/lit/ - Literature

Here's an excerpt from the book to give you an idea of the subject matter

>>20164943
so it's like if you give a mouse a cookie?

>>20164956
The title is reference to that, but this is not a children's book

>>20164943
Interesting. Downloaded and will read once i put it on my kindle

>>20164943
If you review Gang Weed the Movie I'll review this, our works are approximately the same length. What's your email address?

>still calling them gays
You're still not there, the correct word is sodomites.

>>20165125
Holy shit, send that over right now: flightcoper@yahoo.com

>>20165179

>>20164951
didn't bother with a proofreader huh?

>>20165173
'One who engages in sodomy', rather, because they do not deserve the privlege of being a category of being.

>>20164943
Contemporary LGBT ideology is a product of the scientistic, positivistic worldview, and as such, no instrumentalist critique is adequate to surpass it. It will only be sublated.

>>20164951
These look like the same talking points you'd hear from Mike Enoch, Eric Striker, etc. What makes your book unique?

>>20165200
The uncertainty of victory is not a reason to forgo the attempt.

>>20165203
I don't know who those guys are, so I couldn't tell you how similar their points are to mine. What I can say is that my book does not hold anything back or engage in any form of self-censorship.

>I’ll ask you this: What’s easier to believe? Is it
easier to believe that men and women are inherently different and have different natural
gender roles, or it easier to believe that gender roles are socially constructed and that the
vast majority of all human societies just so happened to socially construct the same gender roles?
The feminists will not like this!

>>20164951
why would you put quotation marks around "transphobe" but not the others?
>>20165244
(You) sound like there's a big gay bee in your bonnet. Keep seething.

>>20164943
Do you write anything about gay men and their predatory behavior toward younger straight men? When in my late teens and early 20s I was one of the extremely rare hetero young men acting on stage, in a major Midwestern city in the US, and I was constantly being sexually harassed by gay men, especially older ones, when i initially sought them out as mentors. They did this in spite of the fact that I was a known heterosexual and despite the fact that there was usuall a 30+ year age difference. They were constantly pressing me and trying to get me to do things, so much that I ended up quitting and becoming a teacher after a few years, and now I work in an unrelated field. I unironically became homophobic because of it and now I'm like a southern boomer.

>>20165316
I did write about their predatory behavior, but I was focusing on the pedophilic nature of it. I didn't specifically cover the fact that they target straight men in their 20s

>>20165244
>Have you ever heard the saying "The exception proves the rule"?...
no, there is no such saying. yes, there are people who say it, but the correct saying is "the exception disproves the rule". it has a very different meaning. that's the thing with sayings, people often misuse them or quote them incorrectly.
another example is, "the proof is in the pudding". well maybe it is. but the correct saying is, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". otherwise how would you know if the proof was actually in there?
i used to know someone who would frequently say, "there are none so blind as those that cannot see". well of course there aren't. if you cannot see, you're fucking blind, idiot. the correct version is "there are none so blind as those that will not see". it's a stupid saying anyway- it is basically the person saying "i am prone to the illusion of asymmetric insight".
anyway if you're the person who wrote this, basically you're an idiot.

>>20165421
You want so desperately to sound smart and above everything, but if you don't fact check before posting you end up looking like an imbecile. The "exception proving a rule" has been part of accepted English for so long the preeminent Plato translator Jowett even opined on it.
In any event, the point is moot because you're trying to argue against common vernacular, and in the process, making yourself look like either an elitist pseud or an oblivious ESL. Yes, the language is being perverted, no, your insistence on using archaic turn of phrase isn't going to stop it.
Not the guy you were replying to, but I hope that much is at least obvious.

Seems like a lot of schizo ranting. You use “they” a lot, particularly they in opposition to you. Paranoid. Instead of ranting about silencing dissent, globohomo gay corporate agenda and all that other discussed to death shit, do some deeper research and thinking.

>>20165479
>Yes, the language is being perverted, no, your insistence on using archaic turn of phrase isn't going to stop it.
you're right anon, we should just allow it to happen. resistance is futile and all that. anyway, keep up the histrionic bitching; i could care less.

>>20165538
>i could care less
Now you're getting it!

This is the second book I've seen released to /lit/ in the last month which is apparently nothing more than a conservative schizo screed. As near as I can tell, both you and the author of "Polemics" have apparently done nothing more than look at a bunch of memes on /pol/ and then spent a lot of time thinking about them and getting yourself really worked up, and then typed up an borderline incoherent manifesto about why you hate liberals. And then you came to 4chan in order to promote it. I don't remember any other titles, but these are fairly common. You see about two or three of these a year.

May I ask what exactly is your motivation for writing this? Who is your intended audience? And what sort of reaction were you hoping to receive?

The only way I could imagine taking the time to write something like this is if I thought either a)there was some huge portion of the 4chan userbase who were undecided about LGBT issues or b)I thought 4chan unanimously agreed with my ideas but they needed some sort of rallying call to bring them to action. But a moment of reflection would prove both of these false. Everyone here thinks gays are annoying, and there are far better books on the same topic which already have established mainstream audiences. So, I really have to wonder: are you stupid?

>>20165581
My motivation for writing this was that there is almost nobody speaking out against the LGBT crowd, and I felt like saying my piece on the matter. The intended audience? Anyone who has started to think "Man, I'm getting real tired of these gays" to themselves. You say that there are far better books on the subject which are already mainstream, but I seriously doubt that there's any mainstream book that lays out the problem as black and white as I did. In case you hadn't noticed, being pro-LGBT is the norm. That's what's mainstream. What mainstream anti-LGBT books are there? Irreversible Damage, a half-hearted tranny apologist letter from a Jew, and what else?

