partake in the creation of complex societies, logically it follows that parts of the psyche that work towards the destruction of society could be regarded as antisocial. Morality and society are tied.
Now ofcourse a lot of mental gymnastics could be employed here, for example you could claim that human society is evil and it is one's moral obligation to oppose it, or you could say that while society is good and moral as a concept, its current iteration is ruled by evil jews and must be destroyed, but all such arguments fall short being no more than language games without a foundation.

[Anonymous No.18787458]

>>18787417
>pedophilia by it's nature
Pedophilia is not defined as non-consensual, it is merely intercourse of an adult with a child. Likewise, the difference between an adult and a child is not the ability to consent, it is merely an age-limit based on physical characteristics; children can still consent or not-consent in general. If a child consents to receive pleasure, then there is nobody "directly" harmed, and thus it is perfectly moral. The same goes for homosexuality, nobody is "directly" harmed in the act of intercourse, and thus it is perfectly moral. There is no trolling here, only following axioms to their logical conclusions. Homosexuality is immoral for the same reason, not least because homosexuals tend to disproportionately be pedophiles, and it causes the spread of life-threatening venereal disease through the promiscuous, unprotected tendencies of homosexuals.

[Anonymous No.18787466]

>>18787379
>>18787453
is-ought problem. recognising the utility of morality for some such thing implies nothing about whether moral obligations actually exist, i.e. whether it is incumbent upon someone who doesn't care about society to follow them.

[Anonymous No.18787471]

>>18787417
anon, i'm not that guy but you must be new here so i would like to welcome you. there is no point in arguing with these people, and you are about to waste hundreds of hours of your life shutting down arguments based on meme images that have been circulating around this website for 10 years now (the 1910 guy marrying a 12 year old, the source less "public opinion on attractiveness with age" graph, etc) and at the end of it, even if you can tear away every claim, at the end of it you will reach a series of complexes so dense that nothing can come or go

[Anonymous No.18787481]

>>18787458
>rape a child but groom him first so he "consents"
>now it's moral
>fuck a man but use condom
>now it's moral
flawless moral system

[Anonymous No.18787493]

>>18787458
Children are too immature and stupid to consent to something like sex, something which they could very likely regret as they get older. They can technically consent, but the the consideration that goes into whether or nor they should won't happen.
>homosexuals tend to disproportionately be pedophiles
Source?
>and it causes the spread of life-threatening venereal disease through the promiscuous, unprotected tendencies of homosexuals.
Like when literally anyone else has sex? Nothing you're describing is unique to homosexuality.

[Anonymous No.18787511]

>>18787471
Yeah, you're right, it's probably a good idea to give up now.

[Anonymous No.18787522]

>>18787493
>something which they could very likely regret as they get older.
This does not qualify as "directly" harming the child, just as homosexuality does not qualify as "directly" harming anyone.
>Like when literally anyone else has sex?
No, homosexuality is a pathology and fetish in the true sense of the word, which means that there is almost always an element of psychological depravity connected with it, rather than natural necessity, which isn't even thought about in heterosexuals (older generations, which were generally more moral than current, will note that children just start appearing without much thought when two people are married. The same occurs with sex itself, whereas with homosexuals the sexual element is fetishized). The same can be said of promiscuous straight sex, however, which is also immoral for roughly the same reasons.

[Anonymous No.18787531]

>>18787065
>>X is immoral because if everyone did X society would collapse
>Name a more retarded argument.
there, OP.

[Anonymous No.18787550]

>>18787471
Nice way to cope with your own irrationality I guess

[Anonymous No.18787557]

>>18787065
Ler's strawman more things

[Anonymous No.18787559]

>>18787493
What?

[Anonymous No.18787564]

>>18787394>>18787481
Can you kindly stop using extreme cases most people have strong emotional response towards, like pedophilia, to argue for general cases? You're making it impossible to have any sort of conversation because any opposition will be met with SO U R DEFENDING CHILDFUCKING HUH HUH. Fuck off and die in a ditch, you belong on a liberal platform accusing everyone of racism.

[Anonymous No.18787592]

>>18787564
Yes. Socrates is smuging on his grave. Now go read Plato, you dirty dirty Anon

[Anonymous No.18787596]

>>18787564
Extreme cases are the testing point of any general doctrine. You have to deal with things that challenge your beliefs rather than bury them under cognitive dissonance.

