/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21674219]

What philosopher do you namedrop to get out of this one?

[Anonymous No.21674276]

Foucault

[Anonymous No.21674291]

>>21674219
and what if that one human was hitler

[Anonymous No.21674293]

the correct answer is Yes

[Anonymous No.21674295]

>>21674293
>unzips monke

[Anonymous No.21674304]

he's just taking the idea that humans > apes to a far off and perverted conclusion. the human over ape concept doesn't necessitate another person has to sacrifice themselves in any way for another human's sake, just that apes are valued less.

it would, however, be necessary for any altruist to accept sucking all those dicks to save that one human's life.

[Anonymous No.21674314]

>>21674219
>Imagine not being a misanthrope

[Anonymous No.21674315]

I mean, can I at least take two at once? Because there surely are millions of apes

[Anonymous No.21674328]

>>21674304
Except that animal experimentation is a thing, and I suspect that that’s the context. I myself have been peripherally involved in animal experiments once upon a time as a student making radio-imaging agents for medical tomography and I was and remain somewhat conflicted over it.

[Anonymous No.21674349]

But humans are also apes.

[Anonymous No.21674352]

>>21674328
i don't see how animal experimentation being a thing is meant to object to what i posted

[Anonymous No.21674362]

>>21674349
This dick sucking deal just keeps getting better.

[Anonymous No.21674366]

>>21674362
yeah. you have all the rest of your life to suck dick.

[Anonymous No.21674371]

Do apes have mushroom dicks? Or the ugly ones like dogs

[Anonymous No.21674375]

>>21674352
Perhaps I misinterpreted or am retarded, so I’ll clarify. Inducing Parkinsonism into apes in order to better understand it and treat it is somewhat difficult for me but I can (barely) justify it morally as for the “greater good.” Blinding and torturing them to test shampoo ingredients is considerably less easy for the me stomach. I’ll grant you that this is not typically done using great apes as they’re too expensive, but some of the shit scientists come up with is pretty horrific and often quite unnecessary. Let’s just say I’m grateful to not be even peripherally involved (any more than the average person anyway) and leave it at that.

[Anonymous No.21674387]

>>21674375
honestly both of your posts are non sequitur to what i was saying, but thanks for telling me about your job. do you have any cool or gore stories from working with animals? the more mercilessly cruel the better. thanks.

[Anonymous No.21674390]

>>21674375
That experiment Fauci did with the dogs and maggots made me fucking lol. So comically evil

[Anonymous No.21674393]

i'd go doctor mengele on a chimp, i swear.

[Anonymous No.21674397]

Would Jensen suck my dick to save 1(one) ape?

[Anonymous No.21674406]

Pretty sure I’d suck all that big monkey cock not even to save a humang ! :DDD

[Anonymous No.21674410]

>>21674387
Nah, I was just a chemistry dork doing a co-op placement making imaging agents. All the monke mutilation was someone else’s department, but I did see an orangutan strapped into the imager at the hospital one time through a window as I was dropping shit off. It appeared to be well sedated/asleep.

Can you clarify your argument?

[Anonymous No.21674411]

>>21674219
if the debate is about abortion, the philosopher I'd namedrop: me.
I have written extensively on this subject, in works such as This Post.
The thing about Mr. Jensen's analogy is that it is a disgusting, degenerate, and a difficult task for most (if not all) people, whereas refusing to murder an infant is very simple, easy, and much more bearable, especially since adoption is an option.

[Anonymous No.21674416]

MONKY BENIS OHHHH FUGG

[Anonymous No.21674424]

>>21674410
i was just saying that jensen was mocking walsh by using absurdity. he took the concept that a human life is worth more than an ape's life to the extreme of sucking tons of cock just to save a human life. his quip was assuming walsh would do anything to save a human's life when his statement was a simple value judgment.

[Anonymous No.21674439]

>>21674424
He was mocking him but he’s correct. My posts are perhaps non-sequiturs but my point, if I can actually be said to have one, is that many animal experiments, monke or otherwise, are unnecessary at best.

[Anonymous No.21674442]

>virgin human savior
>chad dick enjoyer

[Anonymous No.21674472]

>>21674424
>would you suck every ape's dick
yes
yes I would
>to save one human
you had me at every ape's dick

[Anonymous No.21674473]

>>21674472
rancid ape cock is a real treat. wait until you get to the wild ones.

[Anonymous No.21674486]

fuck I cannot stop thinking about it

[Anonymous No.21674487]

l'esprit d'escalier

[Anonymous No.21674563]

>>21674219
Kant

[Anonymous No.21674831]

Diogenes

[Anonymous No.21674870]

>>21674304
>it would, however, be necessary for any altruist to accept sucking all those dicks to save that one human's life.