>>20164951
This is a plebeian understanding of the aversion to debate and the psyche underlying it. You write like a poorly socialised American 14 year old and I feel a great deal of pity for you.

>>20164951
>incel
Hahaha haha fucking outed yourself.

>>20165244
>Yeah, I am generalising
Cool, I can not bother reading the rest then.

>>20165629
Gang weed here, emailed you.

I'll read and give suggestions for free, but if you send me a copy, I'll spend a day and edit the whole thing for $10. Your grammar is fucked, but the overall idea is strong. After proofreading I could see it being sold on Amazon.

Also, replace the Sam Hyde quote with

Socrates: What if he scratches only his head -- or what am I to ask you further? See what you'll answer if somebody asked you one after the other every question that comes next. And isn't the climax of this sort of thing, the life of catamites, a frightfully shameful and miserable one? Or will you have the nerve to say that they are happy as long as they have what they need to their hearts' content?

I am a channer, but most people have no idea who Sam Hyde is, and references to ancient Greece will make Marxists seethe with rage.

>>20164951
>A very moderate position to take would be to say that the most anyone should face for voicing their concerns is having the concerns of others voiced back to them, but these people could not content themselves with even that.
Absolute garbage prose

>>20165244
>Majority of gays fit the description
Based on what metrics?

>>20165200
Literal nonsense.

>>20164951
If I voice the concern that your continued existence is an intolerable threat to the fabric of society and that you and your family should be violently raped to death by rabid dogs in public would this still apply?
Delete the entire book, read more and then try again. You are an embarrassment to your parents.

>>20164943
Not a single sentence stating you problems with homosexuals, what they are based on and the ethical and ontological significance. Absolute delusional schizo rant.

>>20164943
>>20164951
Why would I waste my time and energy reading one of the longest /pol/ ramblings in existence?
If you can give a simple, non-retarded single-sentence answer to my question, I MIGHT consider reading it:
>Who is "they?"

>>20164943
I admire your open source attitude. keep it up!

Homo is heresy

>>20165173
>tfw the first suggestion of the Sodomite's sin being homosexuality is by Philo of Alexandria in the first century CE
>a Jew trying to distance himself and Judaism in general from Hellenistic culture which was trying to assimilate other cultures
And Christians, who are just Greekoids larping as Jews without circumcision, still act like homosexuality matters at all in the Bible.

>>20165670
Personal experience from /pol/ exclusively. Or any of pic related.

>>20165179
He posts that shit here regularly. It's awful.

>>20166589
filtered

>>20166588
got some hot gay shit here

>>20164951
Imagine being so devoid of self-awareness that you write this. I haven't seen trolling of this caliber in forever, I commend you, OP.

>>20166589
>imagine having an opinion

lol, faggot. Opinions are gayer than AIDS.

>>20166619
If you want to listen to somebody parrot propaganda, you should read HotIncestStory.jpg instead

>>20164943

Hey OP, I write edgelord shit too, and I write gay smut. Nobody gives a fuck about the edgelord shit, but they will at least read the gay smut. You're wasting your time, effort, energy and money thinking that anyone will read that shit.

Realize that your "target audience" consists of largely illiterate subhumans who can just go into their local echo chamber and get force-fed the exact same shit you're trying to sell them, for free, by the federal government, any day of the fucking week, any time, any place. There's no audience there.

>>20165173
>You're still not there, the correct word is sodomites.

Found the fucking heretic. Sodomy is all non-reproductive intercourse. This includes heterosexual oral, heterosexual anal, heterosexual condom use, heterosexual birth control use, heterosexual child abuse, bestiality, necrophilia, heterosexual pull-out method, and all other forms of non-reproductive sexual intercourse.

The term "sodomite" does not exclusively refer to the gays, and in all irony, despite the double transgender couples being sentenced to death by God, the fact that they reproduce and can create children means that transman x transwoman sex is not sodomy.

If you're not stoning the men with condoms and the children on birth control to death, then congratulations, you're a heretic, and you're going to hell.


t. Catholic

>>20166618
Why is God's holy name would I read that shit? Don't ever reply to my posts again, bitch.

>>20166512
"They" are the LGBT community.

>>20166686
Can you define LGBT community?

>>20166687
The lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders that have politized their sexuality.

>>20166689
That's pretty vague, are they in cahoots or something? What does it even mean to politicize (I assume that's what you meant by "politized") one's sexuality? And what makes non-straight politicized sexuality worse than politicized straight sexuality?

>>20164951
Who is "they"? Goddamn trash, my man.

>>20166694
I think you're asking this in bad faith. Straight sexuality is not politicized, and it doesn't have to be because being straight is the natural state of being that's biologically programmed into us. What do I mean by saying that LGBT people politicize their sexuality? I mean that they associate sexual deviancy with progressiveness, and in doing so they attach a political connotation to those sexualities.

>tfw no mormon twinks have ever knocked on my door

>>20166719
>Straight sexuality is not politicized
You seem to be making a political screed about the non-political nature of straight sexuality, which is quite a political statement about straight sexuality. Especially as you seem to be putting out at odds with politicised sexualities, which is weird for something that isn't political. Maybe you should develop that thought, and explain how it is possible for a thing that is political to be at odds with something that isn't. For example, I don't think being gay is at odds with say, the law of gravity. Or electromagnetism, or the nuclear forces.

