BruceyBoy
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2020
FFS, now we got fruits doing this shit down under?
Josh I swear to god if I ever see you irl I'm going to toss you head first into the nearest port-a-loo
Orbiter 🏳️🌈🐱 Nick Fuentes / Nicholas Joseph Fuentes / der America First Pürrer / "Nick the Knife" - CatboyKami's ex. Flipped fed asset after January 6th. Groypers are pardoned for January 6th, still a fag. Kept Ali Akbar, brown muslim boy-hungry pedophile, around groypers knowing what he was. Hates white women more than blacks and jews.
- Thread starter Puck
- Start date
Josh I swear to god if I ever see you irl I'm going to toss you head first into the nearest port-a-loo
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2015
Just a quick glance at his thumbnails on YouTube, show this guy is kind of a joke. T. Australian here. So I'll keep my spergatory to a spoiler for you.This guy is an absolute Nickleback calf (should I say Joey since he's Kangaroo Nick?) in rising. He is also Gunt Guarding internationally.
Look at this shit lolol.
View attachment 3384669
I will say though that he actually isn't a pain to listen to even though I don't know shit about Australian politics just because he actually can manage to follow a script and not go on retarded alogging sessions on someone. He's boring but I feel this works in his favor.
View attachment 3385076
View attachment 3385075
He's only got 12 people in his Chat as of said video but is actually pounding pavement in his upcoming stream to talk to voters so I support that as opposed to sitting at home looking at screen. If he wasn't a Nick sucker this would be commendable. Joey, get out of Nick's pouch and disavow the groys.
View attachment 3384688
Here's his deets. I have an Op in waiting incase he turns interesting. He seems to have optics of some sort despite being easy to track down because he didn't even post all the shit i found. I lost interest part way.
Gab | archive
Telegram (I don't use TG so I can't lurk)
Youtube | Archive
Twittard | Archive
Discord: JoshHowes#5583
Facebook | Archive
Anyways this dude actually seems somewhat promising but then again I'm an eternal optimist. It would be very funny if he actually ended up doing better than Nick.
This low effort dox was brought to you by the "Kiwifarms Proving Zoomers Can't Use the Internet Foundation", with your support of just 1 BAT a month, you too can help prove that Zoomers treat the entire internet like Linkedin.
So the big issue I can see, without at all watching him, is he's firing on all cylinders. His main targets are the Liberal Party, One Nation and Avi Yemeni. And going after them, you aren't going to win him any friends, or any legitimacy. Australia's right wing, unlike the US is incredibly diverse.
You have the LNP/Liberal-National Coalition as sort of the mainstay of conservative politics. But they've effectively been decapitated in the last election. Any palatable leadership left, and they're likely headed to electoral wilderness for some time yet. Any push to the Right within the Liberal party is electoral suicide, since our recent election voted very much so left/progressive.
One Nation, which is your more populist type country. Basically trades on its hatred of Asians, Muslims and Indigenous Australians. They've got some sway in the senate, but Pauline is a retarded narcissist who keeps the reigns of her own party too tight. And they're unpalatable in the big cities.
Beyond them you have the UAP, or United Australia Party. The political arm of Clive Palmer, a man whose gunt only rivals Ethan Ralph. He's a billionaire with thin skin who tried to sue YouTubers over memes about him. And is generally just a cunt. He also spent about 100 million dollars on advertising and only got 500k votes. Winning literally no seats. He's also electoral poison in Western Australia/Queensland.
But beyond them, it's a group of disparate right wing conspiracists and weirdos. Many of whom feed their voters sovcit style misinfo, thinking writing a screed on your ballot means you'll kill all the pedos in parliament. Or they're grifters who fleece money like Australia One leader, Riccardo Bosi.
The Right in Australia are already pretty balkanised. And this guy taking potshots at the major players in parliament will do nothing to help further his cause. The only way he can be influential, is joining such a party, and working as maybe a social media guy. But him taking the shots, only earns him enemies.
Even if he started his own party, it would just further dilute the vote and the Right wing as a force in Australian politics.
And then the idea of Australia First in of itself is retarded, since our entire foreign policy is basically hanging off of the US' balls. There is no Australian sphere of influence, unlike the US, to retreat from. And the idea of Christian style revival over here is also delusional because everyone here's reasonably irreverent of God.
You have the LNP/Liberal-National Coalition as sort of the mainstay of conservative politics. But they've effectively been decapitated in the last election. Any palatable leadership left, and they're likely headed to electoral wilderness for some time yet. Any push to the Right within the Liberal party is electoral suicide, since our recent election voted very much so left/progressive.
One Nation, which is your more populist type country. Basically trades on its hatred of Asians, Muslims and Indigenous Australians. They've got some sway in the senate, but Pauline is a retarded narcissist who keeps the reigns of her own party too tight. And they're unpalatable in the big cities.
Beyond them you have the UAP, or United Australia Party. The political arm of Clive Palmer, a man whose gunt only rivals Ethan Ralph. He's a billionaire with thin skin who tried to sue YouTubers over memes about him. And is generally just a cunt. He also spent about 100 million dollars on advertising and only got 500k votes. Winning literally no seats. He's also electoral poison in Western Australia/Queensland.
