# ITT: your favorite quotes by famous writers

1. 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

soulless

2. 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>inb4 Socrates John Green dialogue

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous
• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

First time I've seen that, incredible stuff

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

KEK

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

Why can't I find this letter anywhere? I see a whole bunch of citations and quotes, but nowhere to read the letter itself.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

Got curious, so I looked for it.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170113081847/http://www.fiu.edu/~cookn/cuneo1.pdf

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

would john green actually respond to this?

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

John Green doesn't understand logic.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

Achilles got cucked by the tortoise

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>a writer we used to like
what did he mean by this

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

sounds like he's referring to someone, probably someone popular, that's been canceled

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

sounds like this literally got, to me, as bad as it can get

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

How would there be infinite numbers between 0 and 1? By merit of there being a finality (1) it would mean there is eventually some end to that series of numbers, even if we cannot feasibly count them all within our lifetime.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

I know this is philosophy hour, but all of calculus is based around the notion of infinite numbers within a limit. Your "0 to 1 not containing infinite numbers" can be said about 0 to infinity, since infinity is treated like a number in math, so it falls apart because infinity cannot have a finite amount of numbers.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>some end to that series of numbers
Then what's the beginning of the series? What number would you count after 0?
The numbers between 0 and 1 can't be listed in a series, even one of infinite length, because the amount of numbers is uncountably infinite.
t. BS in Mathematics

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>The numbers between 0 and 1 can't be listed in a series, even one of infinite length, because the amount of numbers is uncountably infinite
Yes, but we know the last number, it's 1. If you define a beginning and an end then how could the space between possibly be infinite? It would only be functionally infinite, as we as individuals (and I guess a race) can't possibly count them all or measure that space in between. But if we confirm with certainty, somehow, that there's an endpoint (the 1) then I simply don't understand how it's infinite.

Assume that there exists some finite sequence containing all the numbers between 0 and 1 (excluding 1 and 0). Then, take the highest number in this sequence (which you can do because it's a finite sequence), and name it y. Now let x = 1+ y / 2.
x is not contained within the finite sequence (because x is higher than y, which is the largest number in the sequence) but it is contained between 0 and 1 (since it's higher than 0 and lower than 1). This leads to a contradiction, meaning that the sequence cannot be finite.

It's strange that I understand the explanation and why this is a fallacy, yet at the same time by definition I still view "1" as the defined end.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>If you define a beginning and an end then how could the space between possibly be infinite?
NTA but it's because there is always another number (infinite numbers actually) in-between any 2 numbers you can name within the boundaries of such a set. That means the set is infinite. There are also different sizes of infinite sets (i.e. countable sets where you can attach cardinality to the members and uncountable sets which are larger because you can't).
>endpoint
There isn't an endpoint between any two members of the set because there are infinite members between them.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>make a post that makes sense
>follow it up saying your opinion is worthwhile because you have a bullshit in maths
way to sound persuasive anon

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

Assume that there exists some finite sequence containing all the numbers between 0 and 1 (excluding 1 and 0). Then, take the highest number in this sequence (which you can do because it's a finite sequence), and name it y. Now let x = 1+ y / 2.
x is not contained within the finite sequence (because x is higher than y, which is the largest number in the sequence) but it is contained between 0 and 1 (since it's higher than 0 and lower than 1). This leads to a contradiction, meaning that the sequence cannot be finite.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

The infinity of numbers between 0 and 1 is equal to the infinity of numbers between 0 and 2. This is because there exists a bijection between the two sets; for every number x between 0 and 1, give it the new name of 2x. For example, 0.3 goes to 0.6, 0.74 goes to 1.48, and so on. Every number between 0 and 1 gets mapped to a number between 0 and 2. Every number between 0 and 2 will be listed, for example to see that 2x = 1.99 is going to be listed, we can divide it by 2 and get 0.995

Socrates makes a logical argument, however anon assumes John Green would care if his wife cheated. John Green probably wouldn't care.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

Only one way to find out

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>hypothetical between two men, one that has been dead for 2 millenimum, by some random guy on LULZ means I'm le right

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous
• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

show the weakpoints in the argument. John Green and Socrates themselves are variables that can be interchanged with any set of interlocutors

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>t. seething slut

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

Kek'd.
But the logical train of thought goes off when it is stated that fornication and adultery have no difference in the state of mind.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

So what's the difference?