>>20165685
It’s really not. Instrumentalist critiques are essentially contingent. If you argue, for example, that homosexuality is bad because it spreads disease, you have not shown that homosexuality is bad — homosexual acts that do not spread disease (which, thanks to modern antivirals, is a happily a growing number) are not implicated. If you argue that most pedophilia is same-sex, you have not shown that homosexuality is bad — the millions of active homosexuals who would never touch kids are not implicated. If you argue that homosexuality undermines society, but have given no non-contingent, non-instrumentalist reason why it’s bad, people of good will are going to say, well, this is a society that punishes people for no good reason, and maybe this society needs to be undermined in order to correct this injustice.
A corollary here is that within the instrumentalist, positivistic worldview, there is *no good reason* to believe homosexuality is bad, in itself. Any downside you can come up with can be separated from the act.
Therefore, not only is this not good criticism, but people of good will are correct in rejecting it and thinking you are nothing more than a bigot.
Of course, there are good reasons to reject homosexual acts, but you need to get past positivism to see them.

>>20166719
Straight sexuality is politicized just as much as non-straight sexuality, arguably even more so. Even treating it as the societal norm is a political stance.
You don't seem equipped to even discuss this informally, let alone write a book on it.

>>20166774
>Of course, there are good reasons to reject homosexual acts
I'm curious.

>>20166774
Thank you for explaining yourself. I now understand your point. Well put.

>>20165421
He doesn’t pass

>>20166791
There are two main ways. I find the second more appealing but ymmv.
The first is in the natural law tradition. Everyone has some sense of sexual ethics, believing some forms of sex are good, and others bad. It’s usually quite easy to show that the main, modern sexual-ethical systems devolve into contradictions or are forced into endorsing sex acts towards which the advocate had initially thought themselves to be opposed. The natural law tradition poses the unitive (oneness-in-love) and procreative (openness-to-life) properties as the criterion for ethical sex, and it tends to be much more solid ground to defend.
While the natural law is philosophically sound, I don’t think this line of reasoning actually satisfies people’s needs *as people*. If you are a same-sex attracted person, even if you are persuaded of the inadequacy of modern sexual ethics and the rational superiority of the natural law tradition, where does that leave you? Not anywhere fulfilling.
Gay people are people, and people have a profound need for fulfillment. This leads us to our second way, which is the way of encounter. It can’t be achieved except by experience, but any person can experience it — it is the moment of realization that “self-gift” is the supreme law of the universe, permeating every aspect of the cosmos, down to the innermost parts of our being, and that true fulfillment lies in living in oneness with this supreme law (who is also a person). You can’t argue someone into this encounter, you can only love them and accompany them on their way to it, but once you’ve had it, it becomes a lifelong mission to free yourself from anything which holds you back from complete self-gift. This may be your desire for sexual pleasure, gay or straight, but it’s always other things, as well.
I think the second is the best way, but it involves people and their real lives rather than abstractions and arguments, and can’t be used as a political slogan, so it sadly doesn’t get as much attention. Fortunately, orthodox same-sex Catholics (and other Christians) are becoming less rare, so it’s getting a bit easier.

>>20164951
hahahahahaha
>>20164962
no, it is a children's book

>>20167093
Did you know that homosexuality (of both sexes) has been observed both in all forms of natural life, as well as in almost all human cultures prior to the development of Christianity's depraved sexual mores, or (by extension) the colonial project which exported late-European sexual values even when Christianity wasn't involved?
If there is anything unnaturally constructed in modern society regarding homosexuality, it is the notion that homo- and hetero-sexualities exist in a binary, mutually exclusive relationship.
I find this interesting, by ymmv.

>>20167319
I suspect you are operating under a misunderstanding of what is meant by natural law. For example, rape is observed in many animals, and all human cultures. It is, nonetheless, against the natural law.

>>20164951
I can write a better paragraph than this off the top of my head. I agree with the sentiment man but this is just bad...

>>20165629
>I seriously doubt that there's any mainstream book that lays out the problem as black and white as I did
You act as though your inability to understand nuance was a quality more people should share in.

>>20166643
Based if your understanding of sodomy is true. Yes, agree, we shouldn't encourage the separation of sex and conception. It leads to destruction always.

>>20167382
It's quite hard to argue for the equivalence of rape and homosexual acts (one being against a person, with observable trauma, the other having to be against a nebulous system of being in society, with necessarily many influences, that would have to be parsed and disentangled in order to prove the damage).

>>20165244
You should have started with the Greeks anon. Homosexuality is traditional and redpilled

>>20167382
>rape
>against the natural law
At this point, "natural law" is a misnomer at best, and an attempt to smuggle in assumptions at worst.

>>20165629
>I seriously doubt that there's any mainstream book that lays out the problem as black and white as I did
Your book is not mainstream and never will be. I agree with every point you've made but a) you're never going to get this published, b) your target demographic (conservatives who read but haven't read anything similar that's better written) is crazy small, and c) accepting homosexuality is mainstream now, so you'd need a major societal reversal to ever be mainstream. I'm glad you're taking a stand and writing, but there's a reason nothing like this is mainstream.

>>20167874
>and an attempt to smuggle in assumptions at worst.
That's what you're doing. Nature does not mean "everything that happens", otherwise we would use the term "everything that happens."

>>20166689
Incorrect. It was politicised for them by republicabs and other Conservative governments who see a bell to ring. The right talk about trannies exponentially more than anyone else, wanting to exist free of harrasment and prejudice is not a political statement unless it is made so by opposition.

>>20166719
Homosexuality is a natural state of being, hence being observed in animals. There is no such thing as deviancy among consent adults, you simply aren't well read enough to understand the issues.

>>20167093
Absolute word vomit. Provide ontological underpinnings for either of these without hinting at divinity or scripture.

