Pawzy

Owner of gimmeloli

Old man and pedi extraordinaire
(AKA Pawsforjaws)
He/Him amab
Still Cis/Het unfortunately

**! P A W Z Y !**

*ahem*
send nudes

Element: (@) Pawzy:littlespace.top
Element (Migrating to this acc.): (@) pawzy:puppyspace.org

Last Notes

2025-01-23 17:40:17 UTC

- reply

don't worry, they're paywalled :konata_thumb:

2025-01-23 16:14:45 UTC

- reply

wattafak
Why is my rules page bring spag posted

2025-01-23 09:24:01 UTC

Oki enough stalling, nap time.

2025-01-23 07:43:23 UTC

essentially every philosophical discussion with me
https://gimmeloli.top/files/c351cd95-da99-487f-bf59-a9a8278586fa
https://gimmeloli.top/files/10f69d2e-c168-4297-bca1-27948f5b975d

2025-01-23 06:56:48 UTC

- reply

I get the analogy but the issue moreso lies in that physics, for example, has universal phenomena that exist independently of human perception, like gravity affecting those planets that we can measure and quantify *consistently* and across human perception. Morality is inherently tied with perception at its forefront, and fully subject to interpretation as by assigning it truth value, you are doing so not from quantifiable, repeated attempt to disprove that framework, but from the humans feeling of universal objectivity.
Yes, suffering *feels* objectively wrong to most of us, but thats subjective judgement on its own. The study of morality is unlike physics in that instead of measuring objective quantifiable, repeatable discoveries, you are rather attempt to "optimise" human and *sentient* experience. I reject the idea that you are uncovering pre-existing morality, but rather inventing a framework that fits human values.

2025-01-23 06:42:12 UTC

- reply

I'm not saying suffering isn't negative for the person experiencing it, thats rooting in biology itself and largely justified, what im saying is that this negative experience, no matter how *obviously* universal it feels to us, doesnt establish any moral grounding behind it. As I see it, morality itself is a layer we establish on top of those experiences, but that doesnt create some metaphysical moral overhead that everybody knows and/or must follow.
That claim lies in perception, not universality.

2025-01-23 06:25:04 UTC

- reply

I'm fully willing to grant you that both happiness and suffering exist and have impact on the human experience. What im not willing to grant is that the presence and quantity of those variables constitute morality or have any bearing on its existence whatsoever. You assert Happiness is good, suffering is bad, which is fine but can only be asserted through human perception and preference. Saying blue is beautiful is just as subjective when one person says it versus when every person on earth says it. Inherently the judgement of what is 'good' vs 'bad' is how a human percieves the values of those determinants, not some pre-defined universal fact.
pre-empting the next few conversation paths, if it devolves into the "what is reality if not experience" philosophical circlejerk then ill probably preferentially go bang my head into a wall instead

2025-01-23 05:47:01 UTC

- reply

you've quantified *variables* of a framework, not morality. Measure happiness or suffering all you like, it doesn't do anything to prove the moral overhead.
I can measure all the planets in the universe, even though difficult, and yet that doesn't prove that a god created them.

2025-01-23 05:40:03 UTC

- reply

and on what grounds do you have to stand and say that for certain?
I can't bring myself to conjure a force of morality or anything for that matter until I have some actual evidence for it's existence.
Saying the variables are changing is fine but there has to be a quantifiable measure of certainty somewhere to measure. Otherwise my only possible explanation that has been insofar observable is that humans have created it. Any connection or link between those ideals are again, until proven otherwise, just use looking for patterns where there isn't any.

2025-01-23 05:33:04 UTC

- reply

I think they genuinely do believe that they are following some greater ideal set. One not instilled in them from circumstance or societal position.
From an outside position I can look in and see the many contradictions or failed attempts to quantify, or qualify some imaginary metaphysical sense of direction. I have a very similar stance on religion, where morality is just as real as a god in my mind. Completely imaginary until proven otherwise.
I enjoy nothing more than being blatantly candid on my stance in this topic

2025-01-23 05:27:23 UTC

- reply

fair enough. I'm not here to argue with you about ethics or any similar philosophical idea, but I'll clarify that I cannot see any possibility that morality has any weight in objectivity. Whereas for example we have created frameworks to quantify, measure and discover the laws of physics, which is a conceptual thing yes yet doesn't change regardless of circumstance, time, place etc, Morality itself has no such quantifiable nature from my observation. At the very least, it hasn't been discovered yet and when/if that happens, I will fully admit that I am objectively a piece of shit rather than subjectively one. Or maybe I'll change for the better, but it doesn't seem that sense of grounding has been instilled in me considering you find me *inferior*.