[Anonymous No.18787656]

>>18787522
Traumatizing someone is directly harmful to them!

[Anonymous No.18787661]

>>18787522
Start with the Greeks

[Anonymous No.18787731]

>>18787458
>>18787493
Whoa there, anon. Pedophilia is attraction, not action. You mean child molestation/rape per nonconsensual pairing. It's a bit of a sticky wicket, but adult-child sex was (and still is) common prior to G. Stanley Hall's 1904 work (which demarcated morphological and psychosocial categories). The thing is...logically consistent determinists dismiss consent outright (moral culpability is a cope). Its just that most adults enculturated in the modern milieu refuse to drop their inherited outlook even as they actively rebel against it (see the retraction of statements on pedophilia by Cohn-Bendit). Of course children can consent (initial and supplemental) to sex, we just don't recognize it legally. The PFC argument for "maturity" is nonsensical and "age of consent" is arbitrary. Stephen Kershnar has written about this, look him up.
>>18787481
Parents groom their children for sex by asking them for, or mandating, pseudosexual favors and affection (hugs/kisses). They take this into adolescence and discover pornography, which they combine with juvenile masturbation. Their sexual identity is a Freudian (Oedipus/Elektra) family afair that they never really become consciously aware of until adulthood (typically not even then). See Greer's panel appearance.
>>18787656
Trauma is a relative and propositional term. Read The Trauma Myth.

[Anonymous No.18787743]

>>18787731
>Read The Trauma Myth.

[Anonymous No.18787814]

>>18787596
Whether homosexuality or pedophilia are moral or not is completely irrelevant to a discussion of perfect duties. Stop using examples that your opponent will obviously disagree with just to have a discussion that's completely irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.18787835]

>>18787141
It's gay overrated child shit for pedo's and tranny's like almost all anime.

[Anonymous No.18787887]

>>18787731
>Parents groom their children for sex by asking them for, or mandating, pseudosexual favors and affection (hugs/kisses). They take this into adolescence and discover pornography, which they combine with juvenile masturbation. Their sexual identity is a Freudian (Oedipus/Elektra) family afair that they never really become consciously aware of until adulthood (typically not even then). See Greer's panel appearance.
Please tell me you do not interacted with children anon.

[Anonymous No.18787909]

>>18787814
>perfect duties.
We are discussing a very simple moral axiom, not whatever you're thinking of. Either participate in the discussion as it was, or don't pretend to be unphased by a question you're not capable of answering without appeals to emotion.
>just to have a discussion that's completely irrelevant.
it is entirely relevant to the discussion. "Perfect duties", whatever that means, is not relevant.

[Anonymous No.18787923]

>>18787887
Daily (Outpatient Child/Adol Psych). This is boilerplate theory everyone learns at Freshman level, most practitioners dismiss it (or forget), but it's standard stuff.

[Anonymous No.18787944]

>>18787909
The entire thread is a reference to a deontological argument which is closely related to what Kant referred to as ''perfect duties''. If you want to talk about moral axioms then use general examples that aren't loaded arguments in of themselves. Pedophilia and homosexuality are off topic.

[Anonymous No.18787951]

>>18787075
>if everyone was a priest would collapse.
Priestbros, we got too cocky.

[Anonymous No.18788053]

>>18787394
Pedophilia is considered illegal in the first place because it harms children. So yes, by that logic pedophilia would be moral if no one was directly harmed. Whethor pedophilia is actually harmful or not is an entirely different debate.

[Anonymous No.18788058]

>>18787075
>being a cook is immoral because if everyone was a cook society would collapse

[Anonymous No.18788068]

>>18787944
Kant's morality was already shown to be false so many times. There's no point even discussing it, the thread might as well be used to discuss something interesting.

[Anonymous No.18788069]

Not choosing to be a doctor is immoral because if no one chose to be a doctor loads of people would die.

[Anonymous No.18788088]

>No, you can't park there. Imagine if everyone parked there. It would be CHAOS!

[Anonymous No.18788152]

>>18788088
kek

[Anonymous No.18788154]

Whether or not the idea is retarded (it is), my real problem with it is that it's a basic thought that everyone has had. It's just some gay shit that every mother tells their kid when they want to get them to behave a certain way. Immanuel Kant, like many other philosophers, is a literal autist who discovered some common sense concept well into adulthood and wrote a whole book about it, even though it could be explained in two sentences, and other psueds suck his dick for it because they are too scared to call it what it is.