>>20167989
>There is no such thing as deviancy among consent adults
Yes, there is. One other example is cannibalism. You seem to not be well read enough to comprehend what deviancy means and implies.
>Homosexuality is a natural state of being, hence being observed in animals.
Natural state of being != a merely observed happening. Some humans are born missing large portions of their brain and die shortly after - this is not a natural state of being. Some animals (and even humans) cannibalize their young - this is not a natural state of being. Not only are events and actions not states of being, but if we understand by "nature": "everything which happens or could ever conceivably happen", the word is no longer even a word, it loses all meaning. We can now assert, because everything is natural, that because it's natural for natural law to arise in human minds, that natural law is thus correct in its own way.

>>20164951
Holy shit, man

>>20168030
>cannibalism
Cannibalism is not consensual, the mentally ill cannot give consent to such things.
>Word vomit blah blah blah
Sophistry. Make an actual argument.

>>20168030
I don't think you understand what state of being means.

>>20164943
>I wank to dom top shemale porn and hate myself for it, down with faggots!

>>20164951
This shit sucks man

>>20168030
> Some animals (and even humans) cannibalize their young - this is not a natural state of being.
Why not, exactly? In certain animals it is a common and genetically encoded behaviour. By what metric is it not ‘natural’? As far as I can understand, when people are talking about natural law on here they insist that by ‘natural’ they do not mean simply ‘occurring in nature without intervention’ but something more like ‘teleologically intended’ (which makes natural law arguments seem rather ineffective to the non-theist or deist) and yet they insist that for some reason behaviours that are programmed into certain organisms not ‘natural’

>>20168120
They usually mean something akin to naturalistic, which is a ridiculous point to make in a smartphone.

>>20168076
>Cannibalism is not consensual,
It can be, and that was the type of cannibalism I was referring to, which I thought was obvious. I probably should've added "voluntary", which is outlawed and naturally viewed as deviant (and still occurs in the world).
>Sophistry
Calling things sophistry without engaging is not an argument. I could say the same to you.
>>20168082
How so?
>>20168120
>Why not, exactly?
Because it is not what they are by nature.
>In certain animals it is a common and genetically encoded behaviour.
In some animals it is natural to live underwater. That is their nature, not our nature, or the nature of any creature which does not live underwater.
>and yet they insist that for some reason behaviors that are programmed into certain organisms not ‘natural’
Because nothing is "programmed into animals" as though they are computers, this is a completely modern invention and even smells of some weird sort of theistic causal determinism (which is more or less the same as Darwinian causal determinism). Animals and things have ends, and how well they attain these are dependent on contingent factors (the countless vicissitudes of time and chaos), these factors are what most people in the thread confuse with "nature."

>>20164943
Read about half of the book.
Good work so far. I especially like that you start off in Chapter 1 by showing several real life incidents of those sodomites doing their thing.
This already dispells leftoid arguments like "NOTHING IS HAPPENING, ITS ALL JUST EVIL REACTIONATY PROPAGANDA!!!!" which is a crucial thing to show to normies who need to be exposed to the truth.
Also your prose is good enough for its intended pupose and easy to understand. After all you aren't writing a top-tier eloquent and nuanced novel, so don't be bothered too much by those pseuds here mocking you because your prose isn't Nabokov-tier.
One big thing I'd like to critique however is your use of the words "natural" and "unnatural".
It would be wiser to use "unhealthy" or "dysgenic" to describe LGBT. By saying that it is unnatural you provide your enemies with ammunition to dismiss you as some ignorant buffoon:
"Look that dumb chud does not know that homosexuality is happening in nature among animals!!! As expected from a bigot!"
Leftoids in this very thread are already doing this by arguing sematics about ontology and what can be considered as "natural".
There is also no need to delve deep into philosophical concepts when it comes to a book intended to open the eyes of progressive normies.

>>20168140
Programmed is convenient but potentially misleading shorthand for ‘these organisms have these traits because organisms with said traits had better survival and reproductive success and passed on those traits’. The traits can be physical, behavioural, cognitive, etc. Their ‘ends’ are mutable depending on environmental factors altering what is reproductively successful

>>20168140
>It can be, and that was the type of cannibalism I was referring to, which I thought was obvious. I probably should've added "voluntary", which is outlawed and naturally viewed as deviant (and still occurs in the world)
It's outlawed because the people who want to be mutilated / murdered and eaten are mentally ill and as such cannot give consent.
>Calling things sophistry without engaging is not an argument. I could say the same to you.
You didn't make an argument,. You played word games and stated some random feelings.

>>20168140
>Because nothing is "programmed into animals" as though they are computers, this is a completely modern invention and even smells of some weird sort of theistic causal determinism (which is more or less the same as Darwinian causal determinism). Animals and things have ends, and how well they attain these are dependent on contingent factors (the countless vicissitudes of time and chaos), these factors are what most people in the thread confuse with "nature."
None of this explains what you believe " natural law" is, what it's underpinnings are or why it excludes homosexuality. I assume it's because " gays don't reproduce" even though IVF, surrogacy and Foster children exist.

>>20168267
>Programmed is convenient but potentially misleading shorthand for ‘these organisms have these traits because organisms with said traits had better survival and reproductive success and passed on those traits’.
As I just said, theistic causal determinism being replaced by Darwinist causal determinism.
It is at best only one kind of explanation, and we arrive back at square one because there are other, stronger explanations which don't rely on hypothesis. If they do not have "programmed" behavior, which they don't because natural selection is not "programming", but just an observed pattern in nature, then we refer back to what is and isn't in their natures, and we compare that to how they actually behave, which is a mixture of individual tendencies of the organism (again, not programmed, but merely contingent upon individual circumstances taken apart from their essence) + environment. The environment encapsulates the organism and the organism, when fulfilling its actual end, completes the environment, in its own small way.
>Their ‘ends’ are mutable
No they aren't, the ends are the same for each organism. Ends change when examining an organism with a different nature. There is no organism which goes from living underwater to living on land, unless it is already amphibious and naturally meant to exist in that way.