But beyond them, it's a group of disparate right wing conspiracists and weirdos. Many of whom feed their voters sovcit style misinfo, thinking writing a screed on your ballot means you'll kill all the pedos in parliament. Or they're grifters who fleece money like Australia One leader, Riccardo Bosi.
The Right in Australia are already pretty balkanised. And this guy taking potshots at the major players in parliament will do nothing to help further his cause. The only way he can be influential, is joining such a party, and working as maybe a social media guy. But him taking the shots, only earns him enemies.
Even if he started his own party, it would just further dilute the vote and the Right wing as a force in Australian politics.
And then the idea of Australia First in of itself is retarded, since our entire foreign policy is basically hanging off of the US' balls. There is no Australian sphere of influence, unlike the US, to retreat from. And the idea of Christian style revival over here is also delusional because everyone here's reasonably irreverent of God.
TL;DR this guy is taking shots at everyone being edgy, but won't achieve anything. And an Australia First movement doesn't really make sense.
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2021
Buddy you just linked a 200pg text document to support your point. You are not in a good position here.
- Joined
- May 23, 2022
He will become a tranny and perish like a dog.
Why is he involved in politics (America First) when he's mostly doing nothing at best and destroying & demonizing people with a voice at worst. His sort of behavior towards others (especially his adversaries) is so disgusting that no wonder everyone (both left & right) hates Nick and his gayass death cult.
Why the contempt and visceral reaction towards real (mostly White) working people? This is something that I somewhat don't understand...
Anyone involved with politics is a mess, everyone is flawed and it might be little or futile but at least they're attempting and trying, but where's the energy from America First? Did they peaked during the Groyper Wars?
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2022
Rosy Reptile
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 7, 2022
It's mostly from St. Ephraim the Syrian, St. Athanasius the Great, and St. John Chrysostom. You're an RC, so I can understand why you'd assume that everything before Aquinas comes from blessed Augustine. It's not the case, though, and you should really expand your horizons a bit. It's ironic that you'd accuse me of not reading the document when you didn't even skim the table of contents, which would have stopped you from making a fool of yourself. The document is literally titled "Marriage and Virginity According to St. John Chrysostom". You couldn't even be bothered to read the title.
Is Fr. Josiah Trenham an "online ortho"? Because he wrote the book, not me. The whole "online ortho" canard is also ironic when you consider that an online twitter/telegram fantasy land is the only place where tradcaths can pretend that their version of their religion actually exists and is any way connected to the hierarchy. The biggest guns you guys have are people like Classical Theist and E. Michael Jones, and those are guys who carry water for Nick on the one hand and regularly appear on places like the Killstream on the other. It's like if Jay Dyer was the actual leader of the Orthodox, except even he has actual support from his bishop. Tradcaths are a bigger e-celeb cult than they can ever accuse anyone else of being, as this very thread often demonstrates. Their ecclesiology has been against them for 70 years, so instead they get this steady stream of grifters.
That 200 page document is neither autistic nor incomprehensible. It's basically just a simple idea (Earthly marriage is an icon of union with God) given a lot of support and elaboration. Try comparing that to something like Edward Feser's Thomistic critique of homosexuality in The Last Superstition and you'll get what I mean. Long chains of unintuitive Thomistic natural law arguments pulled almost exclusively from Plato and Aristotle, which never actually touch on the spiritual effects of the act itself. I'll post it in a spoiler here just so you can see what I mean:
Like so many of the ideas and arguments we’ve looked at already, natural law theory is very badly misunderstood by those who criticize it. The usual objections go like this: “If it’s wrong to go against nature, then isn’t it wrong to wear glasses, ride bicycles, etc., since these aren’t natural but artificial?” “If what’s good is what’s natural, isn’t everything we do therefore good, since everything that happens in nature is by definition ‘natural’?” “If homosexuality is genetic, doesn’t that show that it’s natural too?” And so on, tiresomely and cluelessly.
Perhaps it is obvious from what’s been said already what is wrong with these objections, but if not, here it is. The “nature” of a thing, from an Aristotelian point of view, is, as we’ve seen, the form or essence it instantiates. Hence, once again to haul in my triangle example, it is of the essence, nature, or form of a triangle to have three perfectly straight sides.7 Notice that this remains true even if some particular triangle does not have three perfectly straight sides, and indeed even though (as I’ve repeated ad nauseam) every material instance of a triangle has some defect or other. The point is that these are defects, failures to conform to the nature or essence of triangularity; the fact that such defective triangles exist in the natural world and in accordance with the laws of physics doesn’t make them any less “unnatural” in the relevant sense.
When we get to biological organs, we have things whose natures or essences more obviously involve certain final causes or purposes. So, for example, the function or final cause of eyeballs is to enable us to see. But suppose someone’s eyeballs are defective in some way, making his vision blurry. In that case, to wear eyeglasses isn’t contrary to the natural function of eyeballs; rather, it quite obviously restores to the eyeballs their ability to carry out their natural function. Bicycles don’t do this, of course, but they do extend, rather than conflict with, the ability of the legs to carry out their natural function of allowing us to move about.