Why? What's the altruist's motivation? If it's emotional, then it's egoistic; if it's self-serving, then it's also egoistic. Altruism is apathetic.

So, why would an altruist necessarily have to act?

[Anonymous No.21674877]

>>21674219
lmao
also, nietzsche

[Anonymous No.21674878]

Some apes are human, some humans are apes.

[Anonymous No.21674880]

>>21674371
Apes are actually all potatoes and no meat so to speak because they generally have harems and are polygamous so they did not need to develop strong masculine characteristics.

That is entirely true. You can look it up

[Anonymous No.21674892]

>>21674878
vvhite people and hindus...

[Anonymous No.21674914]

>>21674880
The different types of ape are quite different from each other sexually. Gorillas have harems; bonobos are hypersexual, practicing even homosexuality and pedophilia; chimpanzees have a weird system where many of the males impregnate many of the females which is why they have giant testicles for sperm competition; orangutans are kind of a harem species but less social than gorillas.

[Anonymous No.21675027]

>THIS IS A VERY SIMPLE CONCEPT, "FOLKS"
Jesus Chrust, the soijack redditorus estrogenosis. This is an antinature and midwitry trying to talk down to people yet sound "likable", someone crafting to get upvoted and golded writes like this. This guy is not genetically right wing. I looked him up, soijak face. He is also wrong. Most human lived are of negative value which implies self sufficient apes have positive value. They also do not suffer from sentience. Not have the stain of original sin. Apes are more pure and their continued existence is of much more value than soijaks snot nosed kid who gets mauled by one.

Thors retort is peak reddit too.

[Anonymous No.21675031]

>>21674219
Every. Single. One.

[Anonymous No.21675037]

Matt Walsh will soon take Peterson's role as the leading intellectual of the conservative movement.

[Anonymous No.21675038]

>>21674219
>Why ask me when the LGBTQ+ exists?
Boom. That would have got him a ban on pre-Elon Twitter though.

[Anonymous No.21675054]

>>21675027
>this entire post
You need less internet in your life anon.

[Anonymous No.21675059]

>>21675037
Is he a jew lover? That's a big prerequisite to be allowed to be the useful idiot of the month.

[Anonymous No.21675068]

>>21674304
>it would, however, be necessary for any altruist to accept sucking all those dicks to save that one human's life.
Not really, altruists can have limits too. It's like saying an altruist should accept being tortured for years to save a criminal. You're absurd and absolutist, a position the twitterfag never assumed.

[Anonymous No.21675072]

>>21674219
Surprised that there's only one Diogenes in this thread. Anyways, it's funny as fuck and it borders on Kant and Diogenes.

[Anonymous No.21675088]

>>21674424
I'm gonna piggyback on the former animal tester and say that Walsh's statement is equally absurd to Jensen's, and the primary difference being that one is just lewd and degenerate while the other is arguing that eliminating entire species is valid to save one person.

Walsh is also just fucking retarded because he really said he would eliminate entire species just to save one person. And while I do believe humans are superior to all forms of life, that doesn't mean killing every ape is worth it.

[Anonymous No.21675095]

>>21674314
literally can't

[Anonymous No.21675099]

>go on dates
>say normal stuff i've always said
>like calling everyone i hate a faggot and saying things are retarded
>women instantly love me
>get marriage proposals
>finally ask one why
>she tells me every normalfag man is now a retarded faggot who talks like twitter posts
>tells me women go on a constant stream of dates with men who say things like "It's just that simple, folks." and "Uh, yikes much? #nothanks #ouchie"
>say "That's the gayest fucking shit I've ever heard in my life"
>she bites her lip
Thanks 4chan. Now it's my time to shine

[Anonymous No.21675100]

>>21674362
jej

[Anonymous No.21675109]

>>21674375
save the monkey

[Anonymous No.21675121]

>>21674219
Just say that you value not sucking ape dick over a random human life. You’re still BTFO’d in the overall argument, but logically you are fine. The experience of sucking off thousands of apes is much worse than the experience of killing thousands of apes.

[Anonymous No.21675128]

how many chimps would you kill to save one randomly selected human on this planet (you do not get to see the human)?

[Anonymous No.21675132]

>>21675059
He only has a career because he's friends with a Jew.

[Anonymous No.21675145]

>>21674219
Walsh is a Catholic so he could just cite Catholic dogma that certain acts (i.e. bestiality) are intrinsically immoral, no matter the consequences or motives.

[Anonymous No.21675189]

>>21675128
Trick question, I would kill an indefinite/infinite number of chimps because you said HUMAN, which means it logically cannot be a woman

[Anonymous No.21675225]

>>21675128
zero

[Anonymous No.21675229]

>>21674219
I would kill every _____ in the world to save one _____, because _____ are more important.