>>20168308
>It's outlawed because the people who want to be mutilated / murdered and eaten are mentally ill and as such cannot give consent.
Just like homosexuals.
>You didn't make an argument,.
I did, and you have yet to refute anything.
>>20168315
There are complete philosophical works, like Cicero's De Re Publica, which deal with this topic. I cannot explain every single cranny of natural law, so I must restrain myself to the most general level possible. I have given some of its underpinnings and approximately what it is, but not all or everything.

>>20168333
Organisms only have ‘ends’ by accident. It’s a self-selection process. ‘Reproduction’ is the metric of evolutionary success not because there is something intrinsically good about reproduction, but because creatures which reproduce make more of themselves. Life is, because it can be. The idea of organisms being ‘meant’ to exist in a certain way is a conjecture about some mind organising according nature to a principle, which most scientists do not accept as an empirically observable phenomena (a scientist might believe that God has ordained nature with purposes, but biological science cannot discern these purposes via scientific observation). There is no intuitive moral reason why we should strictly adhere to the original context in which a trait was formed. Humans might be ‘meant’ to exist on safaris, but that doesn’t mean they ‘ought not’ to exist in cities. Feet are ‘meant’ to move us via bipedal locomotion, but that doesn’t mean they ought not to move us via the operation of a car, or to experience the pleasure of a massage

>>20168267
I am fairly sure that in order to be “reproductively successful,” humans must successfully reproduce.
But again, we’ve already covered that within scientism, there is no good reason to oppose homosexuality, and that that’s where this whole thing comes from. The problem is that scientism is not reality.
>>20168308
People used to say the exact same thing about same sex attracted persons in the 19th and 20th centuries. It was bad reasoning then, and is bad reasoning now.
>>20168315
All of those things require a flesh market of women.
I’m not that person, but natural law is the order within which humans act more like humans, and outside of which they act less like humans. For example, flesh markets are against the natural law because they treat people like things.
The assumptions of natural law are that there is a universal human nature, and that this can be known by natural reason (not entirely, but well enough for many purposes, including our own), and that humans flourish when they live according to this nature, even if that sometimes involves suffering and sacrifice.

>>20168385
I don’t understand why natural law forbids homosexuality. You keep citing sources from pre-Christian antiquity but we have examples of homosexuality, according to authors from that period, being associated with martial strength, social fidelity and flourishing culture

>>20167941
>entire species reproducing almost exclusively via rape is not Nature
>my opinions are Nature
>if you point this out I'm going to "no u"
Come the fuck on, this kind of shit is the reason you're losing cultural relevance.

What do you think of monogamous anti-trans homofascists like my man and I? There are quite a few of us who hate the shit you're complaining about.

>>20168385
>natural law is the order within which humans act more like humans
And green ideas sleep more furiously. Gibberish.

>The assumptions of natural law are that there is a universal human nature
Learn some biology, kid. What is a universal dog nature, when comparing a pug, a poodle and bull terrier? Is a pug a perfect breed for a dog fighting ring?

>>20168354
>Organisms only have ‘ends’ by accident.
What accident? There are no accidents in nature, except the precise things which are not ends.
>‘Reproduction’ is the metric of evolutionary success not because there is something intrinsically good about reproduction
Reproduction is the metric of evolutionary success because you've defined it as such. It has nothing to do with the actual ends of each given organism in its life. Reproduction is one functional aspect of sexual beings, but it's not an end.
>Life is, because it can be.
Is God then because he can be? This is extremely dumb and it's hard to want to continue after this point.
>The idea of organisms being ‘meant’ to exist in a certain way is a conjecture about some mind organising according nature to a principle
A mind is not necessary for nature to organize according to a principle. It's only the contrived understanding that things need to be thought of in terms of concepts in order for ends to exist at all. Ends exist without any mind considering them, nature existed before we came to think about it, or possibly before anything held it in its mind. This is in any case irrelevant to the argument because an end does not require a mind, it is if anything the reverse.
>which most scientists do not accept as an empirically observable phenomena
It's almost as if people who base their entire conception of knowledge around efficient causes will not acknowledge things which are not efficient causes. And somehow they're still ok with mathematics.
>There is no intuitive moral reason why we should strictly adhere to the original context in which a trait was formed
There is, because things are formed in a way which is good by nature, and when they deviate they are always worse. And a whole, nature, which has sympathetic and harmonized parts, the various plants and animals that behave as is beneficial to the whole, is more perfect than a whole with discordant and inharmonious constituents. It doesn't require any moral intuition, just a basic intuitive perception of what is good and what is the opposite, the same intuitive perception which, without intellect to govern it and examine the sensibility, would always avoid pain and always pursue pleasure. As rational beings, we are not so intellectually simple as to see the world in terms of pleasure and pain as the senses give them to us.
>>20168414
They are not my opinions, they are just nature as it is. In any case, why would your opinions hold more entitlement to what nature is or is not? Cultural relevance is not a measure of truth, it is a measure of surface saturation of the most shallow level of the mind. Hence why lazy beliefs like skepticism gain so much popularity, because they don't require any considerable intellectual power to be maintained.

>>20168515
Nature forms many creatures, including humans, to behave homosexually. One must actually revolt against one's own inclinations here..

