No.13775
So this…gem (for lack of a better word) was posted on halfchan the other night.
How could someone let themselves get to the point where they would do shit like this? I mean, sure there are nights were we beat our meat off to overly depraved shit but THIS is fucking ridiculous.
Never before have I wanted some random anon's greentext story to be fake so badly.
No.13777
>>13775Well that's what nearly insane people with high sex drive are capable of doing. Kind of hard for me to understand, since I never had any cheese pizza. Barely fapped to that kind of stuff. Maybe thrice in my entire life? I don't think I even get errections that often when I'm around little girls in the underground or elsewhere. Is there something wrong with me?
No.13789
>>13777>I don't think I even get erections that often when I'm around little girls>Is there something wrong with me?lol
No.13793
What the actual fuck…
I don't know if I should just delete this thread or not.
No.13794
If the child is dead not by your hand, wouldnt this be a good compromise between the right and wrong sides of the pedo debate? Who did it hurt?
No.13797
>>13794>Dr. Moral AmbiguityAlthough, to be fair, I don't find this story particularly far fetched or offensive. It's fucked up, but still a damn sight better than what goes on in nature all the time. Penguins getting their face eaten off while they get raped to death and shit. At least the kid was dead already.
But still… probably just delete this thread. Whether this story did or didn't happen, I"m not sure we need to talk about it.
No.13813
>>13811It proves that the tornado is legit. One part of a story being true does not make the rest of the story true, lol.
No.13817
No.13832
>>13789Are you the board manager. I can't tell because your post isn't labled as the manager.
On a side note, when I post in my boards logged in as the manager my label doesn't show up either.
No.13849
No.13930
>>13817Not sure if I should be appalled or enthralled.
No.13935
>>13794If eating roadkill is meat without murder, then I guess OP's story is pedophilic necrophilia without murder (like that guy Moskvin who dug up 150 graves to obtain the corpses of 29 young girls). But no pedo should be defending that kind of behavior, no pedo should fight for the rights of corpsefuckers (because in that case, it's REALLY not about love, but purely about the perp's bizarre sexual obsession/gratification/mental illness).
If the story is true, I still think the guy is totally fucked up in the head (and that halfchan is to blame).
The question is would he have done such a thing if he had never even seen halfchan before? This is where people say "I've seen that kind of stuff or worse for years, and I've never done anything like that", as if their inaction could possibly undo what this other guy did (or claimed to do).
But the story, if true, it lends support to the idea that images can lead to actions. He found an exciting stimulus, became addicted to it, became habituated to it, and he ended up doing something most people would be disgusted by.
You say "who did it hurt?" but the question is if you were a parent, and your child died, how would you feel if some guy fucked your child's corpse? You could suggest the parents died too. You could argue the parents would never know about it. But now hundreds or thousands of people online know about it. And if the story is true, and if any relatives of that child survived, and if they ever came across that story, the question of whether the child in the story is the child they lost would always haunt them.
And if it's just a story, the question is what kind of sicko would write such a thing? An actual pedo simply writing about a necrophiliac fantasy? Or an anti-pedo wanting to paint pedos as mentally ill opportunistic corpsefuckers?
No.13936
>>13817The only parts of that story I believe is that he was in boy scouts, and that he had always been the effeminate one at school.
This faggot thinks he's so good-looking (homosexuals are well-known to be narcissists) that he thinks him simply wearing a girl scout uniform would be enough to trigger some preteen scout gay orgy.
But the pic is totally off-topic (unless one thinks that kids can be pedophiles too, that they only need to be sexually attracted to other kids, or that it's a story about "young love.")
No.13939
>>13935>no pedo should fight for the rights of corpsefuckersWhy the fuck not? Fucking pedo bigots.
>>13936>homosexuals are well-known to be narcissists/pol/ plz go
>unless one thinks that kids can be pedophiles tooI was…
No.13945
>>13817Wouldn't happen. Young boys are really homophobic. nvm most won't even have sex with girls their age.
No.13946
>>13945>Young boys are really homophobic.ahahahahahahahahahahaha
No.13947
>>13946They are though, most even use gay as an insult
No.13948
>>13947>>13946>>13945Actually no a lot of 100% straight people sexually experiment with other males when they're going through puberty and super horny.
No.13949
>>13947because gay as an insult is pretty much totally decoupled from gay as a sexuality. fags call people gay all the time, it no longer means anything more than "you suck."
and no, young boys are not homophobic. older boys are as they start developing their own sexuality.
>>13948this
No.13950
>>13947Everyone uses gay as an insult.
No.13952
>>13948>A lot>>13949We are talking about pubescent boys here
No.13958
>>13935I've wondered things like this for myself. My fapping days originated with vanilla cow tit hentai, went all over the place on the list of fetishes, but always remained hentai. Eventually, when I saw loli, without knowing what it was, simply figuring they were chibi girls with tiny boobs, I got hooked
>thatsmyfetish.jpgloli lead to… places, and all of a sudden
"FUCK! I'm a pedo. well, good by fulfilling life."
So yeah, I constantly question myself if hentai eventually lead to me becoming pedo, or if it lead to me discovering that i'm pedo. Would never fuck a dead kid btw
No.13959
>>13958also, i figure i might have stuck with hentai because of soft, squishy looking bodies, and cutesie faces with dem big eyes.
No.13982
>>13775Lol that's some /b/ level shut. Then again it was posted on /b/
No.13983
>>13935>>13930>>13797>>13793delete the thread? Fucked up? Anons have you forgotten your /b/ heritage?
No.13984
No.13989
>>13984I forgive you anon!
No.14001
>>13983I try, but I still remember everything…
No.14027
>>13935
>because in that case, it's REALLY not about loveYes, in this particular case. But there are still necrophiles who really fall in love with those corpses. We should respect that.
No.14402
>>13958I don't know why people insist that the media they are exposed to has no effect on them, when every person on the planet who lives around others is influenced by cultural conditioning (unless they're a psychopath or sociopath). And media contributes to any socialization (or asocialization) process. Media normalizes and habituates, it loses its impact, it gets boring. (One could argue that a pedo TV show about a man and his lgf would eventually normalize pedophilia, just like gay marriage has been normalized, just like transpeople have been normalized.) People get habituated to a stimuli, so continue to seek novelty (which is why I think it's rare for a pedo to only think of one child). They get bored, they want something new.