2025-01-23 05:08:49 UTC

Just to pull up some shit that I used to talk about in the past but haven't talked to new users about is my general stance on things.
I am a terrible, sadistic piece of human garbage by most moral frameworks and am NOT the image of someone the pedophile community would ever think of siding with to gain real acceptance. Given the logistic/ pragmatic capability, I would not only advocate for pedophilia, but also zoophilia, biastophilia, coprophilia, etc etc etc. Raping babies to death IRL is totally fine in my ideological framework, but I don't advocate for it because it wouldn't be a realistic thing to advocate for in the real world.
I am fully aware that most people (even myself) hold to a moral framework internally even if they don't believe they have one bachse it is intrinsically part of being human that you follow your own set of moral guidelines, however I think it is just that, your own INTERNALLY defined morality that you follow. Everything else is sanctioned not on moral grounds, but on societally advantageous grounds. Society collectively abhors rape because of the group propogated ideal and possible consequences of widespread action of that "abberant" behavior.
When it comes to morality, I refuse to abide by "might makes right" type ideologies where others collectively agree that the commonly shared moral value is the correct one and that all should follow it.
Therefore I follow a moral framework that is entirely self aggrandizing, and self satisfactory. In a world where I could get away with it, I would love to do everything in my power to satisfy my own whims. That is why I called myself a piece of shit at the beginning of this. I'm here because Im selfish and enjoy this place generally. It meets my social needs fairly well. But I'm not here to champion or further a cause any more than what serves my own interest.
To that degree, I understand if you don't like that position and I realise that you may think in your own interest to distance yourself from the selfish dirtbag that wants to snuff babies. I respect your decision to interact however you see fit and have no desire to push my ideology onto you.

2025-01-23 04:20:10 UTC

- reply

Yea but I've never claimed to be a bastion of the moral high ground.
Saying that it's a violation of autonomy is true, but means nothing to me morally.
Nihilism is a shit philosophy but I still subscribe to it

2025-01-23 04:16:32 UTC

- reply

I mean I kinda fit that. I have logistic / pragmatic qualms with that happening but I have no moral apprehension toward it.
E.g. in my perfect world where shit just fits together the way I would want it to, that would be a thing I would root for.

2025-01-22 00:00:14 UTC

- reply

honestly same, I started interacting with people by just saying whatever popped into my head. Sometimes that's a mildly intriguing reading into the socioeconomic climate of the fediverse, other times it's "eat hot chip for breakfast"
Sometimes the lurkers just need to brain dump and not be discouraged by the elitism

2025-01-21 22:46:59 UTC

- reply

And currently as I see it, baise fits that filter type definition currently at *checks my notes* a fuck ton of users relative to many of the others present. Just saying that we need a bridge into the community that is both durable, AND findable to the average person.

2025-01-21 22:42:07 UTC

One thing I really liked about lolison and imouto to an extent, was that it kinda served as a gateway into the community. Little to zero barriers to entry, make an account, log in, post. From there they could learn and filter down into smaller instances. The way broadly you would find the next biggest filter was make an account on pawoo after hearing rumors of map communities.
Now that pawoo has cracked down, it's harder for people to find this place to begin with. To remedy that, we could collectly build a monolith type instance to serve that purpose but unless we take drastic measures or have some corporate backing to defend against domain reports, it'll fall just like the other monolith instance attempts. Aside from that, do we even want a monolith that kinda defeats the point of federation?
I want pedi to grow, just don't know the best way forward. Cause the only way I can see against defending against false reports would be to have some understanding with the domain host that won't kill on sight just because "Oh they host pedo shit because pedosite." The same way Tumblr, or some other random social site doesn't go down because someone planted CP and reported them a few times.

2024-12-17 20:12:45 UTC

- reply

Can attest to this. 95%+ of reports are from external servers like pawoo where one of the instances users said they they are a pedophile in some manner. Which, yea. No shit.
If it's not that then it's random loli captions