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

I didn't think I'd ever use this in a serious way: Have sex.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>Uhhh, yeah, there's totally a difference
>Oh, uhhh, what's the difference, you ask? uhhh, it's too complicated for me to explain with words
there's no difference at all, roastie

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

seethe

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>have sex
Wow brilliant comeback. You argue like a woman.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

i've been with 31 different girls, many of whom cheated on their man with me or i was cheating myself. there is no difference.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

fails at the end because the problem of adultery is it's a betrayal of trust. hence why it's wrong and makes us angry

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

Why is one of the aspects of a good marriage that you trust your partner not to sleep around on you?

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

The trust is the marriage. Socrates argues that marriage is not what causes pain in adultery. There would be no need to trust her to not sleep with others, if sleeping with others was not in itself bad.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>a betrayal of trust
>trust that she won't sleep with other people
>because her sleeping with other people makes you feel angry disgusted and betrayed
>but those 48 guys before she met you don't count
You sad little cuck, keep coping.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

no trust because she said now she's with you she won't fuck any other men you retard

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

Why is her not fucking any other men important all of a sudden?

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

because she didn't bow to you she wouldn't fuck those men, because you didn't even know each other

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

And why do people ask for that vow in a marriage? You're deliberately avoiding something important here.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

because marriage is about trust and loving 1 person for life? if you don't want to do that, people get open relationships you know. that way they can have sex with other people with the others' consent

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>loving 1 person for life
Exactly. For your whole life. Not for the rest of your life starting at the wedding.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

no it's the rest of your life after the wedding

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

Then what if your wife slept with 47 people on the day before your wedding? You're not gonna care, then?

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

sorry
technically it's the start of the relationship. so any sex after they're dating you and have decided to have a relationship based in trust.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>a relationship based in trust
>I trust her to not do something bad
>the thing is only bad because it betrays trust

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

pretty much

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

What an absolute retard.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

I don’t even think you know what point you’re trying to make.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

I agree with the other anon. You're mistaken here, because you presume that trust is betrayed only by something necessarily negative. But trust is not betrayed by necessarily negative acts, it is betrayed by anything that violates the agreed upon terms.
In a monogamous relationship, the implicit (or explicit) agreement is monogamy. But this does not presume a moral judgement on polygamy; it's simply a statement of a contract.
In other words, a violation of a contract is immoral while the act violating the contract does not have to be.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

She's right though the fake Socrates argument is crappy. I read through it expecting something actually good. John Green is a massive homosexual though.

thank you thank you

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

So if your future wife slept with 47 people the day before you got together you're fine?

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

1. i'm a girl
2. it's okay if you wouldn't because you don't share the same values on sexual morality. i'm just saying that marriage argument is weak because the bad thing is not necessarily the sex but the betrayal

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>1. i'm a girl
Let me just scan those chromosomes real quick, uh oh a discrepancy

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>i'm a girl
explains everything

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>I have a moral system that justifies being a slut, and places the blame for my behavior on the men who want higher standards for me
A girl you say? Wow what a shock. Here's a tip: don't bend over backwards trying to justify your behavior when you're just going to lie about it to your future husband anyway.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

what? when did i say my moral system justifies that. i'm literally just attacking a badly made point.
i don't participate in casual sex or blame sexual promiscuity on men. you're spending too much time on /LULZ/ you're reading things that aren't there.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

what? when did i say my moral system justifies that. i'm literally just attacking a badly made point.
i don't participate in casual sex or blame sexual promiscuity on men. you're spending too much time on /LULZ/ you're reading things that aren't there.