If that story is true, that guy did not begin a corpsefucker. Corpsefuckers are made.
Just like the guy Moskvin who dug up 150 graves to obtain the corpses of 29 little girls. He didn't have sex with them, but he did turn them into dolls and put them around his house. Because when he was a child, a passing funeral possession came by, and they forced him to kiss the corpse of the little girl, and it reminded him of a doll. And that traumatic event left an imprint on him, which he was compelled to repeat over and over.
http://loveline.wikia.com/wiki/Repetition_Compulsion"Events that are terrorizing in childhood become sources if immense attraction in adulthood"
No.14405
>>13983An argument could be made that /b/ essentially functioned as a child grooming ground for pedophiles.
Look, here's some cutesy cartoons of your favorite cartoon characters having sex, and eventually your resistance is broken down and fucked up shit is normalized. Fucked up shit becomes the "new normal" and people who disagree are pejoratively called "normies." They have become so exposed and bored by abnormality that they take their own resulting abnormality as something to be proud of, as if they media they consume is any kind of accomplishment.
They think "nothing shocking" is something to be proud of, instead of lamenting how desensitized and numb they've become.
No.14412
>>14405Nothing's shocking ain't nothing but a good album.
No.16929
How stupid do you have to be to believe something you read on /b/?
No.16939
>>13775lol
You know what I just realized?
This guy used the same thread starter image as gl vs bl guy.
No.16985
>>16939Shotacat is pretty popular among shotacons - it's their equivalent of pedobear.
No.17076
…if I found a loli like that and if absolutely no one would find out I'd probably do the same
No.17079
No.17109
>>17076Only when he would be still alive.
No.17128
>>13935I see nothing morally wrong with necrophilia. Its more of a property concern. What the poster in OP's picture allegedly did was wrong simply because the body belonged to the family, and you don't cum on/in other people's possessions without permission.
Also I don't see how the guy would get away with it. Surely someone would have discovered the boys body and and noticed his ass caked with recently dried cum. One DNA test later and poster would be getting a knock from the police.
No.17129
>>17128> One DNA test later and poster would be getting a knock from the police.Given that first, there is still enough analyzable DNA left, second, that specific DNA is known to the police as his, and third, they know where he currently lives.
At least the second should be unlikely (although I'm unsure whether the US may already have introduced compulsory DNA registration for every citizen).
No.17134
>>17128>I see nothing morally wrong with necrophilia.pic related, this fucking board…
>>17129Every gouverment has the DNA of everybody. Also, why shouldnt the gov not know where you life? You have gone full retard with this.
No.17137
>>17128>I see nothing morally wrong with necrophilia. Its more of a property concern.>Nothing morally wrong with property violations.>>17134>Every gouverment has the DNA of everybody.Eeeeh, no.
No.17138
>>17137Property violation is not a morality affair
No.17145
>>17138Morality is conformity to the rules of society. So how is that not morality?
No.17148
>>17145Well, i mean directly and strictly about morality like in "this act is immoral because it is" and not "this act is immoral because it violates a law and violating laws is immoral"
And also morality is subjective
No.17149
>>17148It's not really subjective as far as it's based on whatever society you belong to. Like if I was a French Catholic, I would have to obey the rules of Catholicism and the rules of the French government to be a moral person. On the other hand, if I was an American Baptist, I would have to follow the rules of the Baptist church and the rules of the American government. The closest morality gets to subjectivity is the fact you can find a society that happens to believe the same thing you do.
No.17176
>>17149You're confusing morality and ethics
No.17187
>>17134> Every gouverment has the DNA of everybody.Interesting conspiracy theory. Yet I'm positive they don't have the DNA of
everybody. Do you know how many people there are on Earth? About 7 billion. Why store 7 billion people's DNAs? Google's already struggling with the huge amount of personal data uploaded by the couple of about 540 million Google+ users, and Google is known to have plenty of storage.
No.17196
>>17176Ethics is the science of morality.
No.17231
>>17138Then what is?
>>17196>science>implying No.17251
No.17260
>>17251Implying that any ethica has ever been or will ever be worthy of being called scientific
No.17314
>>17231A legal affair and as such it falls in the ethics department because Ethics is what society sees as correct/incorrect and moral is what an individual sees as correct/incorrect
For example: In a country where gay marriage is ok there might be homophobes who see it as morally incorrect even when it could be deemed as something that isn't unethical
No.17315
>>13948>this is what faggots actually believe No.17322
>>17260If you use the scientific method, it's science, quit being elitist.
No.17326
>>17322Spinoza tried to find ethical truths in a method modeled off Euclid, but that doesn't make ethics geometry or math.
A key part of science is that it is primarily an empirical discipline. It relies on observation. Rationalism is a distant second. No serious ethical system can claim to have universal truths of what is ethical or not without being rational.
No.17333
>>17322If it's not falsifiable, it's pseudo-science at best. Stop taking opinion as fact.
No.17363
>>17333> If it's not falsifiable, it's pseudo-science at best.Science needn't yield falsifiable results (see String Theory, although it might some time in the future).
Science does have to yield logically sound results. E.g. theology is talking about God without even knowing whether He exists.
Oh wait, that's not science, it's one of the
humanities…
No.17365
>>17363>Science needn't yield falsifiable results (see String TheoryIt still needs to be falsifiable, and to qualify as more than mere conjecture, results need to be sought. See how much time is put into trying to devise experiments to check string theory's validity.
>E.g. theology is talking about God without even knowing whether He exists.>Oh wait, that's not science, it's one of the humanities…E.g. String theory is talking about sub-particular strings without even knowing whether they exist.
Oh, wait, that's not humanities, it's one of the sciences…
No.17397
>>17365> It still needs to be falsifiable, and to qualify as more than mere conjecture, results need to be sought.Well, probably depends on the notion of science one is using.
E.g. I also think maths is a science, but in maths everything is either true or false or unknown (conjecture), and something proven to be true isn't falsifiable anymore (unless you change the axiomatization).
On top of that, in favour of what are you arguing? Do you want to convey String Theory is a science or do you want to convey it's not?
