IsaYermaw
skeebeedee 'n ohio or sumN
2 months ago#392951
Probably because they are irredeemably evil and think that is funny or some shit.
It is like the fucking pinkpill shit that happened on 4cuck and other EPI related activities on the 8, It is just an outlet for these fucks to get more of their degenerative and evil feelings out onto the world.
As ayn rand said; they merely hate the good for being the good- They hate their own lives so much that they want to appeal to some sort of "femminity" in the case of femboys, or for trannies, they hate themselves so much that they think chopping their dick off for no reason will fix it. similarly, all the EPI 'P groups that want to distribute and make people into pedos (or neo-pedos, depending if you are an obsessed fuck) because they all want to have another community of life hating werdos and creeps so that they can feel heckin affirmed via a completely evil medium.
Morality from the objectivist perspective (which I prescribe to) states that Life is the ultimate virtue. and that since life is a virtue, then all things who go against life is evil- then, since rationality is required for human nature (we need to act to stay alive), then going against rationality is evil aswell. The reason I say that these people are absolutely evil and not just "oh it doesn't violate the heckin NAP bro!" and say I dont care about it is because these fucks goon to what would otherwise be a child, and even the fact It looks like a child is enough to be evil since that if you are gooning to something that looks like one, youd show through your action that you think that kind of "bodytype" (so they say) is attractive, (which is the same "bodytpe" of children) which goes against life since that would go against the rationale of the child, for which they cannot express their will.
So, it is completely evil, and again: just like trannies, femboys and other types of degenerate, they are so deluded in their evil that they think it would be funny, or that they get a "sense of belonging" that they shouldn't have because they are evil, disgusting fucks.
Paranoid
Love Lies Bleeding
2 months ago#393271
OH ITS YOU
Probably because they are irredeemably evil and think that is funny or some shit.
It is like the fucking pinkpill shit that happened on 4cuck and other EPI related activities on the 8, It is just an outlet for these fucks to get more of their degenerative and evil feelings out onto the world.
As ayn rand said; they merely hate the good for being the good- They hate their own lives so much that they want to appeal to some sort of "femminity" in the case of femboys, or for trannies, they hate themselves so much that they think chopping their dick off for no reason will fix it. similarly, all the EPI 'P groups that want to distribute and make people into pedos (or neo-pedos, depending if you are an obsessed fuck) because they all want to have another community of life hating werdos and creeps so that they can feel heckin affirmed via a completely evil medium.
Morality from the objectivist perspective (which I prescribe to) states that Life is the ultimate virtue. and that since life is a virtue, then all things who go against life is evil- then, since rationality is required for human nature (we need to act to stay alive), then going against rationality is evil aswell. The reason I say that these people are absolutely evil and not just "oh it doesn't violate the heckin NAP bro!" and say I dont care about it is because these fucks goon to what would otherwise be a child, and even the fact It looks like a child is enough to be evil since that if you are gooning to something that looks like one, youd show through your action that you think that kind of "bodytype" (so they say) is attractive, (which is the same "bodytpe" of children) which goes against life since that would go against the rationale of the child, for which they cannot express their will.
So, it is completely evil, and again: just like trannies, femboys and other types of degenerate, they are so deluded in their evil that they think it would be funny, or that they get a "sense of belonging" that they shouldn't have because they are evil, disgusting fucks.
YOU'RE THE KWAY ANTIFUR NIGGER AREN'T YOU
alson2
Jarty Defense League
2 months ago#393300
HAHAHAOH ITS YOUShow quoted text
Probably because they are irredeemably evil and think that is funny or some shit.
It is like the fucking pinkpill shit that happened on 4cuck and other EPI related activities on the 8, It is just an outlet for these fucks to get more of their degenerative and evil feelings out onto the world.
As ayn rand said; they merely hate the good for being the good- They hate their own lives so much that they want to appeal to some sort of "femminity" in the case of femboys, or for trannies, they hate themselves so much that they think chopping their dick off for no reason will fix it. similarly, all the EPI 'P groups that want to distribute and make people into pedos (or neo-pedos, depending if you are an obsessed fuck) because they all want to have another community of life hating werdos and creeps so that they can feel heckin affirmed via a completely evil medium.
Morality from the objectivist perspective (which I prescribe to) states that Life is the ultimate virtue. and that since life is a virtue, then all things who go against life is evil- then, since rationality is required for human nature (we need to act to stay alive), then going against rationality is evil aswell. The reason I say that these people are absolutely evil and not just "oh it doesn't violate the heckin NAP bro!" and say I dont care about it is because these fucks goon to what would otherwise be a child, and even the fact It looks like a child is enough to be evil since that if you are gooning to something that looks like one, youd show through your action that you think that kind of "bodytype" (so they say) is attractive, (which is the same "bodytpe" of children) which goes against life since that would go against the rationale of the child, for which they cannot express their will.
So, it is completely evil, and again: just like trannies, femboys and other types of degenerate, they are so deluded in their evil that they think it would be funny, or that they get a "sense of belonging" that they shouldn't have because they are evil, disgusting fucks.
YOU'RE THE KWAY ANTIFUR NIGGER AREN'T YOU
IsaYermaw
skeebeedee 'n ohio or sumN
2 months ago#393396
geeeeeeeeg blud didn't notice lmaoOH ITS YOUShow quoted text
Probably because they are irredeemably evil and think that is funny or some shit.
It is like the fucking pinkpill shit that happened on 4cuck and other EPI related activities on the 8, It is just an outlet for these fucks to get more of their degenerative and evil feelings out onto the world.