Finally, to round out this initial reply to some standard bad objections to natural law theory, while it is true that some defenders and critics of traditional sexual morality seem to worry themselves endlessly about whether homosexuality has a genetic basis, the question is actually largely irrelevant, and they shouldn’t waste their time. For it is quite obvious that the existence of a genetic basis for some trait does not by itself prove anything about whether it is “natural” in the relevant sense. To take just one of many possible examples, that there is a genetic basis for clubfoot doesn’t show that having clubfeet is “natural.” Quite obviously it is unnatural, certainly in the Aristotelian sense of failure perfectly to conform to the essence or nature of a thing. And no one who has a clubfoot would take offense at someone’s noting this obvious matter of fact, or
find it convincing that the existence of a genetic basis for his affliction shows that it is something he should “embrace” and “celebrate.” Nor would it be plausible to suggest that God “made him that way,” any more than God “makes” people to be born blind, deaf, armless, legless, prone to alcoholism, or autistic. God obviously allows these things, for whatever reason; but it doesn’t follow that He positively wills them, and it certainly doesn’t follow that they are “natural.” So, by the same token, the possibility of a genetic basis for homosexual desire doesn’t by itself show that such desire is natural. Homosexual activists often breathlessly cite this or that alleged “finding” that such a basis exists; someday they might even cite something plausible. “Whatever, dude,” as the kids say. Even if it is established beyond a reasonable doubt that there is such a basis, with respect to the question of the “naturalness” of homosexuality, this would prove exactly zip.
Of course, that by itself does not show that homosexuality is immoral either. After all, having a clubfoot is not immoral, and neither is being born blind or with a predisposition for alcoholism. These are simply afflictions for which the sufferer is not at fault, and can only call forth our sympathy. On the other hand, if someone born with normal feet wanted to give himself a clubfoot through surgery, we would find this at the very least irrational; and if someone concluded from his having a genetic predisposition for alcoholism that regularly drinking to excess would be a worthwhile “lifestyle” for him to pursue, then we would regard him as sorely mistaken, even if he could do this in a way that allowed him to hold down a job, keep his friends and family, and avoid car accidents. Even amid the depravity of modern civilization, most people realize that the life of an alcoholic is simply not a good thing, even if the alcoholic himself thinks it is and even if he “doesn’t hurt anybody else.” We know in our bones that there is something ignoble and unfitting about it. In the same way, should it turn out that a desire to molest children has a genetic basis, no one would conclude from this that sexual attraction toward children is a good thing, even if the person who has it was able to satisfy his disgusting urges without actually touching any children. We all know in our bones that someone obsessed with masturbating to pictures of naked toddlers is sick, and not living the way a human being ought to live, even if he never leaves the darkness of his own room and his own soul.
Now I realize, of course, that many readers will acknowledge that we do in fact have these reactions, but would nevertheless write them off as mere reactions. “Our tendency to find something personally disgusting,” they will sniff, “doesn’t show that there is anything objectively wrong with it.” This is the sort of stupidity-masquerading-as-insight that absolutely pervades modern intellectual life, and it has the same source as so many other contemporary intellectual pathologies: the abandonment of the classical realism of the great Greek and Scholastic philosophers, and especially of Aristotle’s doctrine of the four causes. For we need to ask why there is a universal, or near universal, reaction of disgust to certain behaviors, and why certain traits count as unnatural even if there is a genetic factor underlying them. And when the “evolutionary psychologists,” “rational choice theorists,” and other such Bright Young Things and trendies have had their say, there can still be no satisfying answer to these questions that does not make reference to Aristotelian final causes – even if only because there can be no satisfying explanation of almost anything that doesn’t make reference to final causes.
Let’s back up then, and see what morality in general looks like from a point of view informed by Aristotelian metaphysics, and then return later on to the question of sexual morality in particular. Like Plato, Aristotle takes a thing’s form, essence, or nature to determine the good for it.
Hence, a good triangle is one that corresponds as closely as possible to the form of triangularity, its sides drawn as perfectly straight as possible, etc. A good squirrel is one that has the typical marks of the species and successfully fulfills the characteristic activities of a squirrel’s life, e.g. by not having broken limbs, not gathering stones for its food rather than acorns, etc. So far this is obviously a non-moral sense of “good” – the claim isn’t that triangles and squirrels are deserving of moral praise or blame – and corresponds closely to the sense in which we might think of something as a “good specimen” or “good example” of some kind or class of things. But it is the foundation for the distinctively moral sense of goodness.
Even from the squirrel example it is obvious that for any animal there are going to be various behaviors that are conducive to its well being and others that are not, and that these latter will be bad for it whatever the reason it wants to do them. So, to return to an obvious example from Chapter 2, if a squirrel has some genetic mutation that makes it want to lay itself out spread-eagled on the freeway, the fact that it enjoys doing this obviously does not entail that it is good for it to do so. Or, to take another but less obvious example from Chapter 2, if you somehow conditioned a squirrel to live in a cage and eat nothing but toothpaste on Ritz crackers, to such an extent that it no longer wanted to leave the cage, scamper up trees, and search for acorns, etc., even when given the chance, it wouldn’t follow that the life of a Colgate addict is a good life for this particular squirrel. The sickly thing is simply not as healthy and “happy” a squirrel as he would have been had he never got himself into this fix, even if he has (of course) no way of knowing this. And again, this would remain true even if the squirrel had a genetic predisposition to like the taste of Colgate and dislike the taste of acorns, one that was not present in other squirrels. That predisposition simply wouldn’t “jibe” with the overall structure of the natural physical and behavioral characteristics that are his by virtue of his instantiating the nature of a squirrel, however imperfectly. The predisposition would be a defect, like a puzzle piece that won’t fit the rest of the puzzle.