No.17400
>>17397Maths does have falsifiability in much the same way as physics. Were one to find a triangle whose internal angles added up to something other than 180 degrees, you would falsify the claim that that is an intrinsic property of theirs and you would need to get a new model in place – non Euclidean geometry. Were you to find a case in which A*B and B*A were different, and so on, just to state some that have already occurred. These shifts are no more than the shifts which occurred when Aristotelean, Cartesian, and Newtonian models of physics were found to be incomplete pictures.
The key point is that you can say "The theory forbids Y. If Y occurs, then the theory has been disproved." In theology or ethics *cough* or feminism *cough*, however, you always end up with a situation in which any results are made to fit the theory – as the theories will be forced to fit any results, they cannot be disproved and are, therefore, unscientific.
Falsifiability's been the central focus of science since Popper.
>Do you want to convey String Theory is a science or do you want to convey it's not?I'm conveying that it is, and that it is theoretically falsifiable. My second part, with the comparison to theology, was merely demonstrating a flaw with your counter-claim about what science is.
No.17426
>>17400> Maths does have falsifiability in much the same way as physics. Were one to find a triangle whose internal angles added up to something other than 180 degrees, you would falsify the claim that that is an intrinsic property of theirs and you would need to get a new model in placeThat's what I meant by "unless you change the axiomatization". Getting a new model in place means, in maths, changing the axiomatization. In physics, on the other hand, the axioms are unchangeable (given by how the universe is), what changes is our knowledge about them. That's indeed a fundamental difference between maths and other sciences – that maths is all about intrinsic properties of models, while other sciences are all about finding such models which are appropriate.
> In theology or ethics *cough* or feminism *cough*, however, you always end up with a situation in which any results are made to fit the theoryMaybe that's what people do, but theology
is able to produce falsifiable results, e.g. "the Bible says that Jesus was married", which can easily be disproven by searching the entire Bible for such a passage.
In feminism, results aren't even produced. Feminism is barely more than reading invented claims into the fact that, in most respects, men and women are equal.
As far as ethics are concerned, I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be able to produce falsifiable results (whether it actually does or not). What you say however, that the results are made fit the theory, I would like to hear an example of.
> My second part, with the comparison to theology, was merely demonstrating a flaw with your counter-claim about what science is.So what was that flaw? That theology isn't a science because it is talking about God without knowing whether He exists, but String Theory is because it is talking about sub-particular strings without even knowing whether they exist? Or did you want to demonstrate that theology actually
is a science?
No.17434
I think you guys just proved that autism and pedophilia are related
No.17442
>>17434There might be some correlation, but I don't see a reason why there should be any.
No.17455
>>17426>Getting a new model in place means, in maths, changing the axiomatization. In physics, on the other hand, the axioms are unchangeable (given by how the universe is), what changes is our knowledge about them.In maths the axioms are unchangeable, what changes is our knowledge about them. We cannot chose to make them other. We cannot make 2+2=4 through an act of will. The axioms are just as set in both. Our understanding of the axioms is just as falsifiable in each.
>Maybe that's what people do, but theology is able to produce falsifiable results, e.g. "the Bible says that Jesus was married", which can easily be disproven by searching the entire Bible for such a passage.That counts as theology? It wouldn't fall under the umbrella as far as I know, as it is a statement about the nature of a book rather than about a god. The closest claim about a God (and, therefore, the closest theological claim) is that God got married – which is utterly unfalsifiable.
>In feminism, results aren't even produced.No. They aren't. Societal setups create results. If feminism were falsifiable, it would be able to predict the results. As it is not, it cannot.
>As far as ethics are concerned, I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be able to produce falsifiable results (whether it actually does or not). What you say however, that the results are made fit the theory, I would like to hear an example of.It is not falsifiable because it is based on a fundamental value judgement. If I say "Whatever provides the most utility is the most moral action", the closest that one can come to a refutation is finding a case where the claimant admits that this is not so; for him to admit that, however, he must asses that case in a way other than Utilitarianism to decide that it conflicts with Utilitarianism. Theories of good and evil, of purpose and so on, are matters of taste. They are just as unfalsifiable as the claim that one type of music is superior to another.
>So what was that flaw?The flaw is that it can't simultaneously classify String Theory as part of science (it is) and classify Theology as not (it isn't).
>>17434>Implying that there isn't a fuckton of autism on every imageboard out there No.17457
>>17455>religious beliefs and theory when systematically developed.>the bible is a book of religious significance>Biblical studies is the academic application of a set of diverse disciplines to the study of the Jewish and Christian scriptures, the Bible. For its theory and methods, the field draws on disciplines ranging from archaeology, literary criticism, history, philology, and social sciences>Many secular as well as religious universities and colleges offer courses in biblical studies, usually in departments of religious studies, theology, Judaic studies, history, or comparative literature. Biblical scholars do not necessarily have a faith commitment to the texts they study, but many do.The study of the bible and religious figures pertains to theology, take your semantics somewhere else because they aren't going to work here.
No.17466
>>17457>religious beliefs and theory when systematically developedIs that the definition you use for theology? I'd say, rather, that it is the study of the divine.
>The study of the bible and religious figures pertains to theology, take your semantics somewhere else because they aren't going to work here.It pertains to theology, but it is incapable of offering proof or disproof of a theological theory. Bible Studies and theology are different things, just related. Take your disingenuous bullshit somewhere else, because it isn't going to work here.
No.17471
>>17466>Is that the definition you use for theology? Actually that's the definition every dictionary uses.
>I'd say, rather, that it is the study of the divine.I'd rather stick with the universally accepted definition, as opposed to some anon's opinion.
>but it is incapable of offering proof or disproof of a theological theory.Aquinas is here to sit you right the fuck down.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/
>Take your disingenuous bullshit somewhere else, because it isn't going to work here.It worked completely, you've been blown out beyond hope of recovery. Leave, never come back.
No.17473
>>17455> In maths the axioms are unchangeable […] We cannot make 2+2=4 through an act of will.You can define an operation + : S × S → S for some set S containing both 2 and 4 in such a way that 2+2=4, or you can define it to be something else.
Axioms are "premises so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy" (according to Euklid it was, I think), but in maths, they are just assertions that state what is required of some mathematical objects to be useful for whatever you need them for.