As ayn rand said; they merely hate the good for being the good- They hate their own lives so much that they want to appeal to some sort of "femminity" in the case of femboys, or for trannies, they hate themselves so much that they think chopping their dick off for no reason will fix it. similarly, all the EPI 'P groups that want to distribute and make people into pedos (or neo-pedos, depending if you are an obsessed fuck) because they all want to have another community of life hating werdos and creeps so that they can feel heckin affirmed via a completely evil medium.
Morality from the objectivist perspective (which I prescribe to) states that Life is the ultimate virtue. and that since life is a virtue, then all things who go against life is evil- then, since rationality is required for human nature (we need to act to stay alive), then going against rationality is evil aswell. The reason I say that these people are absolutely evil and not just "oh it doesn't violate the heckin NAP bro!" and say I dont care about it is because these fucks goon to what would otherwise be a child, and even the fact It looks like a child is enough to be evil since that if you are gooning to something that looks like one, youd show through your action that you think that kind of "bodytype" (so they say) is attractive, (which is the same "bodytpe" of children) which goes against life since that would go against the rationale of the child, for which they cannot express their will.
So, it is completely evil, and again: just like trannies, femboys and other types of degenerate, they are so deluded in their evil that they think it would be funny, or that they get a "sense of belonging" that they shouldn't have because they are evil, disgusting fucks.
YOU'RE THE KWAY ANTIFUR NIGGER AREN'T YOU
are you still buck broken? has your bleeding asshole healed? lmao even.
Paranoid
Love Lies Bleeding
Cyborg
I hope I could finally buy and play BODYCAM game.
Pseudo
Shine bright
2 months ago#465201
Not reading allat excessive wordslop but furries, homos, trannies, and the likes do this too. It's mental offloading.
Genuine nvke
Over obsessive gooning is insanely horrible for you, and by doing it too much can cause harm. It isn't in your rational self interest to wake up, goon, eat, goon then sleep and repeat. that isn't good for you...
IsaYermaw
skeebeedee 'n ohio or sumN
2 months ago#554207
FYI, this is replying to some lolipedo I raped btw. I am going to quote the original text and put it in small.
"In Western internet communities, lolicon has been an ongoing debate with no resolution in sight. Both sides talk past each other and reach no resolution because the debate is often not philosophically grounded, but rather based on talking points and memes. A video by Anarcho-Objectivist YouTuber TaxedBrass stands in contrast by being an attempted philosophical take-down of lolicon. The video is called “Lolicon is EVIL, Actually!” The video argues that any rational moral system must argue that lolicon is evil. They argue morality is black or white. An action is either moral or immoral. This is too simplistic; certain actions are involuntary so by definition amoral. Should we assume a baby throwing a tantrum is evil, or let’s imagine a sleepwalking murderer, are their actions evil? In order to describe involuntary actions, we must move beyond good and evil. The main argument in the video goes like this: If we value life and specifically your life as the standard of good, then as reason is the only way to survive we must therefore be rational in order to live. Lolicon on the other hand sexualizes the features of children which cannot consent to sex due to their lack of mental faculties to do so. Lolicon sexualizes vulnerability, immaturity and incapacity which is a direct rejection of reason itself and the elevation of unreason. Therefore, since reason is the only way you can live, it is a rejection of life itself. The argument makes two key assumptions: “reason is the only way to survive” and “lolicon is a rejection of reason” Firstly the idea that reason is the only way to live is contradicted by the fact that most humans, by the admission of objectivists, don’t live rationally. We are not necessarily wired to be totally rational. It is clear we have the capacity for reason but the idea that humans in their everyday lives are mediated by logic is disconnected from reality. Humans have many cognitive inclinations which can not be controlled only suppressed. The argument also doesn’t imply every part of you down to your thoughts must be rationally integrated. Secondly, the consumption of lolicon implicitly rejects reason by sexualizing incapacity and immaturity and therefore rejects life itself. This assumption comes from the idea that humans should be rationally integrated and all their actions be mediated logically in order to survive. The problem with this view is that humans are not totally self-authored, we come with cognitive desires, as Schopenhauer said “Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.” A man that could choose they’re will, would be unable to make a choice as choice requires will. If we then accept that you can’t choose what you will, then contradiction is inherent to human existence and masturbating or indulging in a fantasy is just an act of sexual self-sufficiency not a statement of values as some aspects of you can’t be congruent with your conscious values. It doesn’t matter how many ethics books you read, your sexual desires will not change. An objectivist may retort that you are still affirming immoral values through your actions, yet this is a weak argument as all that is being affirmed is your sexual desire not a value judgement on how moral it is in real life. You would have to prove the sexual desire itself is immoral which is impossible as it isn’t chosen. The video then goes on to argue that lolicon trains your brain to associate powerlessness and immaturity with arousal and habitually fantasizing about unreality degrades your character and makes you less rational. Their brains are already aroused by it which is why they are drawn to it. There is an implied wrong in people hypothetically becoming more attracted to lolis which is not argued, but why is it actually wrong? I think in this article I’ve established that it isn’t, as it is not a choice; therefore, it can not be wrong, as evil requires volition. As to the claim of “degrading your character,” they make the same moral implication without any argument. So what if people have fantasies separated from reality, why is that bad? They may argue it is more wrong because it is more of a contradiction, and we should seek to be more rational, but again just because rationality is vital for survival doesn’t mean total internal consistency is desirable or is even possible and this is just a package deal to force you to accept an impossible standard if you value rationality. Objectivism has no way to reconcile and defend fantasies. We must advocate for rationality while acknowledging the cognitive inclinations which limit its applicability. Fantasies are an inevitable result of humans innately valuing different things than each other and are just a way of us actualizing those values in a limited world without harming others. Objectivism suggests there is one value set that allows you to flourish, which betrays the diversity of thought in human beings. We do not always choose what we value, they are sometimes thrust upon us by the circumstances of our birth. We must reconcile human bias with rationality. If we ignore them, we risk creating an environment where people are judged for parts of themselves they can’t control."
