/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11587617]

is putting penis in here unnatural

[Anonymous No.11587642]

given the muscles weren't designed for it, the increased risk of prolapse and hemorrhoids, i'm not a fan.

[Anonymous No.11587643]

>>11587617
no you bigot.
Penguins do it too.
Fucking nazis learn to science.

[Anonymous No.11587693]

>>11587643
imagine being a faggot w/ low self esteem trying to justify your lifestyle by penguins

topkek

[Anonymous No.11587695]

>>11587617
It was God who gave us this choice. Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.11587707]

>>11587617
no
now bend over

[Anonymous No.11587719]

>>11587642
I have prolapse already, shown in pic related for your probable enjoyment.

[Anonymous No.11587721]

>>11587617
>hmm my good chap. It appears you have committed a naturalistic fallacy. Man and women in our glorious liberal democracies today have the hard wonbfreedom to put anything inside their bodies. After all we're just minds piloting our bodies, the Self is primary. Putting massive schlongs in your anus is completely rationally justified, and appeals to organ teleology or purpose are extremely outdated bad arguments. There is no such thing as natural bodily functions. Besides, it's nothing my good colorectal surgeon Dr. Shekelstein cannot fix by doing a publicly funded anoplasty procedure. Healthcare is a human right after all.

[Anonymous No.11587733]

>>11587719
Forgot to attach pic, sorry.

[Anonymous No.11587735]

>>11587617
No. Because it happens in nature.

[Anonymous No.11587746]

>>11587617
yes for the sole reason that it had evolved meant to be pushing things out and not in and if something were to be put in it could damage it
so then any excuse to do so because it feels good is just hedonism

[Anonymous No.11587759]

>>11587643
but being gay is fascism.

[Anonymous No.11587764]

>>11587759
Just because all fascists are homosexuals does not mean all homosexuals are fascists. You have jumped to conclusions.

[Anonymous No.11587765]

>Unprotected anal sex is a risk factor for formation of antisperm antibodies (ASA) in the recipient. In some people, ASA may cause autoimmune infertility
it's a self solving problem

[Anonymous No.11587766]

>>11587733
MODS!!!!!!!!

THEY ARE POSTING GORE AGAIN
WHERE ARE THE MODS!!!!!

[Anonymous No.11587769]

>>11587759
>be liberal
>KILL ALL FASCIST!
>but that would mean to kill all gays
>zog bot error 2324# please see jewministrator for further help

[Anonymous No.11587774]

>>11587759
but modern commie retards are in bed with the gays

[Solivagus No.11587780]

>>11587617
Natural = Moment or experience or process that can be described or explained as one without opposition or blockage to future recurrence.

No, it is not unnatural. Just ask a happy and willing gay porn star.

[Anonymous No.11587786]

>>11587617
If it is unnatural why does it feel good? i'm sure it has accidentally happened that many times that we have evolved to enjoy it

[Anonymous No.11587790]

>>11587780
>Natural = Moment or experience or process that can be described or explained as one without opposition or blockage to future recurrence.
anything can be describe or explained in no less than an infinite amount of ways
this is the dumbest definition and in no way describes what the word natural means in any context of actual use

[Solivagus No.11587794]

>>11587790
If you apply a definition of reducio ad absurdum then thank fuck I raped that baby earlier and cured cancer, because infinite description would also allow for infinite recurrence relation even if it appears arbitrary to an observer.

[Anonymous No.11587816]

>>11587794
is this some kind of performative gibberish
why don't you make an actual argument instead of having me guess? infinite description doesn't mean no limits on the infinite set of descriptions. my implied reductio wasn't based on some cheap relativism or whatever it is you're responding to. we can restrict attention to "reasonable explanations" if you wish and still end up with a definition of natural that makes it trivially easy to define anything and everything as natural or unnatural because "opposition or blockage to future recurrence" is so hopelessly vague that without further specification you haven't placed any real restrictions on naturalness.

good job you've covered your ass by baking plausible deniability into the definition at the cost of making it completely fucking useless

[Solivagus No.11587826]

>>11587816
How is 'opposition/blockage to future recurrence' vague?

I'm genuinely curious as to how me not wanting to be ass raped violently with a toothbrush in a prison shower would not be described as unnatural (unless you count rape as natural).

My buttslut describes her anal orgasms as a natural feeling and beyond another human being's description of their experience to my processes as being natural, or medical science (prostate stimulation) and many gay man also describing it as a natural expression of pleasure (to obvious structural limitations and affordances of the action; such as how much can one stretch to accommodate with willingness), why exactly would I not be the champion of their description of it being as such?

Or am I supposed to have my own secret agenda here?

[Anonymous No.11587829]

>>11587826
feelgud doesn't mean natural

[Solivagus No.11587840]

>>11587829
Opposition to me means some sentient process put in effort to avoid it.

