So why do you watch porn?
watching porn makes me horny and then I rub my dick and juice comes out
Oddly enough most of the porn I watch is rape.
>>28737713
So I don't rape girls.
>>28737713
I would if i could get away with it.
>>28737713
Because watching rape is not rape any more than drinking coffee is coffee.
>>28737754
>watching rape is not rape any more than drinking coffee is coffee.
what?
>>28737754
>Because watching rape is not rape any more than drinking coffee is coffee.
i get watching rape isn't rape, but wtf is that coffee analogy
>>28737784
There is no sense to metyonymic guilt by association that watching rape is bad.
>>28737792
I intentionally chose a household analogy to illustrate how absurd it is.
>>28737713
What? I rape sluts all the time because I cannot talk to them. It's easier to rape than face rejection.
I wouldn't? If I knew I could get away with it I would.
>>28737803
>metyonymic
*metonymic
>>28737803
but the analogy didn't make sense, drinking coffee isn't coffee is true but that doesn't relate sensibly to watching rape not being rape
>>28737847
It does. x-ing an y never is y.
>>28737899
I bet you say that to all the woman you rape
>>28737899
ya could have picked something that made made more sense like
watching someone cut their arm off isn't cutting a arm off
>>28737924
Cutting an arm off is not an arm, faggot.
>>28737924
whatever, it makes sense both ways
>>28737941
this comment was meant for this guy>>28737929
>>28737929
This doesn't even make sense. You should have said 'cutting an arm off is not an arm off'.
>>28737941
No it doesn't. Your way makes no sense at all.
>>28737957
they all make sense ffs, except the coffee one is a lil' more confusing
>>28737957
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrasal_verb
English is hrd.
>>28737961
yes it does, watching someone cut their arm off is not the same as cutting a arm off
makes sense
>>28737713
low quality bait
real original hours
>>28737971
The concept of 'phrasal verb' is actually highly linguistically primitive and unanalytic. There is no such thing, the prepositions are in reality just other objects of the verb. In fact, there isn't really any difference between a preposition and a noun -- prepositions are in reality just highly abstract nouns. Cf. 'she made no reply, up her mind, and a dash for the door'. When 'someone sat down', then it is perfectly fine to transitively say 'down has been sat by someone'. The only reason you're going to say it's ungrammatical is your arbitrarily inconsistent application of possible transformations.
> watching disgusting 3d porn
why? 2d is superior
>>28737713
How do you equate porn with rape? Girls in vanilla porn take that shit and beg for more. They love it.
>>28738006
>The only reason you're going to say it's ungrammatical is your arbitrarily inconsistent application of possible transformations.
Kek. What's your alternative? "Everything is grammatical because I say so. Language is not even real, man?".
Suck a dick, Wittgenstein.
>>28738054
Grammatical rules being arbitrary is one thing; your arbitrariness is failing even to universally make use of rules that've already been established. Your unwillingness to split phrasal verbs is as irrational as taking as a whole, say, infinitives, refusing to say 'to then take', or refusing to mobilize expletive subjects, for instance transforming 'there is a cat' into 'for there to be a cat...'.
>>28737754
Your analogy is off m8. The difference between coffee and drinking coffee is that coffee is not an act while drinking it is. The difference between rape and watching rape is different because they are both acts. Why am i even typing this? What the fuck? I'm so tired, I should go to bed.
>>28738090
>>28738006
In other words, the concept of part of speech is trash that should be kicked out of cirricula as soon as possible because it can only confuse children.
>>28738090
(There are infinite examples, for instance someone really linguistically incompetent might refuse to detach past participles by saying, oh, 'killed is something being which most people avoid'.
>>28738090
My treating phrasal verbs as unitary entities is consistent with the principle of substitution, which is the guiding rule of all linguistics. You can cut an arm off but you can't cut an arm on, which would be quite reasonable if "off" were just a type of noun, as you suggest.
>>28738183
You're confusing two things. Of course particular semantics prohibit certain combinations; 'to cut an arm on' is prohibited by the meaning of 'cut'. What I'm talking about is recognizing the same structure of 'cutting an arm off' and 'giving Anne a gift', which is both verb-object-object. Within this (often un)recognized structure, transformations such as transitivity, or inserting a proxy such as 'giving Anne a top gift' or 'cutting an arm top off', are to be applied equally.
>>28738272
>>28738183
...Which isn't changed by the fact that it's conventionally semantically meaningless to say 'giving Anne a the'.
>>28737713
Because pic related. Almost, I'm not the Batman.
>>28738272
In short, people really should learn to see 'cutting (an arm) (off)' as just as well possible to have been 'cutting (an arm off)'. No possible syntax tree is better than any other.
