Nothing exists.

Are you sure you guys arent talking about goatse?

 

No I'm not, but I've seen that. I also don't think it was the same as what Gross was talking about either, though I think I've seen that too. This guy way still mostly erect, erect enough so the act was possible but not too erect so it wouldn't bend at the base. His penis was like a lower case "f" as I've posted now, obviously sans the line in the middle and maybe with slightly more curvature at the top. I think I first saw it on efukt.com, though for the life of me I can't find it now - I got bored and conducted a quick search after all.

 

It's apparently doable for anyone with a penis greater in length than the distance between the base of their organ and their ass, A.K.A. the "grundel." This will vary as much as the body size of the individual (as well as penis size, since it seems they vary just as much), and I'm not sure how often the size of the member, minus the distance it has to travel, will be favorable to such a maneuver.
The only thing I now about goatse is that he can immensely stretch his anus, as well as put huge dildos so far up his ass that they are visible from the outside of his abdomen. Never saw him go up himself, though I wouldn't put it past him.

 

Well at least this is an interesting new direction for this thread.

 

Just imagine if "Hook Dick" looked exactly like a lowercase "f." I bet no one would forget how to find his video, ever. Something like that would probably be even less common than two real full-size boners on one guy. However, it might be less interesting, because the protruding...uh...protrusion, would probably prevent the use of most of his penis. But, get a double-dong with a double-vag, and you've got what would probably be the craziest porno ever. Timing would be difficult, as the only woman I've read about with two fully functioning vaginas (as in, two vaginas, cervices, and uteri {only two ovaries necessary, but four are not unknown}), tends to have 21 day periods, and I'm assuming the other 7-9 days are spent ovulating. Contraception is a must. Her risk of pregnancy is double, as is his risk of impregnation. Not only can this woman get pregnant, she can get pregnant twice at the same damn time! Currently, the chance of birthing twins is at 1 in 32. That's only taking into account a woman with one uterus. Double-puss can double those chances, meaning she has a 1 in 16 chance of giving birth to twins, simply by virtue of having two separate uteri. However, they may be smaller than the average woman's, because they're sharing the same space in one person. This means twins would be dangerous in a single mini womb. Actually, I don't know if direct statistics matter for a woman with two wombs. If she wants to get pregnant again and both wombs work, she could just get pregnant again.

 

Well here there's a program called Embarrassing Bodies, apparently people who are too afraid to talk to their own GPs about their embarrassing wierd illnesses have no qualms about going on tv to show doctors there such things! In regards to relevance, someone who went on that once had a double vagina, it was pretty wierd. I'm sure people from out the UK could probably download it from somewhere if you have a bizarre interest in unusual medical conditions.

 

I hear ya. :wink:

 

Pics or it didn't happen.

 

To stay in keeping with the topic of the thread, shouldn't it be "pics or nothing exists"?

I think we've now established that things do exist though. And some of the things that exist are pretty darn freaky.

 

I genuinely can't find it anymore, it was on eFukt though so if anyone wants to spend a few hours searching through that depraved site to prove me right then go ahead! Maybe it was just a strange dream I had after all.

 

Thank God! And here I was starting to think I'd wasted a decidedly large portion of my existence posting on a forum filled with imbiciles debating "deep" matters.


...wait. No, sorry. Everything exists, and I'm still in my own personal Hell.

 

So is introspection: The understanding of oneself as one changes and grows as a person. Philosophy serves the same role, but on a grander scale. As we are not all extroverts, nor all introverts, we should be "against" the roles that others play.

And since the basis for philosophy is the study of a changing system, it should be little wonder that my opinions are constantly changing as they are based on a changing system. Such is the nature of water, yet you speak as you were of earth. Steadfast and constant, wary of change. Both are needed to make this world, but are you certain about who you wish to be?

EDIT: But my logic is wrong as we are as the earth: Possessing all the elements and not just one.

Unfortunately, source of knowledge is meaningless to how a person's religious philosophy changes. You are forgetting about the impact that Ignorance has on understanding. For example, this year I learned that scripture says in heaven (referred to as "new earth") we will have no memory of this earth. This is a significant change of my understanding and I never heard a pastor preach on this. It is easy to remember a thing, but is more difficult to remember the absence of thing.
As the saying goes "Out of sight, out of mind." And that is the value of nihilism, it puts the focus of the number zero instead of the number one as we are wont to do.

Which I why I take the position that I am always wrong. To constantly be open to correction and new knowledge.

 

That can't be claimed is made-up? How about a Codification of Morality?

Pics can be doctored. And video can be edited.

Your eyes can be deceived with hallucinations and illusions. The mind knows only what your body tells it. Deceive the body, deceive the mind.
How do we know that reality isn't a hallucination? Or a dream? Of course, one could claim that pondering such questions will drive one mad and that is best to just live...

 

I think Xyle's double post means he's in league with the Devil, it is after all a sin.

 

Hallucinations aren't created by the eye, they're wholly manufactured by the mind and when "seen" are picked up by the "third eye," a.k.a. the pineal gland, which would be a functional eye if it protruded from the skull and had a lens, as it already contains rods and cones. A hallucination is also known as a waking dream.
A hallucination can artificially stimulate all of the senses, not just sight. There are hallucinations of taste, smell, hearing, and touch, to name just a few. Mind you, humans naturally have more than 5 senses. Being aware of one's position in space is a sense, as well as is knowing where one's limbs are in relation to one's body.
I've personally experienced auditory, visual, and touch based hallucinations.
Realistic photoshops and video edits are hard to come by. Have you ever seen videos touted as "real" on youtube? An overwhelming portion of these are fake, if not all of them. Unfortunately, not everyone is as skeptical as I am, and many people who comment will either point blank ask if something is real, or say "I knew it! All those UFO skeptics should watch THIS video, cause I've seen it X number of times and I can tell it's authentic." Comments such as these are prevalent in videos where CGI is obvious. We're not at a technological capability to alter reality presented in images or videos that will convince everybody yet. Unfortunately, this also swings in the other direction, as people will call something fake when everything about the presented video or picture is real. Viewers are so used to photoshops and video editing that when they actually see something that's real but unexpected, they'll instantly call it out.
So, to correct what you've said, "The mind deceives itself, which deceives the body."

 

I don't understand how these two questions address my question. Would you please elaborate?

Pondering such might not drive us mad, but it can certainly waste a great deal of time. In order to function, one basically has to accept what he perceives as reality, or better yet, that reality is limited by our perceptions. To answer your question, we don't know that our reality isn't the true reality, but operating within our limited perceptions, we do what we can.

 

I hate these kind of existential arguments. Things are just real, end of. People who waste time thinking "What is nothing is real?" need to get something more worthwhile to think about. There's no proof that nothing is actually real, so why put any stock in the idea? I guess this is just echoing what TDC said, but I do find it really annoying.

 

Once upon a time a philosophy professor wrote a compelling thesis which, his colleagues agreed, proved that nothing exists anwywhere ever.

When his peers lauded the paper he revealed the true thesis: that all of his colleagues were idiots.

True story.

 

Really? I'd like a source on somebody who could be so genius that he fooled a room full of intellectuals, but so stupid that he alienated himself from his entire social network.