although let's be real, the extension of sexual immorality and promiscuity is men's fault.
you have no one to blame but yourselves for putting the systems in place to allow widespread promiscuity

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

also my final point: men are more promiscuous than women. you're speaking into a void and ranting about an imaginary thing.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

[...]
although let's be real, the extension of sexual immorality and promiscuity is men's fault.
you have no one to blame but yourselves for putting the systems in place to allow widespread promiscuity

I can almost imagine it know, the Cock, not attached to any individual man, not a mere average of all men's cock, but rather the cockness of all cocks poured into one, the Platonic ideal of a cock, the Schrodinger's cock which all at once assumed the girth and size of all cocks yet mightier than the sum of all its cocky parts, pounding the walls of your vagina and stretching it even passed its current flappery state.
In other words, in the same way you would only fuck chads and not the average man said average man does not necessarily approve of your or chad's conduct you fucking whore.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

Insofar as we're the sex capable of physically controlling what you have access to

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

certainly in some aspects
dating apps
promiscuity culture
atheistic culture
progressive culture
divorce
supported the sexual liberation movement
who's more promiscuous
who has less traditional family values
there's only one answer! (gender wise, don't mention any ethnic groups)

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>(gender wise, don't mention any ethnic groups)
That's a strange bit to add, is there any similarity in the ethnic groups of who created those things?

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

i just knew someone was gonna say israelites but idk if that's a myth or not so i didn't wanna have my point diverted

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

What happens when you look in to it and you find males, specifically israeli males, behind every single point? Should we ignore that they're all israeli males who are part of a tribal matriarchy? Or should we limit our comprehending to them being males for the sake of protecting your ego from reality?

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

well if they were all israelites you'd certainly have a point
but for my last 2 points still stand. men have always been more promiscuous and less traditional and family oriented

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>but for my last 2 points still stand
That's besides the point.
You're saying that the betrayal of trust is the only reason why adultery is bad. This is clearly wrong.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

What traditions are women known for?

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

posing a fake statement in a question.
you don't have to show tits miss, just gtfo

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

being a mom is literally the oldest traditional role, being a father is fairly new. if he wasn't out hunting mammoths or getting drunk with friends in the local bar or out in some war in europe or just went off with their secretary

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

lmao you really strike me as someone who would nod your head to
>women are the primary victims of war

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

i don't think that but they certainly are victims too

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

Then if you think being a pregnant woman is a tradition what is being a man protecting a pregnant woman? Men sacrificing themselves for the women since time immemorial and you're too much of a woman to see it at all

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

i guess i was saying the figure of the modern present father is moreso new, since those fathers were also providing just in a different way.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

So being a man in general who protects the defenseless pregnant women is the oldest tradition. Women have no traditions but being cared for by men according to your own argument

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

lmao what. that's not what i said
also i don't think most men have done that on the course of history
just look at what men do when raiding and how powerful men treated women. would you say those guys then "failed at being men"?

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

No, because the women they raped weren't their women and weren't supposed to protect them until they became theirs. The men who couldn't protect them would have been the weak men who failed at their task

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

well then we just have fundamental differences in what we think "real men" are
also loads of men harmed and raped their wives, so i think most would get filtered by your demands
also
>tfw you failed at being a man because you couldn't defend your farming shack from the 500 trained mercenaries approaching your home

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

Who would be the bigger failure of a man?
>one who falls trying to protect his family
>one who willingly gives his family up to be assaulted on the agreement they let them all live

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>also loads of men harmed and raped their wives
Quite the victim complex you have there.
I can also say that: 'most people don't use toilet paper', because those 'most people' are savages who make up the greater population of the planet (id est: China and India), rather than the population of a civilised country.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>don't bend over backwards trying to justify your behavior when you're just going to lie about it to your future husband anyway.
this. Women will always say it doesn't matter but will always lie about it.

