[ 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: 307 KB, 643x758, 884.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19122149 No.19122149 [Reply] [Original]

>Every act of kindness is a revolt against the modern world
Refute this.

>> No.19122153

What's your definition of kindness?

>> No.19122159

>>19122149
Easy. Modernity is all about the dissolution of boundaries between good and evil and being "kind" aka compliant with evil is the last virtue modernity has left which is precisely why avid fans of modernity love to appeal to kindness and shame those whom they perceive to he deficient in kindness.
>YIKES! IT'S CALLED BEING A DECENT HUMAN BEING SWEATY! DOWNVOTED

>> No.19122177

>>19122159
Anyone being truly kind does it out of a subconscious belief in God, modern pseudo morality is just a spook, an erzatz of Judeo-Christian morality.

>> No.19122239

>>19122153
To facilitate goodness, and what's good is in accordance with God and nature.

>> No.19122269

>>19122177
nonsense, people do it because it feels good

>> No.19122282

Whatever I do is a revolt against the modern world because I wanna belong to the cool kids without actually making an effort or sacrificing anything.

>> No.19122300

>>19122239
>animals sometimes engage in homosexual tendencies
>hurrr durrr homosexuality is good because it is in accordance with nature

>> No.19122324

>>19122300
That's not what it means to be in accordance with nature. There's a design or purpose inherent in everything because we're creatures of God, so what's good is anything in accord with that design or purpose. Even animals can act immorally when they subvert the design or purpose of their procreative organs even if they're not culpable in the way we are.

>> No.19122536

>>19122300
Homosex is unironcially ok though.

>> No.19122728

>>19122324
How do you know what "natural law" is if it's not even immediately evident? Might as well just call it dogma, because there's nothing natural or verifiable about it.

>> No.19122747

>>19122324
Except as far as we are able to tell, a large part of most mammals social lives is taken up by homosexual relations, as in it plays a teleological role in nature. You can say God is goodness and working by his will is working by the plan inherent in things, but you aren't arguing for the Christian God in particular by doing this.

>> No.19122753

You may as well ask how we can know anything at all because we can't define anything without alluding to some sort of purpose or design.

>>19122747
Every creature on earth can fuck an ass right now but that would not change the fact that an asshole is meant for shitting, and that the penis is meant for procreative act. Nobody said anything about Christianity here, so that's a real great point you made there. It shows you're paying attention to what I'm saying.

>> No.19122757

>>19122753
>>19122728
>You may as well ask how we can know anything at all because we can't define anything without alluding to some sort of purpose or design.

>> No.19122762

>>19122753
>asshole is meant for shitting
Genuine question, why? What is your argument for it being meant for that purpose. The night is "meant" for sleeping, but anyone can go about their business at night without it being a transgression against God.

>> No.19122765

>>19122728
Yikes, somebody clearly hasn't read Aquinas.

>> No.19122770

>>19122753
Also you posted a Catholic gigachad, what other information am I supposed to take from that other than that you are arguing for the Christian God?

>> No.19122775

>>19122762
The asshole is meant for shitting because that's what it was designed to do. Its purpose is to expel waste from the body. That's it's nature, that's what it is. The nature of night is not sleep, you're equivocating terms. There's no connection to the earth being positioned in a certain way that says we must sleep. An asshole that doesn't shit will kill the person it belongs to, though.

>> No.19122784

>>19122770
I'm not the OP, and even if I was there's nothing in my argument or position that implies Christianity must be true. A Buddhist or Hindu could reason the same as me. In fact, many of them do. It's only you weird ass moderns that don't know how to think.

>> No.19122806

>>19122757
The common use of an organ does not make that organ suited only for that common use

>>19122753
Who is to say that the anus is made only for shitting, or that the penis is meant only for procreation? Nature has allowed a host of other uses, according to your view.

>>19122775
What tells you that shotting is what it was designed to do? God? Evolution? Does it even matter, if it's design can be exploited for other uses? The mouth was not made for oral sex, but rather eating, and yet it is used for oral sex. Is the problem here the pain or damage caused by an "improper usage," or simply the improperly usage?

>> No.19122812

>>19122765
You have, so argue using what you've learned.

>> No.19122868

>>19122806
Nobody said the only readily identified purpose of an object is the only legitimate purpose there is. Many objects like the penis, for example, have multiples ends. They expel waste and procreate but with that said, I see no other use for the anus other than shitting. Every single sexual act with the anus is destructive on some level, resulting in tears and blood mixture with a feces that is toxic to our health, and facilitating the spread of disease. It's not a sexual organ because it's not procreative. What do you think it is?