[Anonymous No.21675233]

>>21675088
Hey now, I wasn’t actually doing animal testing, I was just making radio-labelled drugs some of which happened to be used in animal testing. As I understand it they were also being used by human patients, vaguely freaky as that is.
>we’ve got this undergrad
>I know, let’s let him make radioactive drug and pro-drug compounds to feed to patients
To be fair, everything was very well documented and controlled, and they had permanent, full-time staff overseeing my work but still.

[Anonymous No.21675337]

>>21674219
Do people see saying no as some sort of contradiction? The answer is obviously no and there is no contradiction.

I feel like I am taking crazy pills. Do people understand logical reasoning at all?

[Anonymous No.21675580]

>>21674219
He seems like a perverted retard and I wouldn't be surprised if he made this thread himself.

[Anonymous No.21675612]

>>21675229
>I would kill every _____ in the world to save one _____, because _____ are more important.
I would kill every dog in the world to save one dog, because dog are more important.

[Anonymous No.21675637]

>>21675128
all chimps (lowering the net number of sentient beings is a morally good act)

[Anonymous No.21675638]

>>21675580
i just cant imagine being at this age acting like this.

[Anonymous No.21675645]

One human isn't worth that amount of work and discomfort, desu.

[Anonymous No.21675660]

>>21675128
Zero because without knowledge of who i'd be saving it's impossible to tell whether the transaction would be worthwhile or not. What if the person I saved was a terminally ill cancer patient with 1 day left to live? What if I'm saving a mass murderer who would go on to kill thousands?

[Anonymous No.21675688]

>>21674219
Augustine of Hippo. Sucking an ape's dick is a grave sin, and it is impermissible to commit a grave sin to do a greater good.

[Anonymous No.21675704]

>>21674219
Foucault

[Anonymous No.21675712]

>>21674219
made me laugh, but the answer is easy: No, I would not suck any ape's dick for a human life (but my wife, son and or daughter life).

[Anonymous No.21675713]

>>21674219
I wish Thanos would snap his fingers upon all the drug bugs loitering in every major city upon this earth regardless of if it saved monkes or not, though that would be a pleasant bonus

[Anonymous No.21675721]

>>21675580
>I'm a retarded goofball haha cum and dicks! but you should still take me somewhat seriously about politics.
This lane is overcrowded and seriously needs to die.

[Anonymous No.21675726]

>>21674219
I would choose to save myself from sucking ape dicks.

[Anonymous No.21675743]

>>21675059
Hes not just an independent Jew lover, he directly works for Jewish media under Ben (The Big Jew) Shapiro

I wonder how he'd feel about killing every Jew to save one (hundred million) babie's foreskins.

[Anonymous No.21675767]

10,000 children die of starvation every day on this planet. I doubt this guy has done anything to save a human.

[Anonymous No.21675788]

>>21675580
>shitty cartoonist
>"writer" (clickbait articles about streaming services)

[Anonymous No.21675796]

>>21675743
>Did you just assert that circumcision is defined by the cutting off of a part of the body?
>Oy vey
>This word you use actually refers to a much larger part of the body
>Thus this body part we are cutting off is insignificant
>Silly goy
>Now let me cut off your digits

[Anonymous No.21675805]

>>21675580
The cum shirt has been floating around Ali express for a while

[Anonymous No.21675820]

>>21675796
>you aren't "infringing on their liberty"
>come on, that's absurd
>make your point without resorting to laughably hysterical rhetoric
Clearly he's been taking Jew lessons from ole' Benny Shap
>flat out states that circumcision performed on a newborn isn't an infringement on their liberty even though it clearly is (and its much worse than that)
>puts the phrase infringing on their liberty in quotation marks to make it seem ridiculous or out of place
>ignores the actual reality of circumcision which is the mutilation of functional and beneficial genital tissue, performed on newborns without anesthetic
>come on, that's absurd (what is?)
>laughably hysterical rhetoric (how so?)
Makes me wonder why there hasn't been a Bowling For Columbine style documentary on circumcision for American audiences. I don't think stop doing them would be a hard sell. I hate kikes so much it's unreal.

[Anonymous No.21675837]

>>21675767
>I doubt this guy has done anything to save a human.
It's twitter, no one there does anything.

[Anonymous No.21676194]

>>21675337
Yes, he obviously wasn't saying that he would go around personally killing every single ape to save a human

[Anonymous No.21676210]

>>21675337
>Do people understand logical reasoning at all?
You're in for a rude awakening.

[Anonymous No.21676235]

>>21675128
Zero. Cause I don't know the conditions, it's a futile deal. I don't value humans over the apes in all cases. An ape might be a better creature than some humans. It will be quite sad that a high value human dies, certainly, but it will also be sad if a number of apes dies for one negative value human.