Now here is my RAPE
"an action is either moral or immoral. This is too simplistic; certain actions are involuntary so by definition amoral."
An action is either moral or immoral based on how it pertains to life, whether the action is a pro-life or anti-life, more importantly- moral analysis refers to rational action, being the actions of rational, thinking beings. This is because you cannot morally evaluate a tree for falling over- a tree doesn't think, it acts on no premises.
I am going to disagree with the wording here, the use of "involuntary action" doesn't fit. your heart beating in your chest is a moral good, since it keeps you alive, same with breathing and thinking- your rationality as in your nature as man sustains your life, even if you don't voluntarily think (you just do.)
Involuntary actions can certainly be evaluated via morality, it does not fall outside its realm- there is no "amoral" action when it refers to involuntary action.
"Should we assume a baby throwing a tantrum is evil, or let’s imagine a sleepwalking murderer, are their actions evil? In order to describe involuntary actions, we must move beyond good and evil."
these analogies are completely void from the term involuntary here. the correct term is rationality. you cant evaluate a baby for having a tantrum, since babies cant think. however in the term of the sleep walking murderer, it can be legally evaluated- men's rea versus actus reus, and given that all illegal actions are immoral, you can evaluate it to be evil.
there is also the moral analysis of the sleeping murder that it was the murderer who fell asleep without taking precautions, or that since it was sleep walking, he was partially conscious- either way, his murder was a result, or further consequence of his previous or current rational actions.
"The main argument in the video goes like this: If we value life and specifically your life as the standard of good"
The argument never began with an "if" as you say, it is never assumed that life is the moral virtue, it is given through argumentation throughout the video- this is a misrepresentation of what the video was, trying to connotate that the argument was "unbased" or "unfounded", wheras TaxedBrass clearly demonstrated the fact that life is the moral virtue of life; you are living after all, no?
"The argument makes two key assumptions: “reason is the only way to survive” and “lolicon is a rejection of reason” Firstly the idea that reason is the only way to live is contradicted by the fact that most humans, by the admission of objectivists, don’t live rationally."
Your claim that this is contradicted by empirical means misses the point. Objectivism does see mans volitional choice to either think or evade, whether to recognise reality or run from it. however you ignore that the succeeding retards benefit short term off of others work, other peoples rationality but they ultimately court death since long term human flourishing- living for the good, for life, requires an *amount* of rationale. you cant go the store, and buy food without rationality. you cant speak if you have *(no* rationality. you cant conceptualise what things are, you wont be able to do anything- know anything, since it is our innate human (nature) to be rational. without the ability to form concepts- you are fucked! seriously. you wouldn't be able to think without rationality, what remains? A corpse. A nothing. this can be called a state of brain death. a brain dead cannot live for the good- thus is why it is that rationality is required for human flourishing, to live is to live, and to be able to live, you must be able to live it.
even for the evader, for the ignoramus, you cannot live without experiencing- which is what is the core premise used by those who evade reality- You cannot cheat reality, you can't hide from it; unless you are dead. This is why irrationality is immoral, to be non-rational, non-thinking or evasive, you must die.
"We are not necessarily wired to be totally rational. It is clear we have the capacity for reason but the idea that humans in their everyday lives are mediated by logic is disconnected from reality. "
This clearly fails. You do not need to "think" through anything, a implicit logic exists. say; i want this apple, so i then grab the apple off my desk and inspect it. after looking at it, I want to eat it;
"In Western internet communities, lolicon has been an ongoing debate with no resolution in sight. Both sides talk past each other and reach no resolution because the debate is often not philosophically grounded, but rather based on talking points and memes. A video by Anarcho-Objectivist YouTuber TaxedBrass stands in contrast by being an attempted philosophical take-down of lolicon. The video is called “Lolicon is EVIL, Actually!” The video argues that any rational moral system must argue that lolicon is evil. They argue morality is black or white. An action is either moral or immoral. This is too simplistic; certain actions are involuntary so by definition amoral. Should we assume a baby throwing a tantrum is evil, or let’s imagine a sleepwalking murderer, are their actions evil? In order to describe involuntary actions, we must move beyond good and evil. The main argument in the video goes like this: If we value life and specifically your life as the standard of good, then as reason is the only way to survive we must therefore be rational in order to live. Lolicon on the other hand sexualizes the features of children which cannot consent to sex due to their lack of mental faculties to do so. Lolicon sexualizes vulnerability, immaturity and incapacity which is a direct rejection of reason itself and the elevation of unreason. Therefore, since reason is the only way you can live, it is a rejection of life itself. The argument makes two key assumptions: “reason is the only way to survive” and “lolicon is a rejection of reason” Firstly the idea that reason is the only way to live is contradicted by the fact that most humans, by the admission of objectivists, don’t live rationally. We are not necessarily wired to be totally rational. It is clear we have the capacity for reason but the idea that humans in their everyday lives are mediated by logic is disconnected from reality. Humans have many cognitive inclinations which can not be controlled only suppressed. The argument also doesn’t imply every part of you down to your thoughts must be rationally integrated. Secondly, the consumption of lolicon implicitly rejects reason by sexualizing incapacity and immaturity and therefore rejects life itself. This assumption comes from the idea that humans should be rationally integrated and all their actions be mediated logically in order to survive. The problem with this view is that humans are not totally self-authored, we come with cognitive desires, as Schopenhauer said “Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.” A man that could choose they’re will, would be unable to make a choice as choice requires will. If we then accept that you can’t choose what you will, then