[Anonymous No.18788191]

>>18788154
You don't even believe that, anon.

[Anonymous No.18788204]

>>18788191
Not everyone has autism, anon.

[Anonymous No.18788218]

>>18788053
>Pedophilia is considered illegal in the first place because it harms children.
We're asking whether it should be considered illegal, what IS is irrelevant here. If we consider the case of a hypothetical pedophilia where no one is hurt, then there is no reason to make it illegal.

[Anonymous No.18788219]

>>18788204
All philosophical analysis can be characterized, especially X-centuries after the fact, as "so-n-so discovered a common sense truth and wrote twelve volumes on the subject, big deal." Sun Tzu is only common sense after having been exposed to it.

[Anonymous No.18788231]

> literally any thread about morality
> "muh pedophilia"
don't you freaks have enough containment boards?

[Anonymous No.18788258]

>>18788219
Only an autist would think that low IQ single mothers had any influence from Immanuel Kant. The only reason it got any traction was because Germany is already an autistic country that loves to suck its own dick, it wouldn't have gotten attention anywhere else. The implication that "but what if everyone did that?" had never occured to anyone until the 1700's is absurd. Plus, it's just a less practical re-statement of 'the golden rule'.

[Anonymous No.18788271]

Morality is a spook, Stiner literally BTFOd morality already

[Anonymous No.18788339]

Ive read Schopenhauer so I KNOW the only practical and true basis for morality is compassion and pity and there is absolutely nothing any of you immoral creatures can do or say to convince me otherwise, and dont expect me to elaborate

[Anonymous No.18788349]

>>18788339
I pity you and your ignorance so wouldn't it be moral to let me tell you why you're wrong?

[Anonymous No.18788367]

>>18787151
It isn't. Immoral means "something people shouldn't do even if they want to do it". If someone wants society to collapse then they should do those things if that is the consequence. So then it wouldn't be morally wrong (something people should not do) for anyone who want society to collapse because it isn't a reason why they shouldn't do it, but instead a reason why they SHOULD do it.

It is like saying "stealing is wrong because you get too much money" that isn't a good argument for why you shouldn't steal if you like money or don't care if you become rich or not.

[Anonymous No.18788372]

>>18788349
He doesn't have to let you, retard. I bet you thought that would sound really badass but it just made you look like a soft faggot from reddit.

[Anonymous No.18788376]

>>18788349
You could but I wouldnt read your post. Another one of Schopis advice that I follow is to only read good stuff

[Anonymous No.18788416]

>>18788372
It's just casual banter, calm down anon.

[Anonymous No.18788420]

>>18787067
based

[Anonymous No.18788428]

>>18787065
>implying that society collapsing is a bad thing

[Anonymous No.18788432]

>>18787151
ok using your logic.

>if everyone was a nigger society would collapse.
>so being a nigger is not ok

[Anonymous No.18788443]

>>18787835

takes one to know one. especially if you watched it to know what it is.

btw you realize this show is targeted for 12 year old girls right?

[Anonymous No.18788478]

>>18787458
>>18787481
>>18787394
>>18788218
>>18787493
>>18787458
>>18787887
>>18788053


all of you are fucking retards,
pedophilia is a term coined only through law, it its completely subjective by era,

the age of consent rises with every new extension to our lifespan,

in 2090 the age of consent will be 45 and all of you "she WAS 17 AND 11 MONTHS YOU MONSTER" faggots, will all have your graves posthumously defiled due to being a pedophile,
"holy shit how dare they touch the 40 year old"
"40 year olds can't consent retard lock them up"

the age of consent will become 200 in 3000 ad and all of us will be looked at from the future like people look at Mohammad for fucking a 6 year old.

[Anonymous No.18788489]

>>18788478
At any point while writing this post you could've easily decided it wasn't worth your time, pressed the little "escape" button, and went on your way.

[Anonymous No.18788492]

>>18788478
You're assuming none of the people you're responding to know the difference between pedophilia and ephebophilia.

[Anonymous No.18788495]

>>18788432
But anon, that's based.

[Anonymous No.18788503]

>>18788443
What is the point of your comment? You're just agreeing with me but you wanna make some kind of dumb pointless jibe. Fuck you.