Now, when we turn to human beings we find that they too have a nature or essence, and the good for them, like the good for anything else, is defined in terms of this nature or essence. Unlike other animals, though, human beings have intellect and will, and this is where moral goodness enters the picture. Human beings can know what is good for them, and choose whether to pursue that good. And that is precisely the natural end or purpose of the faculties of intellect and will – for like our other faculties, they too have a final cause, namely to allow us to understand the truth about things, including what is good for us given our nature or essence, and to act in light of it. Just as a “good squirrel” is one that successfully carries out the characteristic activities of a squirrel’s life by gathering acorns, scampering up trees, etc., so too a good human being is one who successfully carries out the characteristic activities of human life, as determined by the final causes or natural ends of the various faculties that are ours by virtue of our nature or essence. Hence, for example, given that we have intellect as part of our nature, and that the purpose or final cause of the intellect is to allow us to understand the truth about things, it follows that it is good for us – it fulfills our nature – to pursue truth and to avoid error. So, a good human being will be, among many other things, someone who pursues truth and avoids error. And this becomes moral goodness insofar as we can choose whether or not to fulfill our natures in this way. To choose in line with the final causes or purposes that are ours by nature is morally good; to choose against them is morally bad.
"But why should we choose to do what is good for us in this Aristotelian sense?” someone might ask. The answer is implicit in what has been said already. The will of its very nature is oriented to pursuing what the intellect regards as good. You don’t even need to believe in Aristotelian final causes to see this; you know it from your own experience insofar as you only ever do something because you think it is in some way good. Of course you might also believe that what you are doing is morally evil – as a murderer or thief might – but that doesn’t conflict with what I’m saying. Even the murderer or thief who knows that murder and stealing are wrong nevertheless thinks that what he’s doing will result in something he regards as good, e.g. the death of a person he hates or some money to pay for his drugs. I mean “good” here only in this thin sense, of being in some way desirable or providing some benefit. And that is all Aquinas means by it when he famously tells us that the first principle of the natural law is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” This is not meant by itself to be terribly informative; it is meant only to call attention to the obvious fact that human action is of its nature directed toward what is perceived to be good in some way, whether it really is good or not.
But when we add to this the consideration that the good for us is in fact whatever tends to fulfill our nature or essence in the sense of realizing the natural ends or purposes of our various natural capacities, then there can be no doubt as to why someone ought to do what is good in this sense. For you do by nature want to do what you take to be good for you; reason reveals that what is in fact good for you is acting in a way that is conducive to the fulfillment of the ends or purposes inherent in human nature; and so if you are rational, and thus open to seeing what is in fact good for you, you will take the fulfillment of those ends or purposes to be good for you and act accordingly. This may require a fight against one’s desires and such a fight might in some cases be so extremely difficult and unpleasant that one might not have the stomach for it. But that is a problem of will, not of reason. It doesn’t show that the rational thing is not to struggle against one’s desires, but only that doing the rational thing can sometimes be extremely difficult and unpleasant. An obvious illustration of this is what happens when someone decides to stop drinking to excess: He previously thought drinking to excess was a good thing to do, or at least not a habit worth struggling against; then he realizes that it is not a good thing to do, and in fact that it would be good to stop doing it; and so he decides to stop doing it. Now he may well find that implementing this decision is extremely difficult; he may even come to find it so difficult that he starts to think it impossible. But that doesn’t mean that to stop drinking to excess really isn’t what is good for him, and thus what reason recommends. It only shows that his will has become so extremely corrupted that he is unable, or nearly unable, to do what it is good and rational for him to do. And notice this remains true whether or not his excessive drinking was in some way facilitated by some genetic factor. The presence of such a factor would not show that excessive drinking is good for him after all, but only that because of some tragic defect outside his control, he finds it more difficult than other people do to do what is good and rational. This would certainly reduce his culpability, and justify us in treating him with greater compassion and understanding than we might treat someone without such a handicap, but it would not justify revising our judgment that what he is doing is objectively bad and irrational.
Perhaps it is obvious from what’s been said already what is wrong with these objections, but if not, here it is. The “nature” of a thing, from an Aristotelian point of view, is, as we’ve seen, the form or essence it instantiates. Hence, once again to haul in my triangle example, it is of the essence, nature, or form of a triangle to have three perfectly straight sides.7 Notice that this remains true even if some particular triangle does not have three perfectly straight sides, and indeed even though (as I’ve repeated ad nauseam) every material instance of a triangle has some defect or other. The point is that these are defects, failures to conform to the nature or essence of triangularity; the fact that such defective triangles exist in the natural world and in accordance with the laws of physics doesn’t make them any less “unnatural” in the relevant sense.