contradiction is inherent to human existence and masturbating or indulging in a fantasy is just an act of sexual self-sufficiency not a statement of values as some aspects of you can’t be congruent with your conscious values. It doesn’t matter how many ethics books you read, your sexual desires will not change. An objectivist may retort that you are still affirming immoral values through your actions, yet this is a weak argument as all that is being affirmed is your sexual desire not a value judgement on how moral it is in real life. You would have to prove the sexual desire itself is immoral which is impossible as it isn’t chosen. The video then goes on to argue that lolicon trains your brain to associate powerlessness and immaturity with arousal and habitually fantasizing about unreality degrades your character and makes you less rational. Their brains are already aroused by it which is why they are drawn to it. There is an implied wrong in people hypothetically becoming more attracted to lolis which is not argued, but why is it actually wrong? I think in this article I’ve established that it isn’t, as it is not a choice; therefore, it can not be wrong, as evil requires volition. As to the claim of “degrading your character,” they make the same moral implication without any argument. So what if people have fantasies separated from reality, why is that bad? They may argue it is more wrong because it is more of a contradiction, and we should seek to be more rational, but again just because rationality is vital for survival doesn’t mean total internal consistency is desirable or is even possible and this is just a package deal to force you to accept an impossible standard if you value rationality. Objectivism has no way to reconcile and defend fantasies. We must advocate for rationality while acknowledging the cognitive inclinations which limit its applicability. Fantasies are an inevitable result of humans innately valuing different things than each other and are just a way of us actualizing those values in a limited world without harming others. Objectivism suggests there is one value set that allows you to flourish, which betrays the diversity of thought in human beings. We do not always choose what we value, they are sometimes thrust upon us by the circumstances of our birth. We must reconcile human bias with rationality. If we ignore them, we risk creating an environment where people are judged for parts of themselves they can’t control."
Now here is my RAPE
"an action is either moral or immoral. This is too simplistic; certain actions are involuntary so by definition amoral."
An action is either moral or immoral based on how it pertains to life, whether the action is a pro-life or anti-life, more importantly- moral analysis refers to rational action, being the actions of rational, thinking beings. This is because you cannot morally evaluate a tree for falling over- a tree doesn't think, it acts on no premises.
I am going to disagree with the wording here, the use of "involuntary action" doesn't fit. your heart beating in your chest is a moral good, since it keeps you alive, same with breathing and thinking- your rationality as in your nature as man sustains your life, even if you don't voluntarily think (you just do.)
Involuntary actions can certainly be evaluated via morality, it does not fall outside its realm- there is no "amoral" action when it refers to involuntary action.
"Should we assume a baby throwing a tantrum is evil, or let’s imagine a sleepwalking murderer, are their actions evil? In order to describe involuntary actions, we must move beyond good and evil."
these analogies are completely void from the term involuntary here. the correct term is rationality. you cant evaluate a baby for having a tantrum, since babies cant think. however in the term of the sleep walking murderer, it can be legally evaluated- men's rea versus actus reus, and given that all illegal actions are immoral, you can evaluate it to be evil.
there is also the moral analysis of the sleeping murder that it was the murderer who fell asleep without taking precautions, or that since it was sleep walking, he was partially conscious- either way, his murder was a result, or further consequence of his previous or current rational actions.
"The main argument in the video goes like this: If we value life and specifically your life as the standard of good"
The argument never began with an "if" as you say, it is never assumed that life is the moral virtue, it is given through argumentation throughout the video- this is a misrepresentation of what the video was, trying to connotate that the argument was "unbased" or "unfounded", wheras TaxedBrass clearly demonstrated the fact that life is the moral virtue of life; you are living after all, no?
"The argument makes two key assumptions: “reason is the only way to survive” and “lolicon is a rejection of reason” Firstly the idea that reason is the only way to live is contradicted by the fact that most humans, by the admission of objectivists, don’t live rationally."
Your claim that this is contradicted by empirical means misses the point. Objectivism does see mans volitional choice to either think or evade, whether to recognise reality or run from it. however you ignore that the succeeding retards benefit short term off of others work, other peoples rationality but they ultimately court death since long term human flourishing- living for the good, for life, requires an *amount* of rationale. you cant go the store, and buy food without rationality. you cant speak if you have *(no* rationality. you cant conceptualise what things are, you wont be able to do anything- know anything, since it is our innate human (nature) to be rational. without the ability to form concepts- you are fucked! seriously. you wouldn't be able to think without rationality, what remains? A corpse. A nothing. this can be called a state of brain death. a brain dead cannot live for the good- thus is why it is that rationality is required for human flourishing, to live is to live, and to be able to live, you must be able to live it.
even for the evader, for the ignoramus, you cannot live without experiencing- which is what is the core premise used by those who evade reality- You cannot cheat reality, you can't hide from it; unless you are dead. This is why irrationality is immoral, to be non-rational, non-thinking or evasive, you must die.
"We are not necessarily wired to be totally rational. It is clear we have the capacity for reason but the idea that humans in their everyday lives are mediated by logic is disconnected from reality. "
This clearly fails. You do not need to "think" through anything, a implicit logic exists. say; i want this apple, so i then grab the apple off my desk and inspect it. after looking at it, I want to eat it;
IsaYermaw
skeebeedee 'n ohio or sumN
1 month ago#615862
Time to come back to my blog to post some heckin antifurry/antizoophilia gvkes
Wrote this in 2 hours, comparing it with heckin notes from harry binswangers books and shit.