[Anonymous No.18788519]

>>18788492
judging from the first few responses to op, i can assume most respondents have 2 digit iq yes

[Anonymous No.18788533]

>>18788503
>You're just agreeing with me

agreeing with how retarded you sound yes

[Anonymous No.18788542]

>>18788416
You are pathetic

[Anonymous No.18788559]

>>18788519
The fact that you think "pedophilia" itself is entirely arbitrary is basically proof of your own double digit IQ. Or the more likely case that you're just a troll. The age of consent has been roughly constant, with minor fluctuations, for most of history (the Muhammad case is just slander used by atheists, when in reality it was an asexual marriage up until the point she had sexually matured, like many marriages in that time). The only notable exception (and not even by that much - the age of consent went from approx. 14 to 18), which is a tiny exception by temporal standards, is modern society, which probably will not last long regardless, partially for this same reason of relaxed moral standards in other respects. There is only a small degree of subjectivity with respect to pedophilia, which is to say the exact ages generally considered to be the point of maturity; in previous times this was left to the discretion of communities themselves due to the fact that law was less centralized than it is now.

[Anonymous No.18788600]

>>18787065
The converse, you can't do X because it's not always X

[Anonymous No.18788607]

>>18787075
>being alive is immoral because if everyone was alive then we'd have too many people and society would collapse
HOLY BASED

[Anonymous No.18788649]

>>18787141
I loved it but I watched it as a little kid, so maybe it’s not for adults.

[Anonymous No.18788655]

>>18788542
I'm sorry you feel that way anon.

[Anonymous No.18788656]

>>18788533
What are you trying to say then? Yes i'm aware who it's targeted towards, and I'm aware who watches it and over-wanks it on weeb net. You're being willfully ignorant to throw out some fucking childish passive aggro bullshit for no reason. Fuck yourself.

[Anonymous No.18788665]

>>18788649
Lots of adults like Cardcaptor Sakura, and some of them aren't even lolicons!

[Anonymous No.18788674]

>>18788656
>childish passive aggro bullshit
>It's gay overrated child shit
Not him but you can't really talk.

[Anonymous No.18788678]

>I don't like my life so that means no one should ever have been born

[Anonymous No.18788688]

>>18788678
is pretending to not being able to tell anti-natalism from entirely different concepts a new meme or something

[Anonymous No.18788699]

>>18788688
please, explain how it's not what I said

[Anonymous No.18788736]

>>18788674
Okay, thanks for the input, faggot. Nevermind I'm speaking with an esl/child making a nonsense snub.

[Anonymous No.18788737]

>>18788699
>please, prove a negative

[Anonymous No.18788748]

>>18788737
it's not a negative, nice deflection. it's the thesis of your retarded ideology. you just like to bitch, that's why none of you ever kys like would be consistent with your ideology

[Anonymous No.18788794]

>>18788748
I'm a different person and I don't even disagree with your point of view, you're just not arguing it very well. There's no way to explain how ''I don't like my life so that means no one should ever have been born'' doesn't accurately represent ''X is immoral because if everyone did X society would collapse'' because it just doesn't make sense in this context.

[Anonymous No.18788795]

>>18788699
Literally no one mentioned anti-natalism before you, retard. That 'prove a negative' faggot isn't me.

[Anonymous No.18788825]

>>18788795
>Literally no one mentioned anti-natalism before you, retard.
Why does that matter? The topic said to bring up a more retarded argument, so I did. This applies to you too: >>18788794

[Anonymous No.18788846]

>>18788825
My sincerest apologies anon.

[Anonymous No.18788866]

>>18788846
You are forgiven

[Anonymous No.18788912]

>>18788825
fair but you're still a retard

[Anonymous No.18788934]

>>18788678
Think about how much pain could be avoided if the human race didn't exist. Was it really worth a few faggots who had a good time?

[Anonymous No.18788952]

>>18788934
The vast majority of you fags would cry if I said nigger, stop pretending like you want genocide. Like I said, you just want to bitch. You are the same types of people that wished for a virus for depopulation, then cried about masks and anti-vaxxers.

[Anonymous No.18788961]

>>18788952
You're arguing with about three strawmen at the same time.

[Anonymous No.18788980]

>>18788961
So? It's not like anti-natalism is worth taking seriously, none of you practice it.