When we get to biological organs, we have things whose natures or essences more obviously involve certain final causes or purposes. So, for example, the function or final cause of eyeballs is to enable us to see. But suppose someone’s eyeballs are defective in some way, making his vision blurry. In that case, to wear eyeglasses isn’t contrary to the natural function of eyeballs; rather, it quite obviously restores to the eyeballs their ability to carry out their natural function. Bicycles don’t do this, of course, but they do extend, rather than conflict with, the ability of the legs to carry out their natural function of allowing us to move about.
Finally, to round out this initial reply to some standard bad objections to natural law theory, while it is true that some defenders and critics of traditional sexual morality seem to worry themselves endlessly about whether homosexuality has a genetic basis, the question is actually largely irrelevant, and they shouldn’t waste their time. For it is quite obvious that the existence of a genetic basis for some trait does not by itself prove anything about whether it is “natural” in the relevant sense. To take just one of many possible examples, that there is a genetic basis for clubfoot doesn’t show that having clubfeet is “natural.” Quite obviously it is unnatural, certainly in the Aristotelian sense of failure perfectly to conform to the essence or nature of a thing. And no one who has a clubfoot would take offense at someone’s noting this obvious matter of fact, or
find it convincing that the existence of a genetic basis for his affliction shows that it is something he should “embrace” and “celebrate.” Nor would it be plausible to suggest that God “made him that way,” any more than God “makes” people to be born blind, deaf, armless, legless, prone to alcoholism, or autistic. God obviously allows these things, for whatever reason; but it doesn’t follow that He positively wills them, and it certainly doesn’t follow that they are “natural.” So, by the same token, the possibility of a genetic basis for homosexual desire doesn’t by itself show that such desire is natural. Homosexual activists often breathlessly cite this or that alleged “finding” that such a basis exists; someday they might even cite something plausible. “Whatever, dude,” as the kids say. Even if it is established beyond a reasonable doubt that there is such a basis, with respect to the question of the “naturalness” of homosexuality, this would prove exactly zip.
Of course, that by itself does not show that homosexuality is immoral either. After all, having a clubfoot is not immoral, and neither is being born blind or with a predisposition for alcoholism. These are simply afflictions for which the sufferer is not at fault, and can only call forth our sympathy. On the other hand, if someone born with normal feet wanted to give himself a clubfoot through surgery, we would find this at the very least irrational; and if someone concluded from his having a genetic predisposition for alcoholism that regularly drinking to excess would be a worthwhile “lifestyle” for him to pursue, then we would regard him as sorely mistaken, even if he could do this in a way that allowed him to hold down a job, keep his friends and family, and avoid car accidents. Even amid the depravity of modern civilization, most people realize that the life of an alcoholic is simply not a good thing, even if the alcoholic himself thinks it is and even if he “doesn’t hurt anybody else.” We know in our bones that there is something ignoble and unfitting about it. In the same way, should it turn out that a desire to molest children has a genetic basis, no one would conclude from this that sexual attraction toward children is a good thing, even if the person who has it was able to satisfy his disgusting urges without actually touching any children. We all know in our bones that someone obsessed with masturbating to pictures of naked toddlers is sick, and not living the way a human being ought to live, even if he never leaves the darkness of his own room and his own soul.
Now I realize, of course, that many readers will acknowledge that we do in fact have these reactions, but would nevertheless write them off as mere reactions. “Our tendency to find something personally disgusting,” they will sniff, “doesn’t show that there is anything objectively wrong with it.” This is the sort of stupidity-masquerading-as-insight that absolutely pervades modern intellectual life, and it has the same source as so many other contemporary intellectual pathologies: the abandonment of the classical realism of the great Greek and Scholastic philosophers, and especially of Aristotle’s doctrine of the four causes. For we need to ask why there is a universal, or near universal, reaction of disgust to certain behaviors, and why certain traits count as unnatural even if there is a genetic factor underlying them. And when the “evolutionary psychologists,” “rational choice theorists,” and other such Bright Young Things and trendies have had their say, there can still be no satisfying answer to these questions that does not make reference to Aristotelian final causes – even if only because there can be no satisfying explanation of almost anything that doesn’t make reference to final causes.
Let’s back up then, and see what morality in general looks like from a point of view informed by Aristotelian metaphysics, and then return later on to the question of sexual morality in particular. Like Plato, Aristotle takes a thing’s form, essence, or nature to determine the good for it.
Hence, a good triangle is one that corresponds as closely as possible to the form of triangularity, its sides drawn as perfectly straight as possible, etc. A good squirrel is one that has the typical marks of the species and successfully fulfills the characteristic activities of a squirrel’s life, e.g. by not having broken limbs, not gathering stones for its food rather than acorns, etc. So far this is obviously a non-moral sense of “good” – the claim isn’t that triangles and squirrels are deserving of moral praise or blame – and corresponds closely to the sense in which we might think of something as a “good specimen” or “good example” of some kind or class of things. But it is the foundation for the distinctively moral sense of goodness.