You can talk about oral sex or a billion other things to play this gotcha game but none of this refutes the principle that everything has an inbuilt purpose, function, or design, and because of this, objects can be misused. One of the main purposes of the genitals is procreation. These are organs ordered towards procreation, so acts that aren't ordered toward that end will constitute a misuse of the organs. You can't complete the sexual act in somebodies mouth and result in protection, so oral sex is not ordered towards the end of procreation. It's a misuse of the organs.

>> No.19122885

>>19122149
>act of kindness
Yeah, like being kind with lgbt people

>> No.19123138

>>19122885
>"people"

>> No.19123191

>>19122868
It's all just an appeal to nature, there is no reason to follow the "design" apparently inherent in our organs. You admit as much, the main qualm against anal sex is that it beings discomfort and damage. But there is no improper usage of an organ, all usages are proper, albeit possibly painful or difficult.

And once again, what do you base "design" on? God? Evolution?
You can most certainly complete the sexual act in someone's mouth by ejaculating; pleasure is not an improper usage of the genitals.

>> No.19123217

>>19122885
What exactly am I supposed to do with them? Suck them off? Offer them my children to be raped by them? Is it really so unbearable for them to be denied Communion and Marriage? They can kindly fuck off.

>> No.19123345

>>19123191
How am I admitting there's no reason to follow the inherent design in things when I'm telling you it's possible to misuse objects? You say I'm just appealing to nature but that's what you people always say when you fail or refuse to understand the reasoning. You can say there's no illegitimate use of things, but do you regularly drive down the wrong side of the highway? You don't live like you believe what you're saying. Nobody does.

Whether this design is there by God or some purely random evolution is irrelevant and the fact that you think it's important only testifies that you're not following me. Do you really think I denied that it's possible to ejaculate in somebodies mouth? If the purpose of the genitals is procreation, you can not meet that end or fulfill that purpose by ejaculating in the mouth. Therefore the genitals are not fulfilling its purpose through oral sex. That's what I said.

This is the sort of responses I typically get when I talk to modern people about natural law and it's flabbergasting. Like, how does your faculty for reasoning become so corrupted that you have to ask somebody how they know the ass is for shitting? I don't know if that was you but that was a real question that asked of me in this thread.

>> No.19123593

>>19122149
>implying widespread cruelty or apathy is exclusive to the modern world
just say “the world”. I know you want to BTFO le degenerate modernity but you don’t have to be disingenuous about it

>> No.19123640

>>19123345
>You can say there's no illegitimate use of things, but do you regularly drive down the wrong side of the highway?
But the only reason you drive on the right side is because you have a destination you want to safely arrive to, not because you value "proper use" in itself.

>Whether this design is there by God or some purely random evolution is irrelevant and the fact that you think it's important only testifies that you're not following me
It is relevant because it further analyzes your motivation. For instance, the Skoptsy believed that the genitals were a product of the forbidden fruit; so they castrated themselves. In such a way can belief in a God make something "naturally proper" into an improper act. Or if you base yourself on evolution/nature, you simply use the organ for the purpose it has evolved to fulfill, although we are the ones who give the organs their purpose.

>If the purpose of the genitals is procreation
I never said you cannot ejaculate in somebody's mouth, simply that the sexual act and procreation are two distinct uses of one's genitals. Procreation does not comprise the only proper usage of the genitals; therefore, how do we determine what proper usage is? What is our foundation? That is why it is important if this design comes from God, from nature, from our will, etcetera.

>Like, how does your faculty for reasoning become so corrupted that you have to ask somebody how they know the ass is for shitting
Perhaps the proper function of the ass is to be sodomized, and we only shit because we are fallen creatures. Just taking the piss out of you, but it demonstrates that just because the ass shits, that doesn't mean that the ass is meant to shit, or that it is meant for shitting.

>> No.19123671

>>19123640
I'm not even going to read this. When people start quoting and responding to individual sentences instead of talking like a human being I have no interest.

>> No.19123676
File: 418 KB, 600x600, 1627955330768.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19123676

>ehh you know all those things you do? they're because of YHWH

>> No.19123713
File: 343 KB, 750x732, 1632677784687.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19123713

>>19122300
>return to monke
Yes. That's the only solution.

>> No.19123721

>>19123217
>Suck them off? Offer them my children to be raped by them?
That would be a good start.

>> No.19123727

>>19123671
That's petty, the only difference between the two is the quotes, but I want to show you exactly what I'm responding to. Don't clock out this soon

>> No.19123970

>>19123727
It's policy. Over 10 years I have never had a good conversation on here with anyone who wrote like that so now I just don't even try.