#raping furniggers
I also wrote this using obsidian (a text box thingy, so it isnt heckin formatted)
To start on morality, I believe in objectivism- or atleast I try to mkay? I take the belief that Life and human flourishing is the sole virtue in life, or "the good".
When we talk about morality, we talk about what we should, what we ought to do to live the good life- as opposed to law for which law is the opposite, but it is about what you shouldn't, what you ought not to do according to conflict resolution. both fall under ethics, but are completely different.
I don't want to send furries into concentration camps, or GENUINELY want total furry death, because I would be making a false legal claim.
Now enough prefacing, rational Life qua man is the sole virtue, since to value anything- to want anything ever, you must presupose life as a value, since you must be alive to value anything, you must exist to value. now okay, why is this the sole virtue?
because it is the only logically consistent virtue. this is because you cannot value death while being alive, since that would mean you should thus die on the spot, which is most clearly irrational, which contradicts to your current life.
you also cant value death since it is quite literally impossible to do so, since to value anything, you want to achieve that thing, given this- and the fact that death is a state of non statedness, of non existing- it would be impossible to achieve since you wouldn't be there to achieve it once you do, so you cant value non-existence, you cant value death because once you stop existing, you cant value anything, which is irrational.
This would mean that Life, and human flourishing is the sole moral value, and death being its anti, the evil right?
Not really, since in our nature as human being, as conscious and rational creatures as our nature as man- we must use our rationality to live, meaning that to live, we must be rational, which thus means that if you want to value life and more importantly; human flourishing, you must also value and be rational... but is that right? aren't Humans irrational every day?
yes it is correct, people who ask this ignore (that rationality is pro-flourishing and irrationality is anti-flourishing) that the supposed "succeeding" retards benefit from irrationality only in the short short term off of others work, other peoples rationality but they ultimately court death since long term human flourishing- living for the good, for life, requires an amount of rationale. you cant go the store, and buy food without rationality. you cant speak if you have no rationality. you cant conceptualise what things are, you wont be able to do anything- know anything, to act irrationally is killing yourself in the long term. without the ability to form concepts- you are fucked! seriously. you wouldn't be able to think without rationality, what remains? A corpse. A nothing. this can be called a state of brain death. a brain dead cannot live for the good- thus is why it is that rationality is required for human flourishing, to live is to live, and to be able to live, you must be able to live it.
even for the evader, for the ignoramus, you cannot live without experiencing- which is what is the core premise used by those who evade reality- You cannot cheat reality, you can't hide from it; unless you are dead. This is why irrationality is immoral, to be non-rational, non-thinking or evasive, you must die, your mind is neutralised into being a non-mind, this is the essence of irrationality, the negation of truth (reality) and life, which is death- meaning irrationality is evil.
Now why all the preamble?
because I am gonna say furry porn is immoral OKAY!?
concepts refer to what is fundamentally true about an entity, what the essence of it is, while abstracting non essential particulars.
in an objectivist framework, an animal essence is defined by its species specific traits such as ears, paws, etc. no matter how these we imagine the animal, its traits define its ontological category. if i take a dog and remove its legs or add more legs onto it, does it cease to be a type of dog? is it a completely new concept- does it lose its "dog-ness", or its essence? no, it doesn't change the essentials just because I removed or added a few particulars onto the concrete.
we can apply this to anthropomorphic animals, which are defined as animals with added human traits by the official Furry Wiki, the Merriam webster and so on.
using the definition, its pretty obvious to see: if we take the example of a Wolf-man, a wolf who has been anthropomorphised, or an anthropomorphic wolf. If human traits were added on top of what was a wolf (which is definitionally true) then it is defined as being primarily a wolf conceptually, as in- its mostly a wolf, with human bits on top like a mind.
However, in epistemology the "anthropomorphisation" changes the essence slightly, however it doesnt change that the "wolfness" is still a major part of what it is, and I can get into it praxiologically later, but I will stay on the definitional argument- since what a thing is is defined by the words used, since words are symbols that are used to denote concepts.
If you dont get it, its seen by how the term is constructed. the term "anthropomorphic animal" still uses "animal" as the main object while anthropomorphic is used as a suffix showing that the subject is an animal, with the LATER addition of human traits, which shows that the animal is the focus, not the human traits. if that was the case, it would be "a human with added animal traits" rather than "an animal with added human traits"
this, therefore shows that furry pornography is of a nonhuman-animal nature, meaning that attraction to this is a form of zoophilia; being anthrozoophilia which attraction of the in-between humans and animals. It is a form of zoophilia since you are gooning to what is a part-animal and its primary is being an animal, which is where the "zoo" comes from, and with the Greek Anthropos meaning human, IE, you are gooning to the synthesis of human and animal- for which the animal dominates linguistically, so as a concept it is clearly a form of zoophilia.
however this doesn't prove that (gooning to) zoomorphism (which is humans with added animal traits) is zoophilic. through the use of praxeology this can be seen.
the basis of praxeology is that man acts. his actions thus show his values and vice versa, since his values, his wants and desires inform his actions to alleviate a certain discomfort from not having acted in that way.
example, I want that apple on my table, therefore I use the scarce means of my body to grab it and eat it.
this means that a mans action implicitly reveals a mans value, what he wants. as a result this can apply to furry, or even neko/zoomorphic pornography. by someone gooning to a certain image of a character with cat ears, it shows that the individual that is gooning values gooning to THIS image over gooning to other images, or not gooning at all. thus this further shows a preference of what is considered sexually attractive within that image
as a result of acting, gooning to a zoomorphic character shows an inherent sexual preference for the characteristics of the character in the image.
given that the character has animal characteristics irrespective of whether the character is mostly human or not since if they weren't sexually aroused, or if they didn't value this one character or action shown through the image, they would jerk off to something that doesn't have those characteristics, so they are indeed attracted to the overall mash of characteristics within that image.
however this is only a form of zoophilia if it is that the animal characteristics were what you are attracted in, which is most commonly the case when it comes to furries, as it can be shown emperically that furries prefer furry porn as opposed to normal human pornography.