E.g., probability theory is based on a collection of axioms that simply state what properties two sets and a mapping need to have in order to properly describe probabilities (where "properly" means "as intended by those who want to do something with them").
Let Ω be a set and A a subset of Ω's power set so that Ω ∈ A, (S ∈ A ⇒ Ω\S ∈ A), and (S1, S2, … ∈ A ⇒ (S1 ∪ S2 ∪ …) ∈ A), and let P : A → [0, 1] be a mapping with P(Ω) = 1 and P(S1 ∪ S2 ∪ …) = P(S1) + P(S2) + … for all S1, S2, … ∈ A which are pairwisely disjoint, then (Ω, A, P) is called a
probability space.
Those axioms state precisely what is considered a probability space, and any Ω, A, and P may be considered a probability space if and only if they fulfil them. And if there weren't any such Ω, A, P, any proposition that can be proven using the axioms would still be true for any Ω, A, P which fulfil the axioms. Any proposition that can be proven using the axioms is and will always be true for any Ω, A, P that fulfil the axioms. It needn't be true for Ω, A, P which don't fulfil them, but just by finding such Ω, A, P, you don't falsify anything, and nothing about our knowledge regarding the axioms is changed. You may state new axioms however which fit your needs more properly, but then you are talking about something entirely different and, of course, have to prove everything anew.
> The closest claim about a God (and, therefore, the closest theological claim) is that God got married – which is utterly unfalsifiable.In that respect, yes.
> Societal setups create results.What kind of results? As far as I'm concerned, "men are monsters" is surely a claim, but not a result. Apart from that, I do see your point.
> It is not falsifiable because it is based on a fundamental value judgement.Unless you manage to base that fundamental value judgement on something which is falsifiable. While I don't know whether this is possible, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't.
E.g. a popular argument against abortion: Based on the premises that (1) babies are human beings and (2) nobody must kill a human being, abortion must not be done. The first premise is falsifiable, while the second is not; that's the reason why most people who argue pro abortion attack the second one instead of the first. (There are some though who challenge, i.e. tried to falsify, the first one, e.g. Singer.)
> The flaw is that it can't simultaneously classify String Theory as part of science (it is) and classify Theology as not (it isn't).Ah, okay, I understand. Yes, if you reckon theology not a part of science (which is plausible; it's at least not a natural science), it fails in separating science and non-science.
No.17478
>>17473>that's the reason why most people who argue pro abortion attack the second one instead of the first. (There are some though who challenge, i.e. tried to falsify, the first one, e.g. Singer.)Most pro abortion advocates explicitly claim that fetuses are neither babies nor human beings.
No.17479
>>17478> Most pro abortion advocates explicitly claim that fetuses are neither babies nor human beings.That would be new to me, but still a (initially unconfirmed) claim.
(It's irrelevant which one of the two premises they challenge, if they were able to undoubtedly prove any of them wrong, they would have won. However Singer states in his work that most people who argue pro-abortion challenge the second premise; seems he doesn't even know his own side properly.)
No.17486
>>17471>Actually that's the definition every dictionary uses.Actually, it's one of the definitions that the dictionaries use, as theology can mean more than one thing. It is a useless definition in this context, as it does not refer to theology (the field of study).
>I'd rather stick with the universally accepted definition, as opposed to some anon's opinion.http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theologyHurf durf durf. The one I am using is one of the accepted definitions, and, unlike yours, renders your previous point valid (although still incorrect).
>Aquinas is here to sit you right the fuck down.Point me to a single one which doesn't rest on pure assumption and hasn't already had its logic torn apart. I dare you to try.
>It worked completely, you've been blown out beyond hope of recovery. Leave, never come back.Hue
>I'm going to retreat from all of my points and then say that I've blown you the fuck out because you haven't addressed my new points before I made them>>17473>You can define an operation + : S × S → S for some set S containing both 2 and 4 in such a way that 2+2=4, or you can define it to be something else.That's varying the definition of the plus sign, not challenging the axiom.
>but in maths, they are just assertions that state what is required of some mathematical objects to be useful for whatever you need them forTake out the "mathematical" and that's what they are in every field.
>You may state new axioms however which fit your needs more properly, but then you are talking about something entirely different and, of course, have to prove everything anew.This is completely analogous to the overturning of various falsified physical models, is it not?
>What kind of results? As far as I'm concerned, "men are monsters" is surely a claim, but not a result.A state of society. Not easily sortable data or a pithy line, but a set up leads to another, resultant, set up. That may be treated as an experimental result, just one of a nightmarish experiment from a reliability point of view.
>E.g. a popular argument against abortion: Based on the premises that (1) babies are human beings and (2) nobody must kill a human being, abortion must not be done.The major premise being falsified does not falsify that result, merely removes an explanation for it. It is completely possible that abortion is still wrong, but babies are not human beings, depending on the ethical code. So long as the overarching rules of wrong and right are undetermined, that will be the case for every moral stance. You can make an argument within the framework, but not challenge the framework itself upon logical grounds. That is the nature of axioms. Of course, all systems have axioms, but I would hold that in ethics there is not one set which is clearly more useful and therefore justifies its pre-eminence, as there are in maths and physics.
>>17479In my (very limited) experience the majority of arguments claim that they are not full human beings of themselves, as they are so dependant on the mother. Whether this classification of them as non-independent humans attacks the major or minor premise could be argued either way.
No.17490
>>17479The common perception in support of abortion is that abortion is ok specifically because you are not terminating the life of an 'actual' person.
No.17491
>>17486>as theology can mean more than one thing.So I take it this is your official recantation of the idea that the study of the bible, which is part of the system of christian religious beliefs, is not a part of theology, which is both the system of religious beliefs, and the study of those systems.
>It is a useless definition in this context, as it does not refer to theology (the field of study).That is some pretty pathetic grasping.
>Point me to a single one which doesn't rest on pure assumption and hasn't already had its logic torn apart. I dare you to try.1. point to me a string theory conjecture that doesnt utilize an assumption.
2. attempt to 'tear apart' a single one of his articles. I dare you to try.
>I'm going to retreat from all of my points and then say that I've blown you the fuck out because you haven't addressed my new points before I made themI directly refuted your points, with citations. You have nothing. You never will have anything. Leave, and never come back.
