Message from @ETBrooD
Discord ID: 616163828274561025
You're completely avoiding the point I was trying to make that resisting the temptation of MASTURBATION WHICH WAS THE ONLY TOPIC was a NEGATIVE THINg because the alternate route taken to alliviate ME PINGY HARD is MORE REWARDING than JERKING OFF
Do you scratch when you have an itch? Answer honestly
You could decorate a diabetic comatose corpse in barroque ornamentalist styles and call it a work of art.
Complete non-sequitor
Answer it
Complete non-sequitor
Your refusal proves me right then, thanks
Complete non-sequitor
Go impulsively jerk off sweetheart it's totally good for you
I won the argument so hard
Just instantly fold to your temptation
I mean
I'm laughing so hard at this guy
😂
Teenagers give in to the temptation, so it is not like you are doing anything great about wanting to win an argument rather than being truthful about it @Imaorange
ANSWER ME DO YOU SCRATCH
YOU DIDNT ANSWER SO I WIN
Are you 12? 😂
It's a non-sequitor
It is not really
I wanted to talk about physiology and science behind masturbation and mental/physical effects
Don't be tempted 😄
this faggot wants to know when I itch my balls
We were talking about the moralistic definition & standpoint on stimuli.
And I was *connecting that* to the *science* which would *support a moral position*
Having an itch, which is as far as I know a series of stimuli intended to protect you from insect predators and disease, is a temptation.
When there's a fundamental disagreement, it must be resolved on a fundamental level, or the debate can't continue meaningfully
That the moralists *unkowningly were correct about*
Science can be immoral.
You have to break a few eggs to make an omlette.
You have to cut up a few corpses in order to learn anatomy.
What does that even mean in this context
You have to desecrate graves in order to investigate time.
You are taking tools and turning them into Gods.
Are you suggesting it was morally right that they had to test effects of jerking off or something
No?
In other words, you assume that a moralist position is the only right way to go about it.
I'm presenting that the moralist position was unknowingly synonymous with the scientific position
rofl
Not *entirely*