Now why is this evil?
Not necessarily, to an extent when it comes to zoomorphism, since it is plausible that the attraction doesn't come from the animal traits for which the human is above-
however for "anthro" or furry porn I'd say it is evil.
because showing interest in the anthropomorphic animal infers a value for what it is, which is mainly animalistic, linguistically and visually, and by gooning to this, the subject (the gooner) shows an implicit irrationality, since an animal is an irrational agent, it doesn't show thinking or concepts, and it is a fact that humans cannot mate with animals.
It can also be considered immoral on the basis that mere gooning itself is- that the gooning to anything in the way that if you wish that you are in the place of one of the characters that aren't real, which is a denial of reality, a fallacy of the primacy of consciousness so to speak; which is directly opposed to being rational, and thus is anti life and is Immoral since If a person habitually uses such fantasies to evade reality, which can be seen in the fetishisation of animalistic parts and "mursuiting" which is often the idea that dressing and acting as if you are an animal is attractive, even though you aren't an animal. The repeated use of a fantasy as a substitute for real values, real relationships, or real self-direction can be evasive of reality in a way that isn't mere escapism, that is irrational and therefore immoral.
Pretty much; the whole TLDR for furries is: You should ask yourself whether you are gooning to something that is for life, in accordance with reality or if it is an escapist fantasy that is opposed to reality and life.
I wouldn't try to judge the image itself, but the role it plays in your life and the _psychological habits it reinforces, albeit, gooning to furries is quite literally anthrozoophilia, a fo
Wrote this in 2 hours, comparing it with heckin notes from harry binswangers books and shit.
#raping furniggers
I also wrote this using obsidian (a text box thingy, so it isnt heckin formatted)
To start on morality, I believe in objectivism- or atleast I try to mkay? I take the belief that Life and human flourishing is the sole virtue in life, or "the good".
When we talk about morality, we talk about what we should, what we ought to do to live the good life- as opposed to law for which law is the opposite, but it is about what you shouldn't, what you ought not to do according to conflict resolution. both fall under ethics, but are completely different.
I don't want to send furries into concentration camps, or GENUINELY want total furry death, because I would be making a false legal claim.
Now enough prefacing, rational Life qua man is the sole virtue, since to value anything- to want anything ever, you must presupose life as a value, since you must be alive to value anything, you must exist to value. now okay, why is this the sole virtue?
because it is the only logically consistent virtue. this is because you cannot value death while being alive, since that would mean you should thus die on the spot, which is most clearly irrational, which contradicts to your current life.
you also cant value death since it is quite literally impossible to do so, since to value anything, you want to achieve that thing, given this- and the fact that death is a state of non statedness, of non existing- it would be impossible to achieve since you wouldn't be there to achieve it once you do, so you cant value non-existence, you cant value death because once you stop existing, you cant value anything, which is irrational.
This would mean that Life, and human flourishing is the sole moral value, and death being its anti, the evil right?
Not really, since in our nature as human being, as conscious and rational creatures as our nature as man- we must use our rationality to live, meaning that to live, we must be rational, which thus means that if you want to value life and more importantly; human flourishing, you must also value and be rational... but is that right? aren't Humans irrational every day?
yes it is correct, people who ask this ignore (that rationality is pro-flourishing and irrationality is anti-flourishing) that the supposed "succeeding" retards benefit from irrationality only in the short short term off of others work, other peoples rationality but they ultimately court death since long term human flourishing- living for the good, for life, requires an amount of rationale. you cant go the store, and buy food without rationality. you cant speak if you have no rationality. you cant conceptualise what things are, you wont be able to do anything- know anything, to act irrationally is killing yourself in the long term. without the ability to form concepts- you are fucked! seriously. you wouldn't be able to think without rationality, what remains? A corpse. A nothing. this can be called a state of brain death. a brain dead cannot live for the good- thus is why it is that rationality is required for human flourishing, to live is to live, and to be able to live, you must be able to live it.
even for the evader, for the ignoramus, you cannot live without experiencing- which is what is the core premise used by those who evade reality- You cannot cheat reality, you can't hide from it; unless you are dead. This is why irrationality is immoral, to be non-rational, non-thinking or evasive, you must die, your mind is neutralised into being a non-mind, this is the essence of irrationality, the negation of truth (reality) and life, which is death- meaning irrationality is evil.
Now why all the preamble?
because I am gonna say furry porn is immoral OKAY!?
concepts refer to what is fundamentally true about an entity, what the essence of it is, while abstracting non essential particulars.
in an objectivist framework, an animal essence is defined by its species specific traits such as ears, paws, etc. no matter how these we imagine the animal, its traits define its ontological category. if i take a dog and remove its legs or add more legs onto it, does it cease to be a type of dog? is it a completely new concept- does it lose its "dog-ness", or its essence? no, it doesn't change the essentials just because I removed or added a few particulars onto the concrete.
we can apply this to anthropomorphic animals, which are defined as animals with added human traits by the official Furry Wiki, the Merriam webster and so on.
using the definition, its pretty obvious to see: if we take the example of a Wolf-man, a wolf who has been anthropomorphised, or an anthropomorphic wolf. If human traits were added on top of what was a wolf (which is definitionally true) then it is defined as being primarily a wolf conceptually, as in- its mostly a wolf, with human bits on top like a mind.