>>28738330
Or, actually, even '(cutting an) (arm off)', because the idea of articles being mostly associated with the object and not the verb is arbitrary as well.
>>28738345
(Namely, I could just as well posit two classes of verbs, 'indefinite verbs' of the form 'verb a/an', and 'definite verbs' of 'verb the'.)
>>28737713
All the porn I watch is consensual.
>>28737713
>watching porn with females in it
>>28738272
If semantics were the issue here, a phrase like "stroke my freedom" would be ungrammatical. But it's not, it's just nonsensical. You may argue, "Oh, but 'freedom' here is probably a pet name for a penis" or "the sense is metaphorical, 'stroke' means to enjoy, or to flaunt", but the very fact that such interpretations are possible proves my point. You can't reinterpret "cut an arm on" in any way. It's syntactically, rather than semantically, unsound.
Moreover, note that the first "object" in the phrase can be replaced with any count noun whatsoever and the result is grammatical:
>cut a dog off
>cut an understanding off
>cut a number off
even if the meaning of these phrases might be questionable. On the other hand, "off" can only be substituted by an extremely limited number of words, say "up", "open", maybe "in". If your theory were true, you would have to explain why is it that "to cut" (or maybe just "cut"?) is a verb that takes two objects, but only an extremely limited number of second objects are admissible. In my case, all I have to posit is that "to cut off", "to cut up", etc, are separate lexicon entries, each operating on any possible choice of a count noun.
>>28738330
"Cutting (an arm) off" is superior because you can suppress "an arm" and get a resonable sounding "cutting off". You can also extract "an arm" and you get a noun phrase. "Cutting (an arm off)" is bad because "an arm off" is not a grammatical phrase. Your proposed syntax is non-compositional.
>porn topic
>intellectual linguistic debate
love you guys
>>28737713
>So why do you watch porn?
yes it's hard to find brutal rape porns. jap usually have that kind of shit
>>28738481
>a phrase like "stroke my freedom" would be ungrammatical. But it's not, it's just nonsensical
Agreed.
>You can't reinterpret "cut an arm on" in any way. It's syntactically, rather than semantically, unsound.
What? Of course I can. I don't even need to give examples, but here's one off the top of my head: 'he got his arm cut on' being a highly metonymic equivalent of 'he cut an arm off another person's body and attached it to his own'.
The rest of your paragraph is just restating that 'prepositional nouns' such as 'on', 'off', 'away' are in rather exacting semantic relationships with, dare I call it so, 'verbal nouns' of 'cut', 'put', 'give'. You don't seem to have acknowledged that I said it in >>28738272.
>>28738481
>get a resonable sounding "cutting off"
>reasonable-sounding
That's the very issue. 'Sounding reasonable' is simply a function of literacy. To me, 'to kill a' is a perfectly semantically self-sufficient whole: a parallel ('(to) (kill) (a)', NOT serial as in 'to(kill(a))'!!) string of nouns, of which the noun 'to' provides the idea of agency, the noun 'kill' is lexical, and the noun 'a' provides the idea of inspecificity.
>>28738594
>the noun 'to' provides the idea of agency, the noun 'kill' is lexical, and the noun 'a' provides the idea of inspecificity
And if you still don't see that 'to' is a noun, consider this trivial example: 'Should I send him to or without?'.
>>28737713
I started because puberty and hormones and now I'm stuck with it even though I don't even like it that much. I feel kinda addicted and too weak to quit because I have little rewarding stuff going on in my life.
>>28737713
Because im a cookie cutter porno addict.
>>28738594
>'he got his arm cut on' being a highly metonymic equivalent of 'he cut an arm off another person's body and attached it to his own'.
I don't see it. "Stroke my freedom" doesn't need contextualising, it is grammatical without apology. "Cut an arm on" could never stand by itself. It would need to be proceeded by a convoluted expression like the one you provided before it doesn't jar the ear. You might as well say "A 'the' is a type of creature. I saw a the today.".
The problem with >>28738272 is that you're allowing semantics to dictate syntax, which just isn't substantiated anywhere else in the language.
>To me, 'to kill a' is a perfectly semantically self-sufficient whole
Well, yes. If we go down that route it's pointless to argue. If you insist on pretending that "to kill a" is as grammatical as "to kill", there is nothing I can say to convince you otherwise. All I can really add is that:
>What are you cutting?
>An arm.
and
>What are you cutting off?
>An arm.
are both perfectly reasonable exchanges. On the other hand:
>What are you cutting?
>An arm off.
is not.