No.17494
>>17491>So I take it this is your official recantation of the idea that the study of the bible, which is part of the system of christian religious beliefs, is not a part of theologyI maintain that it is not a part of theology (the field of study).
>which is both the system of religious beliefs, and the study of those systemsThe word can be either of the two things, but your attempt at equivocating between the two did nothing but render your original claim pointless.
>That is some pretty pathetic grasping.>Pointing out that your claim has no bearing on the matter at hand is "pathetic grasping">Fuck arguments having to actually make logical sense
>1. point to me a string theory conjecture that doesnt utilize an assumption"You can make an argument within the framework, but not challenge the framework itself upon logical grounds. That is the nature of axioms. Of course, all systems have axioms, but I would hold that in ethics there is not one set which is clearly more useful and therefore justifies its pre-eminence, as there are in maths and physics."
>2. attempt to 'tear apart' a single one of his articles. I dare you to try.His five proofs for God's existence are right up near the top. Couple of minutes scanning them:
>First proof: Claims that there cannot be an unmoved mover other than God – unsubstantiated. "nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality", completely false.
>Second proof: All effects require an efficient cause – highly dubious, although in keeping with the science of the time.
>Third proof: "that which is possible not to be at some time is not" – is there supporting argumentation for this? He also fails to explain why everything would have to be "not" at the same time. "that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing" – untrue.
>Fourth proof: "Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things" – ho shiggy, no; fire is not the hottest thing, this very example disproves the point it is made in support of. Over all, this proof only proves God as something with absolute existence – it merely argues that something must exist for things to exist.
>Fifth proof: "We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way" – or, y'know, symmetry or the like could explain it.
>I directly refuted your points, with citations. You have nothing. You never will have anything. Leave, and never come back.You backed the fuck out of your definition to the point that you rendered your original point completely invalid. You are the one who has nothing; you don't even have a response to the point you were originally fighting. I still have that, and you have nothing that's stood up since.
Your attempt at defending your claim against falsifiability being a requirement for science almost half way up the thread has been shown to be nothing but false equivocation. Are you going to replace it with a valid point, are you going to admit that you were wrong, or are you planning on pulling so much spaghetti out of your pockets that I drown in it?
No.17505
>>17494>I maintain that it is not a part of theology (the field of study).The rest of the world maintains that it is. You are literally uninformed of the definition of theology, your uniformed opinion is worthless.
You complain that theology has no scientific merit because it utilizes assumptions, while yourself using uninformed and sweeping assumptions about theology, as well as the nature of scientific process itself.
You have an argument based on total ignorance, you've disproved nothing, you've convinced no one.
Leave, and never come back.
No.17506
>>17494>"nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality", completely falseCongratulations on making a claim and backing it up with…
>You backed the fuck out of your definition>implying that it's my definitionhttp://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/theology>religious beliefs and theory when systematically developed.
>Your attempt at defending your claim against falsifiability being a requirement for science>implying I have ever said this in any postYou are incapable of not resorting to outright lies to be able to participate in this discussion. Pathetic.
No.17511
>>17505>>17506>Literally too fucking thick to realise that one word can have multiple references.Holy shit, how fucking dense can you be?
>Congratulations on making a claim and backing it up with…Oh, sorry, I assumed that you had at least the knowledge of a non-retarded five year old. His example is that one needs something hot to make another thing hot. Take cold calcium chloride and introduce it to cold water. The result is certainly not cold.
>Your attempt at defending your claim against falsifiability being a requirement for science>implying I have ever said this in any post>You are incapable of not resorting to outright lies to be able to participate in this discussion. Pathetic.>Hurr durr it matters that the post I am defending on the anonymous imageboard wasn't made by me.
>Leave, and never come back.You scared of the big, intimidating thoughts swimming around and threatening to enter your head for once?
No.17513
>>17511>Holy shit, how fucking dense can you be?How much backtracking can you do?
Your claim was that the study of the bible does not pertain to theology.
>"the Bible says that Jesus was married", which can easily be disproven by searching the entire Bible for such a passage.>That counts as theology? It wouldn't fall under the umbrella as far as I knowAll definitions of theology state that bible study pertains to theology.
>His example is that one needs something hot to make another thing hot. Take cold calcium chloride and introduce it to cold water. The result is certainly not cold.Congratulations on not understanding what heat is. You cannot create energy from nothing, thus to energize something, you need energy. Hot is a relative term. In your example you're taking stored energy and converting it, which literally proves his point.
>Hurr durr it matters that the post I am defending on the anonymous imageboard wasn't made by me.>implying im defending a postContinuing your practice of outright lies and misrepresentation.
I could refute more of your pathetic claims, if you would like to continue making them.
No.17515
>>17513>Your claim was that the study of the bible does not pertain to theology.I misspoke, what I meant to say was, your claim is that bible study pertains to theology but is not theology.
All definitions state that bible study is an aspect of theology.
No.17525
>>13775It's a lie OP, his ass would have been anything but tight.
>why would anyone lie on the internet? No.17532
>>17486> That's varying the definition of the plus sign, not challenging the axiom.So what axiom are you talking about?
Your point was
> We cannot make 2+2=4 through an act of willwhich I addressed by pointing out the usual mathematical practice of doing exactly this. The new definition might – or might not – fit the axiom, whichever it was.
> Take out the "mathematical" and that's what they are in every field.Not in my understanding. In maths, you are free to choose any axiom set you would like to have. In other sciences, however, you must not simply choose what you like best – it has to be consistent with your observations of the world.
Of course you're right that stating the axioms having happened their usage is just the same. Yet while e.g. in physics an old axiomatization becomes obsolete as soon as it doesn't fit observations of the world anymore, in maths there are no such observations which could render an axiomatization "obsolete". The only reason why someone should not use an existing axiomatization but rather create a new one is that the existing ones aren't suitable for what that person wants to do. E.g., real numbers (with their axiomatization) were completely sufficient until someone wanted to have a value for the square root of –1.
There is no real number that could fulfil this purpose, so they had to extend the set of real numbers to a new set with a new axiomatization. That doesn't mean real numbers are wrong or obsolete – as long as they are sufficient for your needs, you use them. (They do also have useful axioms complex numbers don't have, e.g. linear order.)