Even from the squirrel example it is obvious that for any animal there are going to be various behaviors that are conducive to its well being and others that are not, and that these latter will be bad for it whatever the reason it wants to do them. So, to return to an obvious example from Chapter 2, if a squirrel has some genetic mutation that makes it want to lay itself out spread-eagled on the freeway, the fact that it enjoys doing this obviously does not entail that it is good for it to do so. Or, to take another but less obvious example from Chapter 2, if you somehow conditioned a squirrel to live in a cage and eat nothing but toothpaste on Ritz crackers, to such an extent that it no longer wanted to leave the cage, scamper up trees, and search for acorns, etc., even when given the chance, it wouldn’t follow that the life of a Colgate addict is a good life for this particular squirrel. The sickly thing is simply not as healthy and “happy” a squirrel as he would have been had he never got himself into this fix, even if he has (of course) no way of knowing this. And again, this would remain true even if the squirrel had a genetic predisposition to like the taste of Colgate and dislike the taste of acorns, one that was not present in other squirrels. That predisposition simply wouldn’t “jibe” with the overall structure of the natural physical and behavioral characteristics that are his by virtue of his instantiating the nature of a squirrel, however imperfectly. The predisposition would be a defect, like a puzzle piece that won’t fit the rest of the puzzle.
Now, when we turn to human beings we find that they too have a nature or essence, and the good for them, like the good for anything else, is defined in terms of this nature or essence. Unlike other animals, though, human beings have intellect and will, and this is where moral goodness enters the picture. Human beings can know what is good for them, and choose whether to pursue that good. And that is precisely the natural end or purpose of the faculties of intellect and will – for like our other faculties, they too have a final cause, namely to allow us to understand the truth about things, including what is good for us given our nature or essence, and to act in light of it. Just as a “good squirrel” is one that successfully carries out the characteristic activities of a squirrel’s life by gathering acorns, scampering up trees, etc., so too a good human being is one who successfully carries out the characteristic activities of human life, as determined by the final causes or natural ends of the various faculties that are ours by virtue of our nature or essence. Hence, for example, given that we have intellect as part of our nature, and that the purpose or final cause of the intellect is to allow us to understand the truth about things, it follows that it is good for us – it fulfills our nature – to pursue truth and to avoid error. So, a good human being will be, among many other things, someone who pursues truth and avoids error. And this becomes moral goodness insofar as we can choose whether or not to fulfill our natures in this way. To choose in line with the final causes or purposes that are ours by nature is morally good; to choose against them is morally bad.
"But why should we choose to do what is good for us in this Aristotelian sense?” someone might ask. The answer is implicit in what has been said already. The will of its very nature is oriented to pursuing what the intellect regards as good. You don’t even need to believe in Aristotelian final causes to see this; you know it from your own experience insofar as you only ever do something because you think it is in some way good. Of course you might also believe that what you are doing is morally evil – as a murderer or thief might – but that doesn’t conflict with what I’m saying. Even the murderer or thief who knows that murder and stealing are wrong nevertheless thinks that what he’s doing will result in something he regards as good, e.g. the death of a person he hates or some money to pay for his drugs. I mean “good” here only in this thin sense, of being in some way desirable or providing some benefit. And that is all Aquinas means by it when he famously tells us that the first principle of the natural law is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” This is not meant by itself to be terribly informative; it is meant only to call attention to the obvious fact that human action is of its nature directed toward what is perceived to be good in some way, whether it really is good or not.
But when we add to this the consideration that the good for us is in fact whatever tends to fulfill our nature or essence in the sense of realizing the natural ends or purposes of our various natural capacities, then there can be no doubt as to why someone ought to do what is good in this sense. For you do by nature want to do what you take to be good for you; reason reveals that what is in fact good for you is acting in a way that is conducive to the fulfillment of the ends or purposes inherent in human nature; and so if you are rational, and thus open to seeing what is in fact good for you, you will take the fulfillment of those ends or purposes to be good for you and act accordingly. This may require a fight against one’s desires and such a fight might in some cases be so extremely difficult and unpleasant that one might not have the stomach for it. But that is a problem of will, not of reason. It doesn’t show that the rational thing is not to struggle against one’s desires, but only that doing the rational thing can sometimes be extremely difficult and unpleasant. An obvious illustration of this is what happens when someone decides to stop drinking to excess: He previously thought drinking to excess was a good thing to do, or at least not a habit worth struggling against; then he realizes that it is not a good thing to do, and in fact that it would be good to stop doing it; and so he decides to stop doing it. Now he may well find that implementing this decision is extremely difficult; he may even come to find it so difficult that he starts to think it impossible. But that doesn’t mean that to stop drinking to excess really isn’t what is good for him, and thus what reason recommends. It only shows that his will has become so extremely corrupted that he is unable, or nearly unable, to do what it is good and rational for him to do. And notice this remains true whether or not his excessive drinking was in some way facilitated by some genetic factor. The presence of such a factor would not show that excessive drinking is good for him after all, but only that because of some tragic defect outside his control, he finds it more difficult than other people do to do what is good and rational. This would certainly reduce his culpability, and justify us in treating him with greater compassion and understanding than we might treat someone without such a handicap, but it would not justify revising our judgment that what he is doing is objectively bad and irrational.
