Y Kant Anon

128
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

>trying to argue with females

:marseysmughips: They are all prostitutes at the end of the day, and they prove it time and time again. Trying to argue against that is the definition of futility.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

And all men are what

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:marseycoomer:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:#marseyking:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Simp.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Ain't nobody simping for you peepee boy

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Wrong.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So you are a boy


:!marseybarrel: :marseybarreldrunk:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

essential job makers :marseyagreefast:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Johns :marseyshrug:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Their enablers :#doomer:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

🛎️

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Neurodivergent, closeted, or racist?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Or?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Inclusive or, fwiw

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Women are maids or maidens, men are players or played

:dasrite:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

prostitute frickers

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

better than women. :smoke:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

At being r-slurs sure

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

touche :uhuh:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Bears

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Degenerates.

Women were made for fricking.

Men were made to do the fricking.

Everything else is filling in the time in between to ensure you can do the deed without ending up dead or miserable.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Cuties :#marseyshy5:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Wrong.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:#marseysad:

What about me?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You're cute! Just not all men

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Tired of women?


Read what I wrote above. Now picture in your head that I put a /s at the end. Good job sweaty! :marseygigaretard:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

all women are queens

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

If she breathes, she's a thot. :marseyindignant:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Darn, the dramawhores hijacked his account

F

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

KaNtS CaTeGoRiCaL ImPeRaTiVe p:

i'm immediately on the mom's side

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

And it's horribly misapplied too

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

ngl I don't get how it's supposed to be applied. For example, is it immoral to stand in a room because it would be irrational for everyone in the world to stand in the same room?

My favorite explanation is that Kant is talking about prisoners' dilemmas. Sure, it might be individually rational for each prisoner to defect, but both prisoners defecting leads to the worst result. Therefore, the truly rational act is to cooperate. Apply this to lying, stealing, freeloading, etc.

Continuing this, a high-trust society like Norway is a lite Kingdom of Ends.

!classics thoughts?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The vast majority of r-slurs on the internet get it completely wrong just like u dw (like @Geralt_of_Uganda).

C*nt is talking about logical consistency (not about whether some outcome is nice or rational or whatever): can some maxim be universalized or can it not be (because it leads to some contradiction)? If yes, it's morally permissible.

Ex. stealing: if stealing became universal law there would be no concept of personal ownership so there would be no concept of stealing, that's a contradiction so C*nt claims this means stealing is not permissible.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Huh that sounds way more nuanced

But still pretty nonsensical for the purposes of determining if something is permissible

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The fact C*nt scholars are arguing about this still in current year says alot about how practical it is :marseyagree:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Don't care much for categorical imperatives and other such moral absolutes. Sometimes, you have to be practical. Sometimes, your mom's a whore.

:marseyshrug:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I don't get how it's supposed to be applied

>you want to do x

>would the world be a better place if everyone did x?

>Yes: It is moral

>No: it is not moral

Simple as

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

By your logic, it would be immoral to stand in a room because the world would be a worse place if everyone stood in that room at the same time

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It's not mine, it's Kant's

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It's a stupid concept even when applied properly. It's basically a shitty version of a priori rules utilitarianism even in its strongest forms.

Yes, I'm aware that Kant is considered a deontologist.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

All dentologists are scammers. $4500 for a tooth implant? What a joke. :marseymad:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Why are people spelling can't with a K and ignoring the apostrophe?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I Kant talk to this mf. :marseyobamanope:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

>not upvoting my comments after replying to them

You're a WHORE

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It's an authors name

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Is it a neighbor?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

French, so spiritually yes

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You fricking kant :marseydisgust:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

i've never even heard of it until this screenshot but i instantly hate it and anyone who uses it

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Proof?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

>babe come to bed

:tradwife:

>sorry babe, reading secondary sources on Kant

:gigachad4#:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:#tradwife: (male)*

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This is an r-slured use of categorical imperative.

By this logic you shouldn't frick your wife because you wouldn't be okay with the whole world fricking your wife.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You got it backwards

It's ok for him to frick his wife because it's ok for the whole world to frick his wife

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

https://i.rdrama.net/images/1715507208728968.webp

Evolved cuck hands wrote the above.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Does that include their children?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

When do you think she's going to tell him about the gambling debt

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That's what you get for not being a Nietzschean :marseynietzsche:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

One needs only to see the way she is built to realize that woman is not intended for great mental or great physical labor.

Women are suited to being the nurses and teachers of our earliest childhood precisely because they themselves are childish, silly and short-sighted, in a word big children, their whole lives long: a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the man, who is the actual human being, 'man'.

:#marseyschopenhauertalking:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

We really do have a marsey for everything

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:#marseynewtalking:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The best. Oral framework for disprovimg a woman :marseyemo: is a slap

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This but without gorillian layer irony dramatard speak

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:#pepewtftalking:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Fricking r-slur. Your speech bubble addition makes it look like I'm reacting to my own comment here by imagining myself as a pepe (CUTE)

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:bitchslap:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:#marseygoodnight: ALL women are WHORES

ESPECIALLY mothers :#marseymerchantfoid:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Evola would have just insisted her Lunar nature has unbound her spirit to modernity.

https://i.rdrama.net/images/17154541439957626.webp

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Instead of that gay butt Kant imperative he should :marseynorm: have gone after the c*nt imperative knowwaddamean :marseycool2:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Huh?

:#speechbubble:

https://i.imgur.com/BLrhVxq.jpg

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

How bout Decartes, you're a dirty skank and your shamelessness is absolute proof of your stupidity.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Kant is everything wrong with modern society. Nothing wrong with securing that bag queen.

:#marseyaynrand2:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

!KOWALSKI ANALYSIS!

!alligatorfrickhouse keep on 'gatin

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.