Blockage to me means something like... if doing it more than 3 times you start impacting other things that utilize the same thing (in this case ya pooper) for future occurrences.

Prolapse and the rest are basically when people's ego for what they can fit up there and how frequently tries to defy basic sanity checks of measurement.

[Anonymous No.11587842]

natural means happens in nature, nothing else. Highways are more unnatural than gay sex.

[Anonymous No.11587848]

>>11587840
still pooper evolved for poop to come out and nothing to go in
so in the most technical sense it is unnatural

[Solivagus No.11587859]

>>11587848
Yes, I'd agree that a pooper went through many iterations of birth and death in order to push out fecal matter.

Trouble is when you introduce things to social structures those intelligences always try to find creative ways to resolve arguments.

[Anonymous No.11587864]

>>11587617
That's what makes it hot

[Anonymous No.11587867]

>>11587617
define unnatural

[Anonymous No.11587871]

>>11587826
from the abstract style of your definition it seemed to me like you were trying to give a broad, general definition that applies to all use cases, including not only when people use natural to describe something fitting in with their personality is a certain harmonious way ("it feels natural") but also cases like when natural is used in contrast to supernatural or artificial ("naturally occurring"), and so on for other contexts.
broad scope definition of this kind are very ambitious because the scope of things that could stand to violate them is greater. naturally, you can't complain when "opposition/blockage to future recurrence" is read with the same broadness. if i need to read your mind to understand the real limits of what you think is natural then what good is this definition to me? so if you accept all that then what is to stop me from saying that i oppose (aesthetically, politically, whatever) to any x natural thing i wish, thereby rendering it unnatural, or vice versa?

[Anonymous No.11587872]

>>11587617
All kinds of wild animals do it, "unnatural" means nothing.

[Anonymous No.11587875]

>>11587859
evolution isn't perfect and defects can become wide spread in a population because of it
one example is the appendix

[Solivagus No.11587880]

>>11587871
Nothing is stopping you from saying anything except your own brain or projected rejection from a given audience that you are attempting to avoid.

Whole point of nature is that it defines us, ultimately. We don't get to define it as the things humans define we define as artificial, and that which defined nature as supernatural.

>>11587875
Quick google gave me an example of how people attribute meaning to stuff that evolution may have done away with but people can use in order to justify meaningless bullshit: https://www.yourhealthremedy.com/health-tips/spiritual-meaning-of-appendicitis/

[Anonymous No.11587896]

>>11587880
my point is that defining natural as a kind of freedom from opposition is useless unless you specify what kind of opposition. this is just a bullshit self serving definition that only works in your head because you know what you mean buy doesn't explain anything

[Solivagus No.11587916]

>>11587896
Freedom from opposition would be the most unnatural thing I could ever imagine. How did you come up with that as an idea or expression?

Pretty sure that freedom from opposition = imagination

[Anonymous No.11587930]

>>11587916
you just said "Natural = . . . without opposition or blockage to future recurrence."
how is my paraphrasing "without opposition" as "freedom from opposition" a problem? the fuck is going on

[Solivagus No.11587951]

>>11587930
Freedom implies that future recurrence cannot be opposed or blocked.

Freedom
1. The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants.
2. The state of not being imprisoned or enslaved.

>Natural = Moment or experience or process that can be described or explained as one without opposition or blockage to future recurrence.

The moment it cannot be described or explained as something without opposition or blockage to future recurrence is when it becomes unnatural.

Description is a static presentation of an event, explanation is a dynamic presentation of an event (usually a reactive one).

[Anonymous No.11587961]

Evolutionary mikado

[Anonymous No.11587965]

>>11587719
I guess you forgot the pic?

[Anonymous No.11587987]

>>11587693
look at this fag
shittalking the penguins
where is the world heading toward, really

[Anonymous No.11588000]

>>11587951
you seem to be pulling definitions out of your ass. freedom from opposition does not imply that future recurrence can't be opposed any more than any other type of freedom implies eternal guarantee of future freedom. does possibly not having freedom of speech at some point in the future prevent you from possibly having freedom of speech today?

>Description is a static presentation of an event, explanation is a dynamic presentation of an event (usually a reactive one).
this sentence here is particularly retarded. not only is this made up, it's also just conceptually wrong. description and explanation are synonymous, but even if they weren't how can events of all things be static? they are events, are you going to kill the sacred cow and shit on even the most basic of terms. do you have autism and just go around telling people about your superior ideas on what words are supposed to mean

[Solivagus No.11588015]

>>11588000
Definition was from google, but okay.

How would description and explanation be synonymous? There is always a long-term representation and a short-term representation of information.

If I describe something I am providing as much generalized and verbatim information as available to me.

If I explain something I accept the limitation of myself, my audience, any past failure cases that I want to avoid, etc.