However, in epistemology the "anthropomorphisation" changes the essence slightly, however it doesnt change that the "wolfness" is still a major part of what it is, and I can get into it praxiologically later, but I will stay on the definitional argument- since what a thing is is defined by the words used, since words are symbols that are used to denote concepts.
If you dont get it, its seen by how the term is constructed. the term "anthropomorphic animal" still uses "animal" as the main object while anthropomorphic is used as a suffix showing that the subject is an animal, with the LATER addition of human traits, which shows that the animal is the focus, not the human traits. if that was the case, it would be "a human with added animal traits" rather than "an animal with added human traits"
this, therefore shows that furry pornography is of a nonhuman-animal nature, meaning that attraction to this is a form of zoophilia; being anthrozoophilia which attraction of the in-between humans and animals. It is a form of zoophilia since you are gooning to what is a part-animal and its primary is being an animal, which is where the "zoo" comes from, and with the Greek Anthropos meaning human, IE, you are gooning to the synthesis of human and animal- for which the animal dominates linguistically, so as a concept it is clearly a form of zoophilia.
however this doesn't prove that (gooning to) zoomorphism (which is humans with added animal traits) is zoophilic. through the use of praxeology this can be seen.
the basis of praxeology is that man acts. his actions thus show his values and vice versa, since his values, his wants and desires inform his actions to alleviate a certain discomfort from not having acted in that way.
example, I want that apple on my table, therefore I use the scarce means of my body to grab it and eat it.
this means that a mans action implicitly reveals a mans value, what he wants. as a result this can apply to furry, or even neko/zoomorphic pornography. by someone gooning to a certain image of a character with cat ears, it shows that the individual that is gooning values gooning to THIS image over gooning to other images, or not gooning at all. thus this further shows a preference of what is considered sexually attractive within that image
as a result of acting, gooning to a zoomorphic character shows an inherent sexual preference for the characteristics of the character in the image.
given that the character has animal characteristics irrespective of whether the character is mostly human or not since if they weren't sexually aroused, or if they didn't value this one character or action shown through the image, they would jerk off to something that doesn't have those characteristics, so they are indeed attracted to the overall mash of characteristics within that image.
however this is only a form of zoophilia if it is that the animal characteristics were what you are attracted in, which is most commonly the case when it comes to furries, as it can be shown emperically that furries prefer furry porn as opposed to normal human pornography.
Now why is this evil?
Not necessarily, to an extent when it comes to zoomorphism, since it is plausible that the attraction doesn't come from the animal traits for which the human is above-
however for "anthro" or furry porn I'd say it is evil.
because showing interest in the anthropomorphic animal infers a value for what it is, which is mainly animalistic, linguistically and visually, and by gooning to this, the subject (the gooner) shows an implicit irrationality, since an animal is an irrational agent, it doesn't show thinking or concepts, and it is a fact that humans cannot mate with animals.
It can also be considered immoral on the basis that mere gooning itself is- that the gooning to anything in the way that if you wish that you are in the place of one of the characters that aren't real, which is a denial of reality, a fallacy of the primacy of consciousness so to speak; which is directly opposed to being rational, and thus is anti life and is Immoral since If a person habitually uses such fantasies to evade reality, which can be seen in the fetishisation of animalistic parts and "mursuiting" which is often the idea that dressing and acting as if you are an animal is attractive, even though you aren't an animal. The repeated use of a fantasy as a substitute for real values, real relationships, or real self-direction can be evasive of reality in a way that isn't mere escapism, that is irrational and therefore immoral.
Pretty much; the whole TLDR for furries is: You should ask yourself whether you are gooning to something that is for life, in accordance with reality or if it is an escapist fantasy that is opposed to reality and life.
I wouldn't try to judge the image itself, but the role it plays in your life and the _psychological habits it reinforces, albeit, gooning to furries is quite literally anthrozoophilia, a fo
IsaYermaw
skeebeedee 'n ohio or sumN
1 month ago#656487
Rehashing:
---
On morality, I take the objectivist stance.
I take the belief that Life and human flourishing is the sole virtue in life, or "the good".
to value anything- to want anything ever, you must assume life as a value, since you must be alive to value anything, you must exist to value. now okay, why is this the sole virtue?
because it is the only rational virtue. this is because you cannot value death while being alive, since that would mean you should thus die on the spot, which is most clearly irrational,
and for clarification, to value anything is to want to achieve it, you cant achieve death and maintain your rationality, because you wouldn't exist- once you don't exist.
as conscious and rational creatures as is our nature- we must use our rationality to live, meaning that to live, we must be rational. this is because to live life, youve gotta live it, IE, you have to be rational, conscious of life.
this is why you must be alive to have values, since you need rationality- you must know about things in order to value them.