That being said, homosexuality is pretty bleak even from a secular perspective. Children don't just carry your nature on, they cement the union between you and your loved one. They're a literal DBZ fusion of the two of you who live after you're dead. At least with Christianity there's an alternative like monasticism (which is even seen as better). What's an agnostic homosexual supposed to do, test tube babies? After seeing how that's worked with the guy this thread is about? Best case scenario you get your own America First, worst case I almost guarantee you you get some sort of soulless homunculus.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2021
Ignore the gay text with it, this is from some Twittard that is REEEEE WHITE NATIONALIZT REEEE. Still funny content tho worth archiving.
His mom on his show wishing the groys merry christmas. Nick loves his mom and that is cute... I just wish he felt the same for all women too bad he's and coping.
Again ignore the gay text this is just a family photo to add in.
Someone's edit that made me lol. (An alog runs a trans groyper twitter)
"What is an agnostic homosexual supposed to do?" Adopt lmao. That's the easiest option or do a foster to adopt. Nobody seems to want those kids and I feel if you want kids you should be wanting kids because you want to raise someone whose a useful adult and not some "muh genetics" or "muh union" shit. Just because someone is #literallyou doesn't guarantee as much as people think it does. Nick's parents are together still, biologically his parents, and catholic #moral....and yeah, his dad likely was the one with fertility issues. But clearly Nick is still a closeted homosexual. What does that say to your theory? He turned out a retard despite this. It's not that he's a test tube baby, shit just turns out that way sometimes and moralfagging doesn't fix that he's a coping narcissistic faggot with no solid moral values other than what benefits him the most.
Its Nature via Nurture. Not versus. And sometimes shit just happens outside of your locus of control.
Btw: you could also do a donor sperm/egg surrogate (which yes you can breed the old fashioned way without test tubes if you want).
I also am gonna put out there for the 2 other women who read this thread don't carry eggs that aren't your own, the health risks aren't worth it. You can literally die from it/kill another woman or make them very sick.
His mom on his show wishing the groys merry christmas. Nick loves his mom and that is cute... I just wish he felt the same for all women too bad he's
and coping.
Again ignore the gay text this is just a family photo to add in.
Someone's edit that made me lol. (An alog runs a trans groyper twitter)
Dog, coming from someone whose written 200 page documents.... They're all autistic. If it wasn't an autistic document, it wouldn't need to be 200 pages.
"What is an agnostic homosexual supposed to do?" Adopt lmao. That's the easiest option or do a foster to adopt. Nobody seems to want those kids and I feel if you want kids you should be wanting kids because you want to raise someone whose a useful adult and not some "muh genetics" or "muh union" shit. Just because someone is #literallyou doesn't guarantee as much as people think it does. Nick's parents are together still, biologically his parents, and catholic #moral....and yeah, his dad likely was the one with fertility issues. But clearly Nick is still a closeted homosexual. What does that say to your theory? He turned out a retard despite this. It's not that he's a test tube baby, shit just turns out that way sometimes and moralfagging doesn't fix that he's a coping narcissistic faggot with no solid moral values other than what benefits him the most.
Its Nature via Nurture. Not versus. And sometimes shit just happens outside of your locus of control.
Btw: you could also do a donor sperm/egg surrogate (which yes you can breed the old fashioned way without test tubes if you want).
I also am gonna put out there for the 2 other women who read this thread don't carry eggs that aren't your own, the health risks aren't worth it. You can literally die from it/kill another woman or make them very sick.
Rosy Reptile
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 7, 2022
Adoption is a good thing, but it doesn't solve the issue that we're talking about which is mortality, and especially mortality in the context of romance. Functionally cucking your partner by having someone else's child doesn't cement your bond with your partner, it cements you with some other guy. Obviously you need to actually raise your child, but there's also a human psychological and spiritual need to overcome death. Homosexuality and other barren ways of living actively cultivate an unhealthy attitude towards death where it's at best something to ignore and be distracted from. At worst you get bugchasing death fetishism stuff or people trying to take advantage of that anxiety to sell you on transhumanism or whatever garbage. Having kids obviously isn't a perfect solution, but it's the only secular one that people realistically have.Ignore the gay text with it, this is from some Twittard that is REEEEE WHITE NATIONALIZT REEEE. Still funny content tho worth archiving.
View attachment 3386819
His mom on his show wishing the groys merry christmas. Nick loves his mom and that is cute... I just wish he felt the same for all women too bad he's
View attachment 3386817
View attachment 3386816
Again ignore the gay text this is just a family photo to add in.
View attachment 3386818
Someone's edit that made me lol. (An alog runs a trans groyper twitter)
Dog, coming from someone whose written 200 page documents.... They're all autistic. If it wasn't an autistic document, it wouldn't need to be 200 pages.
"What is an agnostic homosexual supposed to do?" Adopt lmao. That's the easiest option or do a foster to adopt. Nobody seems to want those kids and I feel if you want kids you should be wanting kids because you want to raise someone whose a useful adult and not some "muh genetics" or "muh union" shit. Just because someone is #literallyou doesn't guarantee as much as people think it does. Nick's parents are together still, biologically his parents, and catholic #moral....and yeah, his dad likely was the one with fertility issues. But clearly Nick is still a closeted homosexual. What does that say to your theory? He turned out a retard despite this. It's not that he's a test tube baby, shit just turns out that way sometimes and moralfagging doesn't fix that he's a coping narcissistic faggot with no solid moral values other than what benefits him the most.