>>20168515
>I redefined "Nature" to coincidentally match my opinions
>therefore I don't have to defend my opinions, it's ""''Nature"""!
Man up and defend your position, you coward.

>>20168515
>lazy beliefs like skepticism
You cited Cicero, a sceptic, earlier!

>>20168532
I'm using the common view of nature, which is the underlying essence of things inhering within nature. For example, in colloquial sayings, when we say "it's in our nature", or "it comes naturally." If you want to redefine nature to "everything that happens", be my guest, but then as I've already said this both refutes itself (because homosexuality is just as good and bad as anti-homosexuality) and causes the word "nature" to lose its meaning. If a word means everything then it doesn't mean anything. But nature in common parlance has a distinct meaning, and therefore doesn't mean "everything."

>>20168515
>man, I have no opinions, I just follow Nature
>btw plebs are intellectually lazy
Neck yourself, subhuman Christkike.

>>20168545
>If you want to redefine nature to "everything that happens", be my guest, but then as I've already said this both refutes itself (because homosexuality is just as good and bad as anti-homosexuality)
Wtf? It doesn't unless you posit 'naturalness' as the metric of moral goodness, which is our entire problem with your philosophy. Homophobia and homosexuality could be equally as natural as one another, with this having no meaningful implications about the moral desiraibility of either phenomena.

>>20168545
>all this pilpul
Let's get this straight: you are claiming that ducks reproducing almost exclusively via rape is not natural?
>inb4 more pilpul
Yes or no, motherfucker.

>>20164951
...wow. Please tell me this is a first draft. This is rough.

>>20168545
Absolute gibberish to the point you're bordering on using stoicism to somehow justify pretending your personal feelings are a universal law.

>>20164951
>They will purposefully misinterpreted your statements
Good morning, sirs

>>20168539
Cicero was not a skeptic in that sense, as you can see from his dialogue, De Re Publica, in which he argues for natural law, alongside the positive law of the Republic. He held that his views were probable truths, which seems to be the extent of it.
>>20168546
I'm not a Christian and that is not an argument.
>>20168555
>It doesn't unless you posit 'naturalness' as the metric of moral goodness
Of course, but it's also meaningless, which is the main point. There is no one who would posit "everything and anything" as "good" or a law, because law requires differentiation, and good requires differentiation so far as it is opposed to some sort of opposite or deprivation. And nature possesses a specific meaning which is not "everything", so it's obviously wrong to assert that anyway.
>>20168556
I haven't said anything about ducks. It might be natural for them if that is actually true, but ducks are not human beings.
>>20168575
Did you have anything meaningful to say or will you keep using the same word over and over?

>>20168603
>meaningful
There's nothing meaningful to say - none of your arguments are grounded in anything because you're using us an externalisation of your own latent homosexual feelings. Just get topped and see if you like it and stop bothering 4chan.

>>20168629
You're right, there is nothing meaningful you can say.

>>20168603
>I haven't said anything about ducks
Indirectly, you did in >>20167382, unless your definition of natural law somehow excludes ducks.
Given that you acknowledge duck rape as part of nature, shouldn't you realize that nature includes a LOT of fucked up shit so humans should be careful in taking nature as a moral arbiter?
Finally, given all of the above, why would you even bring nature in an argument about homosexuality?

>>20168603
If you get told by many anons that you're posting gibberish, it's pointless to get defensive as we'll only insult you more.
Express yourself in a clearer fashion, or accept your failure to proselityze.

>>20168603
We cannot justifiably define something as unnatural unless we have a coherent and justified definition of what "nature" is. Nature is a very mutable and multifaceted word, and generally is identified in an intuitive sense with the cosmos, animal and plant life, etc. You want to say that certain behaviours performed by creatures are unnatural. But it seems difficult to do this. You haven't really presented a clear criteria for this.

>>20168645
>We cannot justifiably define something as unnatural unless we have a coherent and justified definition of what "nature" is.
Which exists, as I've only very partially demonstrated in this thread.
>in an intuitive sense
And how do you sort intuitions into truths? Through reason. Many people have muddled minds which, as you said, fumble and grasp the cosmos as "nature", which they imagine as mostly pristine and sublime, but containing a few things which are bad because they lack discernment. The darkest minds of all see nature as "everything without distinction." What is this but a hazy and imperfect vision of the truth, yet to be perfected and crystallized in their mind. Do you expect me to prove through syllogism that nature is good? Don't, because proper dialectic existed in older society for the exact reason that syllogism is not sufficient, particularly in questions that are mixed with "matter", so to speak. If I have even so much as slightly opened someone's eyes to the possibility that there is more to natural law, then I have "proselytized" sufficiently. And if you can even admit that some behaviors or things are unnatural, then we already agree on a basic definition which only requires further elaboration and discernment of what constitutes its place relative to nature. Hence why I brought up the examples of cannibalism and children being born with missing brains, one could even use the typical example of pedophilia which is always considered unnatural, and is looked upon as though the perpetrator has done more than just injure one young human (as there are, for example, other ways to maliciously ruin the lives of children, perhaps even to a greater extent, yet which receive no where near the same degree of scorn as the "crime against nature").

>>20168729
>is insulted for writing gibberish
>complains about the insult then shits out another unintelligible schizo wall of text
Kill yourself anytime

>>20167989
HUMANS ARE NOT ANIMALS BRITISH ROBBER THEY WERE SCULPTED IN JOVE'S IMAGE

>>20168758
What is not gibberish to you?

Axiom: Nature is existence
Axiom: Existence is essence
Definition: Good is a being which is its essence; or something is better the closer it approximates its essence
From this it follows that nature is good, and that that which is closer to its nature is better, and that which is closer to non-nature (becoming, non-being) is worse.