Describe:
late Middle English: from Latin describere, from de- ‘down’ + scribere ‘write’.

Explain:
early 15c., from Latin explanare "to explain, make clear, make plain," literally "make level, flatten," from ex "out" (see ex-) + planus "flat" (from PIE root *pele- (2) "flat; to spread").

Originally explane, the spelling was altered by influence of plain. Also see plane (v.2). In 17c., occasionally used more literally, of the unfolding of material things: Evelyn has buds that "explain into leaves" ["Sylva, or, A discourse of forest-trees, and the propagation of timber in His Majesties dominions," 1664]. Related: Explained; explaining; explains. To explain (something) away is from 1709.

[Anonymous No.11588064]

>>11587617
>implying anything can be described as unnatural in a meaningful sense

[Anonymous No.11588080]

>>11588064
B-b-b-b-but how do I call it when my feefees get hurt?

[Solivagus No.11588090]

>>11588080
That you're experiencing emotional distress. If I had known someone in the world required this basic lesson sooner I would have arrived faster to give you this awareness.

[Anonymous No.11588109]

is flying in metal tube 10km above the surface of the Earth unnatural?

[Anonymous No.11588111]

>>11588109
No.

[Anonymous No.11588115]

>>11588015
i've reached my limit. untangling the logic of appeals to dictionary and other semantic rabbit holes is beyond the scope of what i can comfortably express on the fly and i can't summon the motivation to rigor

[Anonymous No.11588117]

>>11588111
whoa can you provide evidence that ancient humans had aeroplanes?

[Anonymous No.11588123]

>>11588015
Solid fag gus.

[Solivagus No.11588134]

>>11588115
You prefer appealing to your own memory and experiences of reinforced beliefs as opposed to using a centralized repository of definitions? How would that not be even more limiting or exhausting? That would make you a one-man army of your own life and interpretations.

I mean it's probably great for ego but not really for conjunctive processes. Unless the humans you interact with daily are basically just arguing for their special interpretation or set of definitions being more applicable than the commonly accessible ones.

>>11588123
Language is fun to experiment with. Proud of you for exploring that space there, Anon.

[Anonymous No.11588149]

>>11588134
>Proud of you for exploring that space there, Anon.
You're welcome

[Solivagus No.11588159]

>>11588149
Well that's a weird fucking response to an expression of pride. Did you just say that out of reflex or something? Doesn't make any sense. Could be a cultural thing I've never been exposed to before I guess.

[Anonymous No.11588174]

>>11588117
That's irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.11588180]

>>11588174
no it's not

[Anonymous No.11588182]

>>11587735
Appeal to nature fallacy

[Anonymous No.11588190]

>>11588134
appealing to your own memory and experiences is what any speaker of a language does every time they talk. besides this isn't a matter of preference, dictionaries almost entirely contradict each other, and within the same entry contain multiple senses. so how can you reliably pick out the most appropriate dictionary, and within each dictionary the most appropriate sense to use in each context, without already being in principle capable of independently defining the term yourself? not to mention your chosen dictionary entries didn't exactly support the subtle distinction you were trying to establish between description and explanation. lastly there are simply no dictionaries good enough to completely capture the way words are used in in the real world, history outruns our ability to analyze it...

[Anonymous No.11588191]

>>11588180
>implying humans ceased to be part of nature by creating more advanced societies
Did you just get teleported here from the 18th century?

[Anonymous No.11588213]

>>11588191
natural means not invented by humankind you retard (which btw means anal sex is natural and aeroplanes are not)

[Anonymous No.11588255]

>>11588117
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_aviones_precolom02.htm

[Anonymous No.11588261]

>>11588159
You're well, come

[Anonymous No.11588302]

>>11588255
>the actual state of homophobes

[Anonymous No.11588306]

>>11588213
>natural means not invented by humankind

Ooooo boy have I got some philosophers who would disagree with you

[Anonymous No.11588314]

>>11588306
so we're not talking across purposes, what do you define "natural" to mean?

[Anonymous No.11588336]

>>11588064
tell the priest at your local church

[Anonymous No.11588386]

>>11587759
Gorky mistook fascism for fashion

[Anonymous No.11588401]

>>11587617
As long as you don't cross the anorectal line it's not gross

[Anonymous No.11588411]

>>11587735
name one thing that happens outside of nature

[Anonymous No.11588420]

>>11588213
So an advanced alien civilization is still natural?

[Anonymous No.11588423]

>>11588411
metanature

[Anonymous No.11588426]

>>11588411
liver transplant

[Anonymous No.11588427]

>>11588423
such as?

[Anonymous No.11588430]

>>11588426
>species develops tool use and uses tools

Wow really breaking the confines of nature there.

[Anonymous No.11588433]

>>11588430