>>28738825
>you're allowing semantics to dictate syntax
What? Are you shitposting, trying to disrupt the thread, or just have no grasp on it at all? It's YOU who are doing exactly that, limiting syntax because of arbitrary presuppositions of what's 'right-sounding' (which, I'm happy to assure you, you're going to let go of in a couple of years).
>>What are you cutting?
>>An arm off.
is perfectly well-sounding and I wouldn't bat an eyelid if I heard it. It simply means that the answerer had, owing to their imagination, realized the many possible developments of 'cut' with which he initially answered, such as 'cut away', 'cut off', 'cut through', and the utility of adding the 'off', to specify the motion/purpose/whatever prepositional semantics.
There is a threshold of linguistic competence which is realizing the arbitrariness of all syntactic arrangements and striving to educate people to realize the same through example. 'To kill a' was obviously an extreme example, but making people see that a phrasal verb is just a regular verb phrase that just happens to take a 'preposition' for an object is really not much out of ordinary.
>>28738969
>>28738825
tl;dr get your off fucked.
>>28738032
>>28738383
ORLY? look at this girl. she might have signed some bullshit papers, but her body language screams no
I would and have raped a female.
>there are grown men IN THIS THREAD that haven't raped a whore
>>28739360
I'm sacred she might scratch me :^(
I have raped several women though and I'm not saying that to be edgy.
When I was 17 I took a 12 year old girl into the forest near her house because I knew she was messed up and her family was broken and she used me to get away from them and I raped her. In college, I fucked multiple very drunk girls, but one I remember was all but passed out. And finally, I've continued fucking my girlfriend after she has said to get out and to stop because it hurt her because I just wanted to finish. Not sure if the last 2 are rape, but I'm sure about the first.
>>28739373
Knock her our with drugs if you can get that close without alerting her, or just knock her over the head and tie her up.
>>28739384
How do you feel about it? Do you have any feelings about it, be they remorse or pride? You got away with a crime. I know that feels like something.
>>28739422
About the first one?
I don't feel anything about it. It didn't feel like rape at the time and I didn't think it was. Only years later, now that I'm even older, do I really realize that I was taking advantage of a younger girl. It's not like I ripped her clothes off exactly or anything like out of a movie, so I didn't think it was bad. I don't feel anything now about it since I have plenty of misadventures and stories over the years I could reflect on I guess.
>>28739349
Oh yeah, she does not want to be there at all. Even if she doesn't cry during the shoot, you just know she will in the shower later that night.
Fuck that's hot. Sauce?
>>28739495
But you got away with it. Don't you ever stop to ask yourself what it all means? If you can get away with that, does this mean you can rape, rob, deal and murder without consequence? It's like there's no meaning to anything at this point. No crime, no conscience, no life, no death. We're just human creatures doing inhuman shit to each other, not even so much as an emotion left in any of it. A world of do whatever you want. What's the point?
>>28739615
I've gotten in trouble for things before. Nothing on the scale of rape, but pretty serious things, and I was actually raped by a man more than twice my age a few years later, and it shook me up and messed with me in bad ways.
Also I'm getting married soon so I cannot afford to fuck up or get in trouble in anyway because I will now have a dependent.
>>28739659
But what if you don't have any of that? No family, no wife, just a few druggie friends and a petty life a of crime. If anyone is left who knows right from wrong, they don't seem to care. Why not just load up your guns and shoot everyone, and then yourself? Who would even notice? I'm just about done with this shit. People are horrible.
>>28739754
Are you angry at me? I really can't tell.
If I had "just a petty life of crime" I'd take whatever I had an try to finish my education, get a career, and work my way up honestly.
>>28739800
I'm not angry at you. I'm just angry. Angry at the lack of justice in this world, at the lack of conscience that anyone seems to possess, at the growing feelings of nihilism that eat away at me. I hope you have better luck in marriage than I did in life.
But I would, even almost did once. Does this mean I'm allowed to watch porn fampai?
>>28737713
Helps make fapping easier, I guess. I don't watch much porn these days though
>>28737713
I would download a car tho
I would rape a girl
>>28737713
I need a release, and porn isn't "rape".
You wouldn't download a girl.
>>28738023
Honestly how people can bring themselves to orgasm from a still portrait is beyond me. This includes nudes.
>>28737713
I actually would if I would not get caught, like if I was invisible or something.
>>28740900
Being raped by an invisible man sounds like some sort of twisted nightmare.
>not doing nofap
At least try robots, you'll feel better
>>28737713
It looks nice
I am on venlafaxine so I can't even fap and my libido is dead
Still nice to look atSadly it's quite hard to find porn I like
