For iamastupidcunt, and any other Desperate Degenerate…
I give her two contexts to choose from.
Context #1
Mary Land - people who know her call her Karen - is a female who identifies as a biological male. Her pronouns are she/her.
She is a washed up disabled old fart, but she is extremely horny.
Karen luvs to visit a local gay club where she picks up other transsexuals. She luvs cock sliding into her rectum or down her œsophagus.
One day she had a sexual encounter with a black male who identifies as a white lesbian female.
She had her a-hole stretched to its physical limits, and she luved it.
She later discovered she was pregnant, because nature don’t give a shit about insane narcissistic retardas with a god complex, and their imaginary identities.
Dilemma
Should society pay for her abortion so that Karen can continue being a stupid slut, or should Karen have the kid, and raise it to be another fucked-up confused degenerate?
Third option: she should pay for her own abortion and rethink her lifestyle choices.
Context #2
Mary, who identifies as a feline male is a pedophile. He luvs having intercourse with prepubescent boys. The younger the better.
His preference are 6 year-old south-asian boys - of the human variety.
Dilemma
Is Mary’s fetish moral, immoral, or neither?
Prerequisites
A definition of morality outside books, including dictionaries, that refers to actions, is necessary.
Argument
A dictionary has a definition for free-will…does it therefore exist?
A dictionary has a definition of Leprechauns, do they exist?
A dictionary has a definition of god, does god exist?
Does everything defined and written in books exist; does what is not defined and not written in books not exist?
If the definition does not refer to something outside texts, then it is a theory, an abstraction, that exists only in the mind as an idea, but does not exist in the world, outside and independent from subjective minds, i.e., has no objective existence.
Value
A value judgement requires a subject, an object, and a world both share and exist within, are part of - this establishes the movement, effort, distance, between subjects and their common object/objective.
All other value judgements are theoretical, hypothetical, imaginary, where world is replaced by mind and both subject and its object/objective exists only in the mind.
I will not debate such imaginary hypotheticals.
Therefore, only value judgements where subjects - I and/or other - and a clear and existing object/objective are defined and validated will be accepted as an object of evaluation - creating the necessary triangulation for any value-judgement to be debated.
Ergo, in the above contexts Mary’s objective must be stated for a thorough evaluation of her judgment’s value to proceed. Her objective must then be juxtaposed to another’s objective so that we can compare the possible positive and negative consequences that will help us evaluate who is more accurate.
Or, instead of another, a collective, a group’s objective, described by their shared ideals, must be provided - preferably the group Mary belongs to, or wants to continue belonging to.
Morality
My definition of morality is a set of behaviours, choices, emerging because they facilitate cooperative survival and reproductive strategies, becoming innate, over thousands of years of natural selection.
No god, no cultural coercion required.
Ethics would be cultural amendments to the previous, once the previous have been encoded linguistically by one such social organism that also evolved abstract thinking and language.
Such amendments are guided by a collective ideal, which may or may not contradict the innate moral behaviours previously mentioned.
If these definitions are unsatisfactory let Karen, the stupidcunt, offer alternative definitions.
Prediction
*huffin puffin
*Look what I’ve reduced him to
*Dasein
etc.
In which case, let Karen give us an example of a satisfactory context, along with definitions, of the previously mentioned, and justifications, if the previous definitions do not suffice for her Karen mind.