Of course you're also right that most mathematicians don't choose their axiomatizations out of the blue but rather try to model some real-world relations. They don't have to, however.
> This is completely analogous to the overturning of various falsified physical models, is it not?In some respect, yes, but the point is that maths isn't bound to describing anything for which the old axiomatization doesn't work.
> A state of society.So you're basically saying that feminist "results" aren't falsifiable because they're states of society, right? So in what respect would a state of society need to be different in order to be "falsifiable"?
> The major premise being falsified does not falsify that result, merely removes an explanation for it.Of course, but that explanation could have been the last one. If the explanation is removed, those who want to maintain the consequence have to look for a new explanation. But that's a property of logic (implication) and not of ethics.
> So long as the overarching rules of wrong and right are undetermined, that will be the case for every moral stance.You could say the same about mathematical (or other) axiomatizations as well; there may always be propositions which are consistent with the axioms and whose negations are as well. E.g. parallel lines never crossing or being able to cross each other were both consistent with the axioms of geometry, which puzzled mathematicians until they figured out that it depends on further axioms imposed by the kind of space used, e.g. Euclidean or non-Euclidean geometry.
If you have an axiomatization from which you can derive propositions about what's right or wrong, there may still be propositions you can neither prove nor disprove, which means your axiomatization is incomplete, not that it is wrong.
>>17513
> You cannot create energy from nothingWrong. Take some hydrogen and some anti-hydrogen and bring them together. The result is, by annihilation energy is made from mass.
Yet, the law of mass-energy conservation is a physical axiom that needn't be true. It's been useful until now and no observation has suggested yet that it's untrue; thus, we behave as if it were true.
No.17542
>>17532>In maths, you are free to choose any axiom set you would like to have. In other sciences, however, you must not simply choose what you like best – it has to be consistent with your observations of the world.In maths, you choose what axioms are most useful. In other sciences you choose what axioms are most useful. Homer would be able to explain everything by invocation of his gods just as well as we can explain things by invocation of our science, but his gods are not so useful, as they are poor predictors at best, so we do not use his vocabulary any more.
>So you're basically saying that feminist "results" aren't falsifiable because they're states of society, right?No, I'm saying that it's because the theory permits anything. With a falsifiable social theory one should be able to say that conditions A B C lead to results X Y Z, and that if this is found not to be the case then the theory is wrong, even if it does have to be more vague than in, say, physics.
Patriarchy theory isn't falsifiable because there is no thinkable result that its proponents would accept as showing it to be wrong. You must have seen how they will bend any bias against men into some ass-backwards design of the Patriarchy, for instance?
>If the explanation is removed, those who want to maintain the consequence have to look for a new explanation. But that's a property of logic (implication) and not of ethics.Yes, but that shows the theory to be unproven, not untrue, no?
>You could say the same about mathematical (or other) axiomatizations as well; there may always be propositions which are consistent with the axioms and whose negations are as well. E.g. parallel lines never crossing or being able to cross each other were both consistent with the axioms of geometry, which puzzled mathematicians until they figured out that it depends on further axioms imposed by the kind of space used, e.g. Euclidean or non-Euclidean geometry.Yes, but what I am saying is that in such other disciplines, there are pre-eminent sets of axioms which are so much more useful that they are accepted as being "true" with a little "t", as consistent with the external world. Therefore, whilst the axiom choosing is theoretically free, it is in fact guided by the environment. A situation very much like in Rorty's "The Contingency of Language". In ethics such guidance is lacking, and so there is not the same division between correct axioms – which is essentially what the sciences seek out – and incorrect.
>Yet, the law of mass-energy conservation is a physical axiom that needn't be true. It's been useful until now and no observation has suggested yet that it's untrue; thus, we behave as if it were true.Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, solved for energy and time, claims that it isn't true; I seem to remember that this has also been observed in vacuum tubes, but I could be incorrect. It is certainly a dubious axiom at best.
No.17544
>>17513>How much backtracking can you do?>Your claim was that the study of the bible does not pertain to theology.>All definitions of theology state that bible study pertains to theologyI have not backtracked one bit. I pointed out that we seemed to be talking about different references of the ambiguous word "theology", and you have done nothing other than rant aimlessly ever since.
I do not disagree with you on your definition of theology (a system of beliefs), and you have not explicitly disagreed with me on theology (a field of study). All you are doing is making angry noises, not relevant points.
We were talking at cross purposes. That was pointed out many posts ago. How fucking hung up can you get on the ambiguities of language?
>You cannot create energy from nothing, thus to energize something, you need energy.False.
>In your example you're taking stored energySo, not heat.
>which literally proves his point.kek
>implying im defending a post>Continuing your practice of outright lies and misrepresentation.Calling into question the refutation of a point is a defence of said point.
>I could refute more of your pathetic claims, if you would like to continue making them.Refute more? The only coherent point you've made is that Aquinas shows that you can offer logical proofs or disproofs about the nature of god, and that got blown the fuck out with a couple of minutes' reading.
Please, go ahead, show one of my claims that you refuted, and a successful refutation of yours. Have fun searching. Try not to have an aneurysm when you can't find one.
No.17545
>>17542> In maths, you choose what axioms are most useful. In other sciences you choose what axioms are most useful.Oh, well, if you break the comparison down to this level, you're right. Then, however, the sentence is also true when substituting "feminism": "In feminism, you choose what axioms are most useful." (They do – they choose those which are most useful for their purposes.)
> No, I'm saying that it's because the theory permits anything.Maybe I can understand your point better if you give an example. Currently I'm pretty clueless regarding what's a "theory", what's a "result" etc. when talking about feminism.
> Patriarchy theoryI'm not even sure what exactly this is supposed to be. The notion that men are superior?
> Yes, but that shows the theory to be unproven, not untrue, no?Yes, that's right. However, an unproven theory is as good/bad as an untrue theory when it comes to (scientifically correct) usefulness. I.e., if I cannot prove (empirically) that String Theory strings exist, Occam's Razor requires me to assume they don't.
> In ethics such guidance is lackingUltimately… yes; unless you take it as a science dealing with what (ethical) norms human civilizations have developed independently of each other, but that would probably be anthropology.
> Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, solved for energy and time, claims that it isn't trueI'm not sure about this. (I'm not a physicist.) What you're remembering could be what is known as vacuum energy; which is actually a somewhat theoretical and (so far) nearly only mathematically derivable something as experiments didn't match the theory's predictions (but no-one knows whether there were uncertainties due to the way the experiments were conducted).
No.17547
>>17544There is nothing ambiguous about the word and even suggesting there is, is literally backtracking in itself.
>All you are doing is making angry noises, not relevant points.I have directly contradicted your core disagreements and you have yet to to have been successful in defending any of them.
>False.Backed up by nothing, a completely empty claim, literally 'angry noises.'
You have no clue about the most basic premises and concepts of energy and matter.
Jesus this is the most pathetic attempt at refuting me imaginable, I'm, actually disgusted that you would stoop this low out of pure spite.
Jesus christ, you're a complete non human.
No.17548
>>17544>So, not heat.'Heat' is literally energy.
No.17549
>>17532>by annihilation energy is made from mass.Mass is energy.
No.17559
>>17545>Then, however, the sentence is also true when substituting "feminism": "In feminism, you choose what axioms are most useful." (They do – they choose those which are most useful for their purposes.)Well, that depends on what you take to be their purpose. If, as stated, it is gender equality, ending of gender stereotypes yadda yadda yadda, no, they don't, they refuse to even consider it.
>Maybe I can understand your point better if you give an example. Currently I'm pretty clueless regarding what's a "theory", what's a "result" etc. when talking about feminism.Fair enough, I wasn't very clear. The theory is Patriarchy theory (which I'll talk about in the response to next bit). The "results" being discussed are not results of feminism, but merely society going about its normal business.
Example:
Due to history, evolution, &c, we have a current society (the resultant setup) in which men suffer far harsher rulings from the courts. Feminists use the theory – Patriarchy theory – to explain why this is so. In other systems where the opposite happens and women suffer the harsher judgement (different resultant setups in different countries), they use the same theory to explain those results. This is not limited to this case, however, as they have developed the theory in such a way that they can make any thinkable setup fit their theory.
>I'm not even sure what exactly this is supposed to be. The notion that men are superior?Well, it's quite developed and convoluted, but it essentially boils down to "gender inequality is because men (as a Marxist-style whole) oppress women (also as a homogeneous cohort). There are a few horrifyingly obvious flaws with it, but it is a very dominant paradigm.
>Yes, that's right. However, an unproven theory is as good/bad as an untrue theory when it comes to (scientifically correct) usefulness.Theories are not proved, but disproved. If you can show that String Theory matches the results more closely, it is used, if not, not. That is a choice based on usefulness, which is what I am contending that ethics cannot make (at least between many of the contending theories).
>I'm not sure about this.Well, some experiments have very strongly shown other results of the theory, but, yes, it is not proven beyond doubt. It is, however, a nice demonstration that the axiom is very much questionable.
>>17547>There is nothing ambiguous about the word and even suggesting there is, is literally backtracking in itself.The word has several fucking different meanings. It shouldn't be ambiguous, as which meaning was being used should be obvious from context; somehow you did manage to get it wrong, so there is obviously a degree of ambiguity there.
>I have directly contradicted your core disagreements and you have yet to to have been successful in defending any of them. Fucking where? It is quite revealing that you haven't provided an example like I asked you to. You made one salient point, about Aquinas, and it got BTFO. Other than that, you've just been equivocating hopelessly between two different things. Please just STFU and leave the responding to my posts to the guy above, as he can actually carry a train of thought for more than a post.
>Backed up by nothing, a completely empty claim, literally 'angry noises.'>You have no clue about the most basic premises and concepts of energy and matter. >Jesus this is the most pathetic attempt at refuting me imaginable, >I'm, actually disgusted that you would stoop this low out of pure spite.Backed up by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which is literally the core concept of quantum theory. If you don't know shit about physics, then that's alright, but don't go shooting your mouth off arrogantly about it to those who, say, did quantum theory in their degree.
>>17548'Heat' is energy, but 'energy' is not necessarily heat. Go and look at the article. He wasn't talking about all energy, he was talking specifically about heat. In fact, even were he to have meant energy, we could use the example of heat to disprove his claim anyway.
No.17581
>>17549Mass
equals energy, that's a big difference.
Most importantly, mass can be measured directly, while energy is merely a theoretical concept that serves (quite well) to explain relations and connections between measurable happenings. Energy cannot be measured directly, although we do have a unit of measurement for "energy" (or "work").
>>17559> If, as stated, it is gender equality, ending of gender stereotypes yadda yadda yadda, no, they don't, they refuse to even consider it.?
> men suffer far harsher rulings from the courts. Feminists use the theory – Patriarchy theory – to explain why this is so. In other systems where the opposite happens […], they use the same theory to explain those results.So if I understood this correctly, both the event of a man being sentenced to death in America because he's believed to have abused and killed his daughter, while his wife who was the real molester isn't even accused, and the event of a woman being beheaded without trial in Saudi-Arabia because she's believed to have abused and killed her daughter would be explained in the same way by feminists, namely by attributing the harsh sentences to men oppressing women?
Would feminists even bother uttering an explanation for the former event?
> Theories are not proved, but disproved.Strictly speaking, yes – yet the manner of speaking "prove a theory" is widely used.
> which is what I am contending that ethics cannot make (at least between many of the contending theories)In that respect, yes. I read this as "usefulness of ethical theories or propositions cannot be measured or at least traded off between different such theories". Which sounds on the one hand legitimate, while on the other hand I wonder whether it's the case or not that people usually choose for themselves those ethical theories which are most useful to them.
No.17588
>>17581>?Their model does not explain how "Patriarchy" arises in the first place, nor how to deal with it. Their tactics have seemingly reached a dead end, as gender equality has made essentially no progress over the last couple of decades. An alternative underlying theory, such as differences in empathy towards males and females, has more explicative and predictive power, and offers clear-cut solutions. They refuse to even countenance it.
>Would feminists even bother uttering an explanation for the former event? Yeah, they admit that men suffer from bias too, but it's the Patriarchy's fault.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvYyGTmcP80 No.17589
>>17588Oops, I accidentally a line break there. Only the first sentence is supposed to be greentext.
No.21987
Holy shit this thread is still here.