It can't be written very much plainer than this, but of course there will be the people who question the axioms. Philosophy, the largest part of it, is establishing the axioms, which is exactly what you consider gibberish, and which is why you will never progress so long as you hold that mindset.

>>20168729
I don't think you are very good at reasoning, anon. I don't think there is anything unnatural about children being born with missing brains, nor about paedophilia. A lot of congenital human diseases are the result of mutations in the genetic code. Deletions, additions, etc. But mutations aren't necessarily bad. We only call them pathologies if they are detrimental to the happiness or survival or whatever of the creature (which we only care about because, being living beings, our value judgements derive from the drives nature has put into us). Ontologically there is no distinction between a harmful mutation and a beneficial one. There is nothing less natural about the harmful mutation. Some mutations are both harmful and beneficial, like sickle-cell anaemia providing resistance to malaria.

>>20168797
Your definition of good implies that duck rape (nature) is good and that evolution (becoming) is bad.
Even your axioms don't hold: is death not an important part of Nature?
You suck at this.

>>20168515
>What accident? There are no accidents in nature
'Accident' / 'Not-accident' is just, like, your opinion, man.

Just because you see the Sun flowing above your head, doesn't mean it actually is (spoiler alert: it's the other way around).

>Reproduction is one functional aspect of sexual beings, but it's not an end.
>Ends exist without any mind considering them
'Ends' do not exist. Do not confuse 'ought'-speak with 'is'-speak.

>Is God then because he can be?
Sure, but not the 'bearded-dude-on-a-cloud-wanting-you-to-go-to-church-on-sundays' type, and more like 'Lovecraftian-Azathoth-Nuclear-Chaos-eldritch-abomination' type.
The aristotelian 'immobile mover', that (at best) doesn't give a fuck about some furless apes on some moving rock in some shithole corner of a galaxy. What is 'correct' and 'good' for an eldritch abomination, need not be good for you, puny human.

>This is extremely dumb
No, it merely means, that you are not smart enough to comprehend, that necessitating a benevolent human-friendly god (Augustine's reasoning that a microcosm ought to be equal to macrocosm, therefore god loves you) based on your intentional apparatus - is either a solid proof of god's inexistence or a grave insult to very concept of Godhead -- because all your intentions and intuitions are heuristics, and as such are hopelessly broken. What you see need not be how it it actually is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Müller-Lyer_illusion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anosognosia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_bias
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection_illusion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Wegner#The_illusion_of_conscious_will
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice_architecture

>A mind is not necessary for nature to organize
Your brain is part of nature, duh.
>Ends exist without any mind considering them
And, say, money in reality are just colored papers with curves. It is by ignoring true causality you merge into a hivemind running on the same routines.
'Ends' exist in the same way 'emptiness' exists. They are but placeholders, defined by what they are not. As it has been previously mentioned, the Sun doesn't move about your head, though it does help to think that way.

>somehow they're still ok with mathematics
Mathematics is just a walk-around hacking your own brain's algorithms. Math works not because there is some ontological magical ectoplasm in some Plato's world of ideas, but because those who were miscalculating kept dying for billions of years. But being adapted to environment, means that should something change, all your tools will start shooting you in the leg.

>because things are formed in a way which is good by nature, and when they deviate they are always worse
Literacy is a form of pollution. You were never meant to exapt the mechanism that synchronized your ancestors cries about a dangerous animal in the bushes. Go back to living in a cave.

>>20168838
Not the same anon, but it seems like the natural law system is indeed ambivalent about ducks raping each other, but the opposition struggles to explain why (consensual) human cannibalism and necrophilia are bad. I think it’s easy to choose between them.

>>20168949
>I think
Questionable.
The (((natural))) law system described in
>>20168797 reaches the conclusion that cannibalism is cool and good (at least for lions and bears, who eat the young of their own species as a way to harm their rivals), and necrophilia is also cool and good (surprisingly common among some species of bird), and being eaten alive is cool and good...
The "opposition" to this system (in more honest words, pretty much every man that ever walked the Earth) has no common denominator but the rejection of this madness.
If you truly wish to go along with the insanity because it might reach one or two conclusions you like, you need to stop posting and read more philosophy.

>>20168981
Please let me know where I can sign up for your campaign for the moral improvement of the animals. That sounds really sane and good.

>>20169052
Cool, you can type out strawmen almost as fast as you can suck cock.

>>20165244
This passage just demonstrates an elementary sampling error. Of course all the gays you've "seen in public" are very faggoty because those are the ones you can visibly detect. The ones who don't overtly present as such blend into the general population.

>>20169079
I was making fun, but for real, what’s your point? The law of nature is that the way beasts behave is just that and no more, but that it’s bad for humans to behave like bears or ducks because we’re humans and not bears or ducks. Bears and ducks don’t sit around and deliberate what kinds of bear and duck behaviors are right or wrong like we can, they just do bear and duck things. I struggle to understand what’s objectionable about this.

Meanwhile, I find it very weird that you take as a guide for action in your life a moral system that can’t finally rule out necrophilia among humans. And it is even more weird that you think *your* position is normal compared to mine.

>>20169167
>pretending OP wasn't a faggot
>reducing his "natural law" to the blandest relativism possible
Cool, so what is "natural" for humans?
Some societies practiced cannibalism, some necrophilia, some pedophilia, some human sacrifices...
And some societies worship consumerism, trannies included.
You can't build any serious moral system on top of such an ambiguity.
>inb4 defining human nature via consensus
>inb4 conveniently filtering said consensus

>>20164951
>because they cannot win open and honest debates
This kind of attitude is the reason why. People focused on winning debates end up making bad faith arguments and trying to score points as opposed to reaching some deeper understanding.