[...]
although let's be real, the extension of sexual immorality and promiscuity is men's fault.
you have no one to blame but yourselves for putting the systems in place to allow widespread promiscuity

it's always men's fault. Women are sexual selectors. IF you fuck with psychos and wife beaters is your own fault. And protip

also my final point: men are more promiscuous than women. you're speaking into a void and ranting about an imaginary thing.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

and if you fuck with women who'll leave you divorced and take your house and kids it's your fault

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

I went on a date once with some hipster girl and she told me a story about getting gang banged by a dozen guys at a party the weekend before. I just got up and left right there, but I guess you would consider marrying her. Cause if it happened before she met you then it doesn't matter right?

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

as i said it's okay if you left or if you want a virgin wife. clearly your values don't match. i was just dismantling that part of the socrates argument

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>i was just dismantling that part of the socrates argument
Which part of the argument? Because you never even mentioned anything he said.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

as i said, he made a mistake in why he felt angry at getting cheated on.
it's because she betrayed his trust, i'm guessing john green isn't getting mad at the idea of his wife having sex when she probably didn't know him etc etc etc

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>So you do not want adultery, yet you want the second part of adultery, the state of being married. Then it is the first part of adultery which you do not want.
Are you saying this statement is wrong?

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

i'm saying that him being mad because he got cheating doesn't correlate with him being mad because his wife had sex before she met him.
basically, adultery and fornication aren't the same and indifference to one doesn't mean indifference to the other. you can have varying opinions on them

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>doesn't correlate
Because he's subconsciously coping.
If you want to disprove the argument, you have to actually point out specifically what Socrates said that was wrong.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

[...]
although let's be real, the extension of sexual immorality and promiscuity is men's fault.
you have no one to blame but yourselves for putting the systems in place to allow widespread promiscuity

also my final point: men are more promiscuous than women. you're speaking into a void and ranting about an imaginary thing.

>le double standard
No-one here has suggested that it's okay for men to be promiscuous while it's not for women.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

yeah no one "here" but you see hordes of men saying men can cheat and it's not the same because it's just "male nature"
so clearly there are people who believe in promiscuity for some
and in general having more multiple partners as a girl is seen in a different light than having multiple sexual partners as a man

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>yeah no one "here"
Then what are you getting mad at us for?
I hate promiscuous men as much as promiscuous women, so don't think I'm a hypocrite.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

i'm literally not mad at anyone. i just don't think someone who gets mad at adultery has to get mad at fornication. or that the reasons one would get mad at them are the same

Those aren't my values, they are universal values. Nobody wants to marry the town bicycle, and the man who does so KNOWS he is doing something pathetic. He has just convinced himself it's okay because he thinks he has no better option. It's not his values, it's just the fact that he's fucking sad.

>universal values
quickly eroding
"What percentage of individuals are in open relationships? According to a study published in the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, about 4-5% of the U.S. population is currently in open relationships"

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

The values aren't eroding, we're just seeing an increase in the number of men who are sad and desperate enough to accept their wife getting railed by other men. Fucking hell why even be married at that point? Maybe it's better than watching her walk away with half your life savings and the kids? What a nightmare.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

Who the fuck likes green bananas

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

Those aren't my values, they are universal values. Nobody wants to marry the town bicycle, and the man who does so KNOWS he is doing something pathetic. He has just convinced himself it's okay because he thinks he has no better option. It's not his values, it's just the fact that he's fucking sad.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

would blow out my pants right then and there

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

I’d be wondering how she found the time for 47 men in one day. What the fuck are these hypotheticals lmao

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

If a man can come in 5 minutes, then it would only take 4 hours, if one starts immediately after the other finishes.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

Well first she’d need to make a Craigslist ad and get 47 men that don’t think they’re just going to get robbed.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

No Craigslist, just Tinder.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

The record is 919 men in one day. If you scheduled it ahead of time 47 men is very achievable.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

Then what if your wife slept with 47 people on the day before your wedding? You're not gonna care, then?

lmao

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>open relationships
You're already in a hole here, do you really want to keep digging?