No.21988
>>13775
Eat it or fuck it? We've all been there.
No.21989
>Getting a new model in place means, in maths, changing the axiomatization. In physics, on the other hand, the axioms are unchangeable (given by how the universe is), what changes is our knowledge about them.
Not if the Em Drive Just Werks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No.22062
>>13775
"you fuck me pal, now i drop your "ectoplasm" from my ass for all eternity, the other ghosts call me "hansel" what kind of scary sound is "splorg"? i'm gonna haunt you FOREVER"
No.22112
>>13775
What an idiot, that's how you get cursed.
No.22154
Questions on necrophilia are quite perplexing since we would like to say that it was once a human, yet we know deep in our minds that they are not people anymore. Theoretially a dead body is nothing more than a piece of dust, but we make a big deal out of them by making graves etc. It's something to wonder about.
>>14402
>>14405
Nothing should have to be normalized in the first place. It is just human irrationality that sees things as "normal" or "abnormal." But such concepts shouldn't even exist in the first place.
No.22169
>>22154
>It is just human irrationality that sees things as "normal" or "abnormal."
It's not irrational, it's a vital part of society. How would anyone know how to act in public without a sense of what is normal?
No.22187
>>22169
It's normal to have a violent disdain for all pedophiles. Is it rational? Is it vital for society?
No.22189
>>22169
What you're talking about is a sense of what is acceptable. The irrationality comes in when people think that normal and abnormal has anything to say about how good or bad something is. Same thing goes for natural and unnatural. It's clearly demonstrated by just picking one of many examples: extraordinary generosity, friendliness and helpfulness. They're not normal, but they're good. Medicine is not "natural" (although honestly saying that anything is unnatural is nonsensical) and yet it is a good thing. It's not irrational to have a sense of right and wrong, it's irrational when you think you can infer right and wrong from normality.
No.22191
>>22187
Sort of. Without the norm that pedophilia is bad, people would hit on little girls in broad daylight and then not know why they are being assaulted by parents, who themselves would not know why they are so angry. Having a clear understanding of what is acceptable and normal allows people to interact with each other properly.
No.22223
>>22191
Not tolerating pedophilia does not mean literally assaulting pedophiles as you are describing.
Hate is quite normal, but it is never rational.
No.22229
>>22223
It's rational to try to protect your children from attackers.
No.22230
>>22229
It's not rational to consider someone using words to have a conversation is an attacker, and even if you do irrationally consider them an attacker they are certainly not one you need to use physical violence against.
You aren't attacking pedophiles to protect children, you're attacking pedophiles because you hate them. Hatred is never rational.
No.22232
>>22230
Flirting with a child in front of her parents might be considered fighting words.
>There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.
No.22249
>>22232
>Flirting with a child in front of her parents might be considered fighting words.
To an irrational person. For a rational person the only fighting words are "I'm going to fight you."
There are no words in existence that "by their very utterance inflict injury" and the only person who is inciting a breach of the peace is the person using their fists because someone said something they don't like.
I'm not going to flirt with children in front of their parents because that's ridiculous behavior, but if I were to and the parent were to attack me, they would end up on the ground for I am stronger than they are and that's what would give me the confidence to flirt with their child in front of them in the first place.
No.22269
>>22232
>There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem.
There's no constitutional problem with legally preventing conversation?
No.22279
>>22249
>if I were to and the parent were to attack me, they would end up on the ground for I am stronger than they are and that's what would give me the confidence to flirt with their child in front of them in the first place.
The fuck?
No.22280
>>22269
The right to free speech does not encompass all speech. Saying, "your child is hot," is asking to be punched in the face and the law recognizes that.
No.22283
>>22280
no, actually you are dead wrong. dead as in shot in the face in legal self defense. there are more countries in the world besides australia.
No.22288
>>22280
The right to free speech does not encompass all speech. Saying, "your child is hot," is asking to be punched in the face and the law recognizes that.
>punched in the face
>law
You might wanna look that up, buddy.
No.22294
>>22288
>>22283
At the very least, you could get a restraining order for harassment and probably put on some sex offender registry.
No.22296
>>22288
Don't be an autist. Your right to free speech is nothing but lines on paper, and every jury in the world would accept the parent's defense that any "reasonable" person would take that as a threat. If you did fight back, you'd be tossed in jail on trumped up charges and rot in prison. And you absolutely cannot answer a punch to the face with homicide in any civilized nation, not even in Texas. And you're a pedo. No one will champion you. We may as have no rights. If the can't get a prison conviction, they'll a nice to sign off on civil commitment.
Drop the chip from your shoulder and look around you. The rights you value so much will do absolutely nothing to protect you. Deal with it and stop trying to act retarded. I actually support the parent in this scenario because you would be being a rude asshole.
No.22298
>>22296
No they wouldn't, and you'd be completely defended in kicking their shit in the moment they step to you, but that's ultimately besides the point, so don't be an autist yourself.
This is a discussion about normality vs. rationality. Laws are obviously normative, but it's also obvious that not all laws are rational.
No.22300
>>22298
Fine, go try it then. Go tell some mother in the park that her 5yo daughter is sexy, and when she hits you with her purse and cries rape, knock the shit out of her. If you end up making the $1,000,000 bond for stalking, harassment, battery, attempted rape, and 500 counts of resisting arrest, report back here on whether the DA is even willing to entertain charges against the woman.
I'll be waiting warmly.
No.22301
>>22300
>and when she hits you with her purse and cries rape, knock the shit out of her.
it's really cute that you decided to strawman this desperately over a post. obviously self defense is proportional. you cant destroy someones face or choke them out or something for swatting you with their purse but you can knock a fool down for trying to attack you no matter what you said. period.
keep getting more goofy and idiotic bro, working wonders for your case here
No.22507
>>13775
the thirst is real for that nigga….
No.22515
>>13775
>he
That's the only thing wrong with this text
No.26583
>>17128
>>17129
Considering that OP's entire city was (allegedly) just wiped off the map by a natural disaster I believe the authorities would have bigger matters on their hands.
No.27175
Sounds like a fap story to me, I don't think he actually did it. TBH I have similar fantasies.
No.27765
>>27175
Yeah, I still find it hard to believe that a fucking F5 tornado left the kid's body in pristine condition other than a broken neck.