/azu/ - Azumanga

seeing Osaka's thighs is enough to give me a boner so even the thumbnail isn't SFW

>>764
The bare of responsibility comes on the person who posts it because they're making the option available, the NSFW option is entirely unavailable if the Original Poster doesn't post the gif that gives people the option to see what content is not appropriate.

>>766
>The bare of responsibility comes on the person who posts it because they're making the option available
Then God should be banned. Right?
Not me, God. He gave us eyes to see NSFW content, and fingers to clic the mouse, and electrons.

>>767
What kind of anaology is this? God gave you the ability to draw and make multiple frames of that NSFW gif but doesn't encourage it, hence the free will involved.

>>770
Well, if God knew I was gonna post that and also He can't be wrong, then I didn't choose to do it.

Is this NSFW?

>>862
It's NSFL, Osaka's perfectly underdeveloped loli body is meant to be enjoyed as God designed it, not with a pair of breasts and a large ass bolted onto it.

>>862
Well, it is safe for work?
Depends on where you work.

>>770
Free will doesn't exist, your thoughts seem to come from nowhere because they are coming from the unconscious mind and that mind takes from the environment. No one acts as much as they react. It's one thing to say "I think therefore I am", but it's another to say "I control what I think". If you don't control what you think, you might as well not exist. And if you think your unconsciousness is you, then consider this: if someone pushes a hot iron into your skin you will react regardless. You may think you have a choice of how to react, but really those choices were already preset, as how you are probably now thinking how you would react to that situation; what you are thinking is to your utmost limit set by the unconscious mind. So that honestly makes it redundant to even refer to you as you, or even differentiate you from I since 'we' are both separate instances of the same reactionary process although separated by what 'we' react to.

>>979
I agree, there's no actual libertarian free will.
But maybe there's something like it? I haven't explored the concept, but isn't there something called compatibilism?

>>980
I get what you mean, but I kind of see it more from the physical perspective than the logical. Physically, thinking and making actions is something like listening or hearing: the response comes to the person, as in it happens unconsciously without their control. The part where you 'think' is after the fact. It's hard to see this without separating your actions from your inner voice, but one way of doing it is trying to be extremely self reflective while also imagining your process of action is in slow motion and you'll slowly begin to see that the notions come before you ever consider them with the voice.