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>I trust her to not do something bad
>the thing is only bad because it betrays trust
Why don't you lift yourself by your bootstraps while you're at it?

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>and if he smiled why should he have smiled?
>to reflect that each one who enters considers himself first, last, only and alone
>while he is neither first, nor last, nor only, nor alone
>in a series originating in and repeated to infinity
same energy. fucking pathetic.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

[...]
The physical act is much the same, but in the case of adultery the partners have agreed not to have sex with others.
That's meaningful because it's a vow to renounce some desirable privileges for the partner's sake, so a breach of that trust is very significant and potentially hurtful because of both the deception involved in having an extra-marital relation and because of the stark imbalance caused by one partner making an effort to renounce the privilege of sleeping with whoever while the other is very much exercising it.
If this is not plainly obvious to you you should go outside and have social relationships with other people, in the hopes that you might, someday, become close enough to normal.

Also John's wife is hot and interesting and I would make him a cuck at the fist occasion.

>muh trust
Version 2

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

Nice

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

Socrates comes off as a brainlet

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>S: But cereal can't speak
>G: But what if they did?

>But i did eat breakfast this morning
>But what if you didn't?

Socrates was Black

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

"What if <inanimate thing> was sapient and reactive?" feels like a highly semitic way of assigning an infinite number of attributes to something in a way that cannot be disproven, as fundamentally it's illogical. If you get someone to accept this theory that breakfast cereal may talk and hold opinions (that conveniently you alone may identify and define), then you've poisoned the well, which incidentally is also a highly semitic practice.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

remember to shut down any sort of these illogical arguments as soon as they appear.

"The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn't help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about.”

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

The last argument "Socrates" has here is wrong. It's neither the adultery nor the state of being married that might upset John Cuckreen but the combination of the two, which isn't any "part" at all.

Having said that, many other arguments could and should be used against this shame of a "man", Mr Green.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

I don't remember that from my Hackett edition

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

So what's the difference?

The physical act is much the same, but in the case of adultery the partners have agreed not to have sex with others.
That's meaningful because it's a vow to renounce some desirable privileges for the partner's sake, so a breach of that trust is very significant and potentially hurtful because of both the deception involved in having an extra-marital relation and because of the stark imbalance caused by one partner making an effort to renounce the privilege of sleeping with whoever while the other is very much exercising it.
If this is not plainly obvious to you you should go outside and have social relationships with other people, in the hopes that you might, someday, become close enough to normal.

Also John's wife is hot and interesting and I would make him a cuck at the fist occasion.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>Also John's wife is hot and interesting

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

Doesn’t really feel much like Socrates up until the “why did you marry? If you didn’t she couldn’t have adulterated!” That’s very on point. The problem with the first part is that Socrates himself made nonsensical comparisons and analogies all the time so cheerios shouldn’t confuse him as much as it did. I also don’t know enough about John Green or his views on marriage to rate that part because it presumes that John Green finds monogamous, long marriages desirable which I wouldn’t bet on.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

It would be better if Socrates says something like “what about horsemanship? Does a good horseman/ trainer devote himself to one horse or to all horses?” “Ah, if the horseman could improve every single horse that would be ideal but it is not the case.”

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

So what's the difference?

Why do most people dislike being rained on, but quite delight in taking a shower?