>>20164943

>>20166622
>be me, 12
skip ahead
>rock hard cock in my mouth
what the fuck this isn't gay this is pedophilia
and yes pedophilia is rampant in both gay and normal culture, it's just way more noticeable in gay culture

>>20169234
>being so desperate for approval you resort to samefagging
You are on one of the best sites to express your positions, and you blew it.
Git gud.

>>20169208
Its not based on consensus, it’s based on the Good (that which is desired), and the rational deliberation of the order of goods. That is to say, this good is higher or lower than that good, the highest natural good being the common good, or flourishing of a society as a whole, such that it is not diminished by being shared, the lowest good being my own wholly selfish and rivalrous good, irrespective of the good of others. People have always and will always delude themselves into acting contrary to their own and others’ good, and accordingly have and will always disagree over the precise ordering of goods in different circumstances, but we know this and can talk about it rationally so long as we participate in our common, given, rational nature. The natural law, then, sits above the positive law (I.e., the enacted laws and customs of any given society), which can only be truly just insofar as it comports with the natural law.
Now, St. Thomas concluded that the natural law was not a complete specification of the order of goods, and that there were vital aspects of human virtue which could not be reached by natural reason alone, and that we require divine assistance in order to achieve them. But the current discussion does not fall within that category.

>>20169355
>OP drops the pretense of samefagging and goes back to schizo rants
Wow, you lasted a whole 3 posts.
Why haven't you killed yourself already?

>>20168261
It's not that the prose is mediocre or just okay, it's that it's outright painful to read. Anon clearly didn't even reread and edit his own words, let alone get a second person to look them over.
And I hope this was a bait post and you don't actually think anecdotes are "owning the libs" or generally even constructive to any formal argument.
>unhealthy
>dysgenic
These are terms are just as vacuous-yet-loaded as OP's use of natural/unnatural.

>>20168385
>The assumptions of natural law are that there is a universal human nature
Which would by no means involve sexuality. Some things which seem universal among humans are a craving for meaning in their life, as well as a desire for comfort/satisfaction, for instance.

>>20168603
>Of course, but it's also meaningless, which is the main point.
You keep reiterating everyone's point and then going back to redefining nature to mean whatever you want.
An appeal to nature is a horrendous philosophical argument precisely because in all circumstances it (a) means nothing, and (b) is exclusively used by idiots to justify their preconceptions by way of what "feels right" (to them individually). You are somehow contorting yourself so that (b) becomes even more blatant and removed from reality than it usually is.

>>20168797
Axiom: Walls are blue
Axiom: Blue is fierce
Definition: To make spaghetti begin kneading and rolling the dough... [300 words here] ...and that is why philosophically a man sucking dick defies the intentional design of our universe.

>>20169288
Quite possibly because gay culture is more heavily scrutinized than straight culture.
Might also be influence by the sexual pathologies being pushed to the fringes of normalcy can cause.

>>20167989
>human nature is things found in the biosphere
Philologylet spotted. Nature has a different meaning in philosophy and biology

>>20164951
>these people
trash discarded and thread hidden.

what do you wank to lad

Bump

>>20168417
"Quite a few of us" aka any gay who wants to have a shed of value and share of responsibility. OP thinks all gays are 25-year-old latinos who go to every pride with a dildo attached to their ass. Also fuck the LBT in LGBT

All the kvetching and seething in this thread is beautiful. Great work OP.

>>20168417
Just stop being gay you stupid faggot

>>20164951
Reads like something I'd have written during my 2013 /pol/ phase.

>>20164943
You're almost definitely on a government watchlist now lel

i g2g cul8r it's been a trip.

>>20165173
inverts>sodomites>gays

I hate homosexuals because they are different from me. I also hate women and people of other races.

>>20170520
Forgetting quotation marks is only a small mistake, anon.

>>20164943
Epic thread

>>20164951
This is very basic social conservatism. Your book will only be bought by people who already agree with the talking points and thus will never read it. Basically, you're begging for donations and I'm not going to give you them. If you want my money, write something I haven't read before.

>>20169269
>he's a mascfag
Gross. Get some taste.

>>20164951
this nigga promoting his literotica about him getting sodomized by niggers

>>20173524
Pretty sure there's a scene like that in the Turner Diaries.

I've edited up to page 42. Should finish by today. I believe my changes are a serious improvement. Reconsider your target audience and whether or not to use bold and say "fucking," the n-word, etc. You can say "faggot," since some gays don't consider it pejorative. When your subject is already controversial, you should make your style as accessible and PG-13 as possible. I need to go buy more coffee. Gang Weed out

>>20164951
Before I read this thread in full, I just want to say this is identical to that quote from Sam Hyde about Rachel Maddow and other MSNBC anchors. "They hate you want you dead and they think it's funny," or something akin to that.

>Reading replies now
Glad it's not only me, this is very amateurish

One last post... I highly recommend that if you want to do a 2nd draft of your work... read something like Bowling Alone or anything by Christopher Lasch. Any social critic worth his salt will be referencing studies, articles and other authors very frequently to bolster his points, because otherwise you will invariably come across as paranoid and not confident in your own arguments. These are baseline things which separate the wheat from chaff in societal critique

>>20164951
>They hate freedom of speech because they are mentally incapable of dealing with dissenting opinions
Baby's first encounter with universal human behavior, awww.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_bias
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_and_out-group#Group_polarization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

>>20168797
>becoming is bad
>philosophy is about establishing the axioms
Did you just stop at Kant or something? Your axioms are nothing more than idols anon.

>>20170207
Kek