New TIMESURF seamless action figure doll!!!What does it look like?any opinions?

[gattlinggun]

0k.....finished the breasts thats very huge ....doing some touch ups....hope to post soon with another hairdo....

 

[gattlinggun]

As I've said a thousand times, I'm a Nihilist, not a pacifist. If someone resorts to bullying, I have no problem making fun of them. Hypocrisy is a moralist concept. Try and keep up. As a moralist, you have standards to uphold, Butt-Hurtial. I, on the other hand, can do as I please. Your moralism makes you weak.

I'm here because I'm interested in bad ideas, like objectification, and morality in general. You're obviously here for validation. For me, this is practice. I confront irrational moralists when they're cruel, in light of their "compassionate" moralism because their mental gymnastics interests me. Weren't you the one who went on a Feminist rant about objectification, while calling him "Gross"? I don't care that you're bullying someone. I care about logic and reason. He can probably stick up for himself.

So yes, Butt-Hurtial. LOL indeed. Do you have a premise? No. You're not capable of defending your Feminism in a logical way, but you're willing to appeal to it when slinging insults at others. That's funny, to me. Perhaps if you bothered practicing to articulate your thoughts, you'd be more formidable as a bully. Instead, you address the group passive-aggressively instead of addressing me directly, because you need validation. It's a weakness, that most bullies have. You mentioned,



When did you strip away my B.S.? You failed to mount a single, coherent argument. If you falsified my perspective, I'd thank you for teaching me something. Know why? Because I'm not a moralist. I welcome falsification instead of getting offended, and then bullying people I disagree with.

I admit, I don't like bullies. Still, you have no obligation to refrain from being one, weak or otherwise.

Thanks,just ignore the butt dude.he probably bought my doll back in 2014.most of the dolls ON THE MARKET OTHER THAN ARTE TOKIO then were pretty ugly AS COMPARED TO THE 2017 TIMESURF DOLLS

 

[Spazz]

Thanks,just ignore the butt dude.he probably bought my doll back in 2014.most of the dolls ON THE MARKET OTHER THAN ARTE TOKIO then were pretty ugly AS COMPARED TO THE 2017 TIMESURF DOLLS

No worries. Glad I could help bring views to your thread, with my rambling! You're doing better than the HellBoy bootleg! People like drama.

 

[popcorn]

Thanks for the response. I like talking about this sort of thing. Honestly, if you were a super scholar it really wouldn't make a difference, as people who are familiar with these issues are no better at proving the existence of morality than anyone else. Honestly, you summed up your position well, and arrived at the same conclusions that I've heard from well educated people. If you wouldn't mind, I have a few questions for you. You don't have to respond of course, but I think they're interesting to contemplate.

1) If morality is something people just know, why is there so much disagreement about what morality is? If morality was intuitive, wouldn't we all be on the same page? People have been arguing over the nature of morality (including justice) for as long as we have written works. Thousands of years!

2) Suppose morality didn't exist. Would that really make a difference in terms of how you treated other people? As someone who believed in morality well into my 30's, in my experience Nihilism didn't really make a difference. I'm still compassionate, and try to be a nice guy. I don't like seeing people get hurt, and I avoid living at the expense of other people as much as I can. I'm pretty sure most people would act that way, even if they didn't feel obligated. I think you actually mentioned the reason for this: we are social in nature. People who would harm others for fun and profit, probably aren't too concerned about morality anyway. There are some Nihilists who agree with you though. They're terrified, and think we should bury our heads in the sand, pretending morality exists so we can function! (They call it "fictionalism"). It's definitely a scary thing to contemplate. It's like living in a theocracy, contemplating atheism! Where would you go from there?

3) It's true, that our society's understanding or claims regarding morality changes over time. However, does than mean we were wrong about morality, or does the nature of obligation change over time? For instance, was chattel slavery actually a moral or ethical thing to do, until it wasn't? Or were people mistakenly behaving unethically the whole time?

4) It's also true that our society's understanding of morality results from culture. However, cultural norms are the product of people getting together, and conforming in how they eat, dress, create music, perceive the universe... The only prerequisite for something to become a cultural norm, is that a lot of people have to agree on it.

Do we really have an obligation to conform? Doesn't that seem arbitrary? My mother used to say, "If everyone jumped off a cliff..."

I think the censorship of Horror movies and comic books can be attributed to a false understanding of moralism, that stems from the exact thing you mentioned in your post. People were afraid that if you allow people to glorify, celebrate, laugh at or treat sex and violence with a lack of solemnity, there'd be a collapse of social institutions. Ebert definitely felt that way, as made explicit in his review of "I Spit On Your Grave". For him, being in that theater was foreshadowing the collapse of Western Civilization! Meanwhile, I think the reason why Slasher flicks were so popular in the 80's, is that embracing the Gore became an act of anti-authoritarianism. Not politically. On a very primal level, kids questioned the rules and demands of their parents, and had fun rebelling as an end in itself. For me, most of the fun in watching horror movies involved going to the theater and cheering at all the death scenes with my friends. It was funny, specifically because we knew our parents would react the way Ebert did. We knew that watching horror movies wouldn't really hurt anyone, nor would listening to Ozzy Osbourne records, or playing Dungeons and Dragons.