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

cause they're naked in the shower

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>S: How would you feel if you found out your wife had slept with 47 other people yesterday?
>G: I would feel angry, disgusted and betrayed.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

Under rated

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

Has John Green's wife actually slept with 47 other people

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

Seeing how hot she is I wouldn't be surprised.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>hot

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

She is one of the ugliest women I've ever seen.

https://i.imgur.com/99URdVm.jpg

It's crazy how far charisma towards the insipid masses can take one nowadays. I don't give a shit about John Green, but I do envy his wealth. All of these public "intellectuals" make me sick to my stomach. A randomly LULZ anon would probably be better than John Green, but I doubt they would have his "charisma" towards the insipid masses.

I find it difficult to smile in public any more.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>It's crazy how far charisma towards the insipid masses can take one nowadays.
>A randomly LULZ anon would probably be better than John Green, but I doubt they would have his "charisma" towards the insipid masses
Truth.

'and in the second place, the revulsion of the masses for every outstanding genius is positively instinctive'.
- A 'literally' H

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

She is one of the ugliest women I've ever seen.
[...]
It's crazy how far charisma towards the insipid masses can take one nowadays. I don't give a shit about John Green, but I do envy his wealth. All of these public "intellectuals" make me sick to my stomach. A randomly LULZ anon would probably be better than John Green, but I doubt they would have his "charisma" towards the insipid masses.

I find it difficult to smile in public any more.

>hot
Yes.
She's also cultured and intelligent, unlike her husband.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>Yes.
Not even when you can't clearly see just how huge her nose is. She looks like a trannie.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

which one is worse?

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>S: Is the difference in the mind? Does adulterating look or sound or feel different from fornicating? Is the memory of the first more permanent than that of the other?
>G: No, I do not believe so.
This is where anon fucked up.
"Green" wouldn't say "no". He'd say that, "yes, it feels different from fornication because of the inherent impact of knowingly betraying a partner on the part of the one having sex with an outsider".
It is not the same as mere fornication because of that mentality of knowingly acting in a corrupt and unfair way towards your marriage/relationship partner.
From that point then "Green" would be able to properly distinguish them from each other.

As well "Socrates'" conclusions at the end are too easy for this to be at all rigorous.
The meme has too much effort put into it for the writer to claim, "it's just a joke".

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>"Socrates'" conclusions at the end are too easy for this to be at all rigorous.

So just like the real dialogs

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

You aren't wrong.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

hey guys, chapter three here to send you back to chapter 6

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

Nah, it needs horsemanship and cobbling to be a real Socrates dialogue, Socrates’ two favorite topics to make false equivalencies about.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

Thanks for using inb4 correctly.

3. 3 weeks ago
Anonymous
• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

What a twat. Worse than OP's fag in fact

4. 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

that last sentence is making me pretty uncomfortable

5. 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

Fuck naggers
- HP Lovecraft

6. 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

'Women are considered profound. Why? Because we never fathom their depths. But women aren't even shallow'.
- Götzen-Dämmerung

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

I'm a brainlet, why does he say "But women aren't even shallow"? So is he saying women are shallow or not?

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

I think he’s saying that they’re so shallow that they’re not even shallow. Basically, they have no depth whatsoever.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

Ah I see, how did I not see it that way Thanks anon

7. 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

"The horror! The horror!"

"horror horror horror"
-Lord of The Ice Garden, Jarosław Grzędowicz

“There is also a third kind of madness, which is possession by the Muses, enters into a delicate and virgin soul, and there inspiring frenzy, awakens lyric....But he, who, not being inspired and having no touch of madness in his soul, comes to the door and thinks he will get into the temple by the help of art--he, I say, and his poetry are not admitted; the sane man is nowhere at all when he enters into rivalry with the madman.”
― Plato, Phaedo

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

I know child, I know.
Lit never actually reads anything. Nobody I met here at any point has had any literary vector inside them.

8. 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

Not an author but a review.