Its Nature via Nurture. Not versus. And sometimes shit just happens outside of your locus of control.
Btw: you could also do a donor sperm/egg surrogate (which yes you can breed the old fashioned way without test tubes if you want).
I also am gonna put out there for the 2 other women who read this thread don't carry eggs that aren't your own, the health risks aren't worth it. You can literally die from it/kill another woman or make them very sick.
Also I'm not going to argue that Roman Catholicism is a good model for raising non-homosexuals. They do better than many groups in one sense, if only for the fact that they're decently consistent when it comes to thinking up justifications for their positions that an intellectually honest person could find convincing (whether or not they're actually correct being another question). The problem is that they're unintuitive philosophical constructs that don't have the power to touch or often even really describe what's going on inside a person.
But this is veering off of the original subject of making kissy faces with dudes (with the tongue) probably not being OK with the Apostles.
Last edited:
Kung Pow Cream
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2020
I've actually struggled a lot in writing for academic purposes in life to reach a certain page count because oftentimes you need to explain many things in very great detail and essentially write like you're talking to an alien.
If you're doing that for 200 pages and it's simply a statement on your views, I would describe that as autistic but I could handwave it away if the statement was also for teaching purposes because if you don't do it in a very detailed way, people will start acting retarded because they didn't understand.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2019
here's an AI's interpretation of the prompt "Nick Fuentes and his catboy boyfriend". It's far too optimistic with the body image but still humorous
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2021
Why do you have so much literature on homosexuality
Thesis papers have to oft be this way my fren. Journal articles are way shorter but can be still as autistic. I have written technical documents too for work related shit or guide posts for games in the past too that needs to be this autistic in explanation.
I also want to know if we have more on this dude who keeps alogging Nick and seems to be respectfully engaging with groys as a well-meaning journo who tries to get his facts right.
He watches Nick's show and Nick has commented on him a few times. The bluecheck specializes in "right wing hate groups". He supports the theory the Tranny Porn Incident (tm) was a hoax and has spread information as such to "clear Nick's name" on that.
Rosy Reptile
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 7, 2022
I had to think about that for a moment. Neither Feser nor Fr. Trenham's books are specifically about homosexuality. Feser's is really more of a polemic against atheism from a Roman Catholic perspective, and I read it back in my brief RC days. Fr. Trenham's is about marriage in general and barely mentions homosexuality at all. I did buy it specifically to figure out the Orthodox position on asexual homoromanticism, though. I'll also be looking into Fr. Thomas Hopko's book specifically about same sex attraction.Why do you have so much literature on homosexuality
The gays are throwing out new curveballs all the time, and you've got to stay one step ahead if you want to stay in the game.
I think I accidentally erased my reply to this. Fr. Trenham's book covers everything from polygamy to contraception using that one central idea, so that's probably largely what's going on here. He could stand to clean up the first chapter though.
Last edited:
HeroicIdealism
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2022
According to Nick's DNA test, he's ~70% Italian, no? I'm pretty sure it's the Hispanic side of his that is the minority at ~25%. Otherwise I agree with you.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2019
Spicghetti Nick
Gay Mexican Child
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 9, 2022
eggy is the polar opposite of nick on the incel Q. Eggy is an actual incel, who is super ugly and who repulses women. he has had many problems due to his appearance. Nick's appearance does not immediatly repulse women, he is traditionally handsome. Nick has chosen to be an incel because it is easier than admitting he is a porn addict with a tranny fetish. Eggy goes to the gym and is a social and normal guy who dates girls.
Nick is a fakecel, eggy is a real incel. i wish PPP had let him on the KC that night i bet he had way more behind the scenes stuff on nick.
Eggy, Shawn, and beardson were the weekly sweat regulars, and eggy and shawn have stopped associating with nick. Beardson is close to suicide.
Shawn and eggy have not officially disavowed NJF. nobody in the right mind would publicly do that lol terrible idea
he is like 50% irish i think. i remember he is about italian as he is mexican
groypers are the kind of christian to say "god" instead of "God" lol
Climaxing Sunset
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2021
Actually Fuentes isnt 50% Irish. His father is half Mexican and half Irish. His mother is full Italian. Nipples and his Goblinx is a trifecta of muttery and a genetic abomination
trickyzerg23
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2021
No doubt he claimed to be 50% Irish. He wishes he were a potatonigger. He's 100% beaner.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2020
Nick is desperate for attention from Destiny because it's his only way to clout chase
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2021
I saw his dad and I think he's lying, it wouldn't shock me if he was 50% Jewish
HeroicIdealism
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2022
My memory could be faulty but this is what I remember: ~70% Italian, ~20% Hispanic, 2% Subsaharan African. I can't remember the exact numbers (other than African funnily enough). I don't recall any Irish but if you're sure about that then it looks like my memory is off after all. I'm pretty sure he wasn't actually majority Hispanic though which is something I see a lot of people on this site claim (not saying you did though). If anyone has the DNA test clip and could share it, that would be great.