Now, I’m not trying to reinvent the wheel or be hyper-rigorous here, but I want to look at this from the angle of values and what our actions actually reveal.
and NO, I don't want to send furries into concentration camps, no matter how aryan, since that would be talking about law and not morality.
concepts refer to what is fundamentally about an entity, what the essence of it is, while abstracting away non essential particulars and measurement
in an objectivist framework, an animal essence is defined by its species specific traits
no matter how these we imagine the animal, its traits define its ontological category.
if i take a dog and remove its legs or add more legs onto it, does it cease to be a type of dog?
is it a completely new concept- does it lose its "dog-ness", or its essence? no, it doesn't change the essentials of what a dog is.
anthropomorphic animals, are defined as animals with added human traits by the official Furry Wiki, the Merriam webster and so on.
using the definition, its pretty obvious to see: if we take the example of a Wolf-man, a wolf who has been anthropomorphised, or an anthropomorphic wolf. If human traits were added on top of what was a wolf (which is definitionally true) then it is defined as being primarily a wolf, as in- its mostly a wolf, with human bits on top like a mind, or human legs and such,
its origin is a wolf, and lingusitcally and visualliy it is shown that the wolf essence is primarily the main part which was then diluted, it was changed yes, but not majorly to create a completely different thing, but a clearly linked, and similar concept albeit different.
therefore shows that furry pornography can be of a nonhuman-animal nature,
meaning that attraction to this is a form of zoophilia; being anthrozoophilia
which attraction of the in-between humans and animals.
It is a form of zoophilia since you are gooning to what is a part-animal and its primary is being an animal, which is where the "zoo" comes from,
and with the Greek Anthropos meaning human,
IE, you are gooning to the synthesis of human and animal- for which the animal dominates linguistically, so as a concept it is clearly linked as a form of zoophilia.
however this doesn't prove that (gooning to) zoomorphism (which is humans with added animal traits) is zoophilic, or what I'd refer to as anthropozoophilic .
through the use of praxeology this can be seen.
the basis of praxeology is that man acts. his actions thus show his values and vice versa, since his values, his wants and desires inform his actions to alleviate a certain discomfort from not having acted in that way.
example, I want that apple on my table, therefore I use the scarce means of my body to grab it and eat it.
This thus shows my preference to eating the apple over not eating the apple, or walking over to my kitchen and grabbing an orange.
mans action implicitly reveals a mans value, what he wants, what he prefers.
as a result this can apply to furry, or even neko/zoomorphic or even generic (any) pornography.
by someone gooning to a certain image of a character with cat ears, it shows that the individual that is gooning values gooning to THIS image over gooning to other images, or not gooning at all.
thus this further shows a preference of what is considered sexually attractive within that image
as a result of acting, gooning to a zoomorphic character shows an inherent sexual preference for the characteristics of the character in the image.
given that the character has animal characteristics irrespective of whether the character is mostly human or not they are indeed attracted to the overall mash of characteristics within that image.
this can be a form of zoophilia if it is that the animal characteristics were what you are attracted in, which is most commonly the case when it comes to furries, as it can be shown emperically that furries prefer furry porn as opposed to normal human pornography.
Another way to think about it is that since zoophilia means to be attracted to a non-human animal, and since anthropomorphisation creates a hybrid that isnt human or of the orginal animal in full, thus creating a third animal. we can say that although the creature can be classed as a new, different concept made by hybriding, it wouldn't be a human- since it only has human traits, its a new concept. If I take an orange and DNA splice it with an apple to make the orang have hard skin but soft, and orangy tasting flesh, it isnt an apple, nor an orange, but a new fruit made by mixing them together. this then means that the attraction to this anthropomorphic animal would be of a zoophilic (which I would say is anthropozoohilia)
however this is not the point, this is just linguistics- it doesnt matter if I define you as a zoophile or anything.
The question isn’t just “is this zoophilia?” or arguing over definitions like That whole semantic route as I have shown.
it is convincing but it is messy and honestly not that useful to morality, calling a glass cup a glass cup doesn't imply anything morally.
The more important question is: what is actually being valued here?
If someone is repeatedly drawn to exaggerated, non-human, or animal traits (even in a mixed or stylised form) then that preference says something. It suggests that those traits are part of what they find sexually appealing.
it does raise a real question about orientation toward reality and human relationships.
Because if your sexual interest is consistently directed toward things that are less human, more abstracted, more removed from real human beings, then there’s at least a tension there.
And from an Objectivist perspective, that tension matters. Sexuality isn’t random, it reflects your value hierarchy, your self-image, and how you relate to reality.
It can be considered immoral on the basis that mere gooning itself is-
that gooning to anything in the way that if you wish that you are in the place of one of the characters that aren't real, which is a denial of reality, a fallacy of the primacy of consciousness so to speak;
which is directly opposed to being rational, and thus is anti life and is Immoral since If a person habitually uses such fantasies to evade reality, which can be seen in the fetishisation of animalistic parts and "mursuiting" which is often the idea that dressing and acting as if you are an animal is attractive, even though you aren't an animal.
The repeated use of a fantasy as a substitute for real values, real relationships, or real self-direction can be evasive of reality in a way that isn't mere escapism, that is irrational and therefore immoral,
this is why rand hated gays although it was more like that she believed a person’s sexual attractions reflect their self-image and value hierarchy.
so when it came to the gays, she interpreted them as symptoms of underlying psychological or value-level problem albeit not as a separate category of “degeneracy”, but we can all consider immorality to be degenerate, a degeneration of life.
Pretty much; the whole TLDR for furries is: You should ask yourself whether you are gooning to something that is for life, in accordance with reality or if it is an escapist fantasy that is opposed to reality and life.
I wouldn't try to judge the image itself, but the role it plays in your life and the _psychological habits it reinforces, albeit, gooning to furries is quite literally anthrozoophilia, a form of zoophilia- so you would have to ALSO ask yourself whether you are fine with that, or if again, this reflects poorly on your underlying values.
Log in to reply to this thread.