9. 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>threads about why all women who aren’t virgins are whores: 5 million

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>woman appears
many such cases

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>goes to a literature board
>surprised to find women
shouldn't be many such cases but alas

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

Bitch you have the whole rest of the internet as your own personal hugbox. You want validation for your self-serving arguments, there is plenty of that elsewhere.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

lmao was never hugboxxing or asking for validation, in fact i know here it'll lead to the opposite you retard.
i'm just saying it's funny the majority of consumers of literature are women yet people are surprised when they see the occasional one browsing here

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>the majority of consumers of literature are women
I bet that's skewed by gossip magazines the same way "majority of gamers are women" is skewed by mobile and trannies

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

no one says the majority of gamers are women though
and everyone knows that's not true
whereas most people know how many women read, even if it's corny romance models
i hate this new era of "give me studies studies give me a source this has been skewed on the x and y axis", sometimes you just know by observing and living in society

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

It's true but it's because they read their porn instead of watching it like men.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

So you admit that you're using this board as your personal hugbox to seek out validation for your own self-serving arguments about women?

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

My self-serving arguments about women, that are based on women's behavior. And I get plenty of validation from simply observing how women act in the real world. A little too much validation in fact.

• 3 weeks ago
SAGE

lmao was never hugboxxing or asking for validation, in fact i know here it'll lead to the opposite you retard.
i'm just saying it's funny the majority of consumers of literature are women yet people are surprised when they see the occasional one browsing here

>goes to a literature board
>surprised to find women
shouldn't be many such cases but alas

r*dditor detected

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

'God created woman. And boredom did indeed cease from that moment — but many other things ceased as well! Woman was God's second mistake'.
- Der Antichrist

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

lmao was never hugboxxing or asking for validation, in fact i know here it'll lead to the opposite you retard.
i'm just saying it's funny the majority of consumers of literature are women yet people are surprised when they see the occasional one browsing here

>majority of consumers of literature
majority of "literature" is chicklit and softcore porn

10. 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

love is going down on your gf and pretending not to care about the amount of cocks that have been there

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

That's not love, that's simping

11. 3 weeks ago
Anonymous
12. 3 weeks ago
Anonymous
13. 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

She's right though the fake Socrates argument is crappy. I read through it expecting something actually good. John Green is a massive homosexual though.

14. 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

Thread: Favorite quotes from books <3

Thread replies: John Green is a cuck, women are whore and a mathematical discussion of whether 1 is finite or infinite.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>images btfo text yet again
How can lit recover from this?

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

There is no discussion. The real numbers set is dense, thus there is always a real number between any two other given real numbers, thus there is an infinite amount of real numbers between 0 and 1, thus everyone here denying such a simple mathematical fact is a retard.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

Oh please OP knew what he was doing. Don't delude yourself into thinking that homosexual had any intention of making a serious thread.

15. 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

John Green raped an underage, terminally ill girl.

16. 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

The disgust for slutty women is the same as the disgust for virgin man. So there's no "double standard".

17. 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>women are held to a different standard than men?
How many men have fucked hundreds of different women by the time they are in college? Can you really call those men the "standard"?

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

How many women do you know that fucked hundreds of men?

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

Personally? At least a dozen. Through the grapevine ~100

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

Bleak

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

So if only these twelve already fucked at the very least 1200 guys and you say that that this is just a small part of a bigger phenomenon, shouldn't there be less male virgins around in the world and not more? Or do you think that thousands and millions of girls in your city/country fuck the same 1200 chads and don't care about anyone else?

18. 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

my favorite honest politician

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

He wasn't perfect. He made some misjudgements.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

And then russia invaded, raped and genocided the poles.

So if only these twelve already fucked at the very least 1200 guys and you say that that this is just a small part of a bigger phenomenon, shouldn't there be less male virgins around in the world and not more? Or do you think that thousands and millions of girls in your city/country fuck the same 1200 chads and don't care about anyone else?