[Anonymous No.21676239]

>>21674219
>Someone gives a statement
>Leftist "thinker": GAY FOR PAY? But philosophically, of course.
That is in every way irrelevant except as a cheap gotcha. Fucking retards

[Anonymous No.21676250]

>>21675337
It shows leeway in his position, therefore the position itself, on the sanctity of human life.
I understand its hard for some people to look beyond a surface level "argument," but its something that intelligent people have to do all the time. In a way I envy you.
It must be a relief to believe everything can be plotted on a truth table.

[Anonymous No.21676251]

>>21676239
>Mad because he has to suck ape dick

[Anonymous No.21676270]

>>21675088
The point is, Jensen's rhetoric question is not a valid counterargument as many libtards probably think. As the other anon said, Walsh is merely stating that he doesn't find morally wrong to kill lower life forms in order to save humans, which to extreme is rendered as "every ape for a human", whereas Jensen's argument implies a self sacrifice (sucking ape's dicks) not present in Walsh's one. So, this Jensen is just a retarded libnigg*rtard, simple as

[Anonymous No.21676273]

>>21676250
He only said that he finds human life more important than any number of ape lives.
He did not weigh up human life and human dignity, which is what sucking ape dick would be about. The two are logically independent.
>bro you don't understand that's just the surface level argument if I add some other shit I am correct
Nigger.

[Anonymous No.21676277]

>>21675121
>You’re still BTFO’d in the overall argument, but logically you are fine
What does this mean? Why is the argument independent of logic?

[Anonymous No.21676321]

>>21676273
>He did not weigh up human life and human dignity, which is what sucking ape dick would be about.
and the argument uncovered is "what is the value of human life?"

If something as nebulous and ephemeral as "dignity" begins to shift the calculus on the value of a life, well, now we're talking. Just reduce the extremity of the variables. Do you suck off 1 nigger to save 6,000 school children?

Well, do you?

[Anonymous No.21676329]

>>21676277
That's because logically he's not fine. The response exposed the speaker's inherent bias. Obviously killing is assigned lesser burden, therefore greater pleasure. He would kill things because on a level, he doesn't mind killing things. Change it to something he truly minds for whatever hollow reason, and his hard-on for the sanctity of life is in question.

[Anonymous No.21676339]

>>21676329
How does not liking some things make it illogical? You are illogical my dude.

[Anonymous No.21676343]

>>21676321
>and the argument uncovered is "what is the value of human life?"
That may or may not be an interesting question, but it is in no way a "gotcha" (which is what the twitter reply seems to have intended, because it's a fucking twitter reply).

Personally I'd kill a lot of people to save apes because apes are neat. I've never seen an ape make a retarded 4chan post (like you're doing right now).

[Anonymous No.21676355]

>>21676339
Let me see if you can get your mouth around this; If the speaker were a sentient toaster oven, we could assault it on logic alone. In this case, we're talking about an entity that is attempting to sell us on his appreciation of life. What does he offer? What he would kill. The response exposed it for what it is, a bad sell.

Sucking off every ape is an extreme, but its about the avenues opened. Now instead of "I am a champion of humanity" we get "well I do have my own self to think about." Altruism: not found.

[Anonymous No.21676366]

>>21676343
>"what is the value of human life?"
>That may or may not be an interesting question
Its not that its interesting, its quite literally the aim of the original post.

[Anonymous No.21676367]

>>21676355
Point to a logical inconsistency or stop insisting on a point you're not even defending anymore.

[Anonymous No.21676374]

>>21676367
You smack the table like a retarded child, in frustration, but I can't break it down for you any further.

[Anonymous No.21676377]

>>21674276
Foucault would suck ever ape dick just because he wanted to

[Anonymous No.21676381]

>>21676374
Break down what? You explained something any child had already understood from reading the OP image. The discussion about logic is clearly above your head.

[Anonymous No.21676388]

>>21676377
God I miss real philosophers.

[Anonymous No.21676394]

Hetero /lit/ bros, would you suck 1000 gorilla dicks to save your mom?

[Anonymous No.21676396]

>>21676381
Yes, sucking every ape dick =/= lesser degree of shitty thing, is clearly above my head.

[Anonymous No.21676400]

>>21676396
You don't understand logic, that's completely fine anon.

[Anonymous No.21676466]

>>21674304
no it wouldn't, from "monkeys are worth less than humans" it doesn't follow "you need to commit deeds to save a single human being"

[Anonymous No.21676467]

>>21676466
*commit immoral deeds

[Anonymous No.21676469]

>>21676467
Killing all [non-human] apes in the world is immoral though

[Anonymous No.21676481]

>>21676469
yes, but Walsh was talking about the value of human vs animal life.
Retards here changed the topic to altruism and I was replying to that.

[I V R I • N E M O !!GgBWHLRiayD No.21676816]

>Yoing intensifies.