Yes it's all the same men, Well over 40% of men <30 are virgins and most non-virgins have only had 1 or 2 partners in their whole life.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

not before germany invaded as agreed upon through the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact, and raped and genocided the poles.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

If we only have photos from after the orcs invaded then I will assume it was the orcs until proven otherwise, I find it hard to believe that germans would rape and murder many white women or even israelites.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

what
I'm genuinely startled, are you trolling? Even going by your nonsensical evidence standard nazis didn't consider poles and israelites to be aryan in fact all slavs where subhumans according to their ideology and israelites weren't even human, and I'm pretty sure there's plenty of photos of german the german invasion taken on the first of september

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

You are making shit up. There are plenty of shoops yes.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

what am I making up, nazis considering nearly everyone besides them as subhuman??? you can always just read mein kampf and/or nazi speeches and find out for yourself, they're available online

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

Find one nazi party memeber that specifically says the poles are untermensch and I will find ten that say that they just aren't Aryan.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

not him but here

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

Weird that they are speaking English. How about not a quote mine?

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

You are delusional and retarded beyond all belief. I can only conclude that you're either an amerimutt, which is indicated by your outstanding ignorance to even the simplest to understand and most widespread historical data, or a Pole/Slav trying to reconcile your Nazism and love for Hitler with your ethnicity. Either way I kindly ask you to leave this board and never return, raising its average IQ by a few point.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

Deflecting from the fact that Third Reich quotes are often dubiously attributable, intentionally misconstrued in translation, and reposted out of context and the reasonable request of that poster to demonstrate a source.

19. 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

The people who say that women have body counts in the 100s and 1000s before highschool are just as silly as the people who say the germans killed millions of civilians in a few years.

20. 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

I could never love a non virgin woman. I mean, I could love one, but I know that she could never be my wife. I lost my virginity to a beautiful girl who was also a virgin years ago, but fate saw us separate. If a man has sex with a woman, he takes part of her forever. Everyone knows the romantic archetypes. If I can't have a perfect virgin, I would rather have several wives, all of whom I might love, but none of whom are ultimately special. Vessels for my genetic propagation.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>not a virgin
>wants a virgin girl
what makes you think you deserve one?

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

I don't even know what it would mean to "think I deserve one". I don't think I deserve anything, but it doesn't stop me from wanting things.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

By that logic it's ok for women to want cocks, no?

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

I never said it was a moral failing for a woman to not be a virgin. Just like it isn't a moral failing to have a sexually attractive appearance.

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

To not have a sexually attractive appearance*

21. 3 weeks ago
Anonymous
22. 3 weeks ago
Anonymous
23. 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>LULZ users got beat in a debate by a woman
Lol'd

24. 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

ASS

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

you know what he says

25. 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

would you eat cheerios that 47 other guys jizzed in though

• 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

add a cheeseburger and you're basically just at a grocery store

26. 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

"Mammy could smell a republican like a horse could smell a rattlesnake."

27. 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>"Gibs me dat fo free"
-Hungry Santa

28. 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

>Dogs are the hieroglyphs of blind emotion, inferiority, servile attachment, and gregariousness—the attributes of commonplace, stupidly passionate, and intellectually and imaginatively undeveloped men. Cats are the runes of beauty, invincibility, wonder, pride, freedom, coldness, self-sufficiency, and dainty individuality—the qualities of sensitive, enlightened, mentally developed, pagan, cynical, poetic, philosophic, dispassionate, reserved, independent, Nietzschean, unbroken, civilised, master-class men. The dog is a peasant and the cat is a gentleman.

29. 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

I'm not a sex-haver, but that's an insulting thing to say, right? If your partner is hurt because they don't feel special to you why would you say that you enjoy their "whole-grain crunch", ie confirm that you only view them as a sexual object.

30. 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

i have never seen anyone used weird unironically and not have a really bad take

of course it's weird to judge women by their body count if the consensus consists of troons and fags and HR roasties. especially if you're a weak man you'll derive your social needs from groups with high probability to default to the consensus because that's how they find their tribe

31. 3 weeks ago
Anonymous

The state of the modern 'man'.