I feel the same way about morality. I think the fear of letting go is irrational. We'll be fine, without it.

Answer to point 1-We are all not on the same page because of egos and xenophobia. Morality is cultural and a combination of nature and nurture. Not all cultures evolve the same.

Answer to point 2-If you are compassionate and keep your ego in check I think you have a moral compass. If it's not being moral, how would you describe it?

Answer to point 3-We also evolve and learn from mistakes/misconceptions made in the past. Morality reflects this.

Answer to point 4-Can't really add to that. I'm in agreement pretty much how a society works.

We do legally and in some ways morally have an obligation conform. As an example I think it's safe to say at least in our culture that going around burning live cats is unacceptable and all should conform not to engage in that behaviour.

One thing I'll add is that the OPs older post I linked clearly point to his dolls being for sexual use. Now the crucifying, etc is for durability? It's not a fetish object but now the breasts are going to be 3 times bigger? I still think this is the wrong forum for it. Read the old thread about how he likes girls faces in agony.

 

[youbastards]

Why do I get the feeling the real nurse is dead in this guy's basement?

 

[burtial]

One thing I'll add is that the OPs older post I linked clearly point to his dolls being for sexual use. Now the crucifying, etc is for durability? It's not a fetish object but now the breasts are going to be 3 times bigger? I still think this is the wrong forum for it. Read the old thread about how he likes girls faces in agony.

I informed him about this....but ya know....morality.

Why do I get the feeling the real nurse is dead in this guy's basement?

LOL I mean, he DID make the eyes closed. Maybe on a side of her he could add some livor mortis coloring.

 

[Spazz]

Answer to point 1-We are all not on the same page because of egos and xenophobia. Morality is cultural and a combination of nature and nurture. Not all cultures evolve the same.

Answer to point 2-If you are compassionate and keep your ego in check I think you have a moral compass. If it's not being moral, how would you describe it?

Answer to point 3-We also evolve and learn from mistakes/misconceptions made in the past. Morality reflects this.

Answer to point 4-Can't really add to that. I'm in agreement pretty much how a society works.

We do legally and in some ways morally have an obligation conform. As an example I think it's safe to say at least in our culture that going around burning live cats is unacceptable and all should conform not to engage in that behaviour.

One thing I'll add is that the OPs older post I linked clearly point to his dolls being for sexual use. Now the crucifying, etc is for durability? It's not a fetish object but now the breasts are going to be 3 times bigger? I still think this is the wrong forum for it. Read the old thread about how he likes girls faces in agony.

Thanks again for your response. Also, please don't take my skepticism as being combatant. I'm going to respond in a different order, for the sake of demonstrating my point.

3) I take it from your response that you perceive morality as being objective. You imply that with Chattel Slavery, culture made a mistake: it wasn't moral until it wasn't. You believe that people mistakenly thought slavery was moral. The group was wrong. Yet, if morality is derived from culture, how can the group be wrong? By definition, if culture determines what is moral and what isn't, then culture can't be wrong because it's the source of morality. You'd be forced to admit that chattel slavery was moral and acceptable. You're obviously not wanting to do that, so you're forced to admit that if morality exists, it can't be dependent on the will of the masses.

1) If morality was culture, counter-culture would be immoral. Yet counter-culture is the source of change that leads to the morphology of moral attitudes. So if counter-culture is always immoral until it becomes the new moral standard, how can morality be anything but a non-binding whim of the masses? Furthermore, what evidence is there to suggest that I have an obligation to follow the herd? Consider all of the cruel things that our culture has been responsible for. Do you honestly believe that we have an obligation to tolerate any of that, solely because it's a cultural norm? Lastly, what evidence is there to suggest I have an obligation to obey culture? Pragmatism?

It's important to note a distinction between recognizing that morality is derived from culture, which is true, and conceding that morality is true and binding as a form of obligation, which is false. I agree with you that our morality, like religion, is derived from culture. I disagree that morality is true, nor is religion. There is no obligation to obey one's culture.

2) Consider the contradiction between this argument, and your previous argument. If morality is derived from compassion, why would culture be relevant? When cultures normalize cruelty and compassion leads to dissent, wouldn't you concede that compassion is more important than culture? So if compassionate people are opposed to norms like chattel slavery, abuse toward the mentally ill, the domestication of women or homophobia, wouldn't you argue that the culture is immoral? If morality is compassion, than culture would be irrelevant.

What I'm saying, is that you're holding conflicting beliefs about morality simultaneously. You feel that morality is derived from compassion, yet feel that it's also derived from culture, so that cultural norms are binding. You can't have it both ways, because these two things often conflict with one another.

 

[Spazz]

One thing I'll add is that the OPs older post I linked clearly point to his dolls being for sexual use. Now the crucifying, etc is for durability? It's not a fetish object but now the breasts are going to be 3 times bigger? I still think this is the wrong forum for it. Read the old thread about how he likes girls faces in agony.

Why do you care? I agree, he asked for advice on how to market his sex doll to a horror demographic. In doing so, he also persists in making it a sex object. So what? Is your concern moral, or about maintaining the purity of the genre? You're unusually fixated on this... and that's coming from someone who's obviously obsessive. You're even pulling in content from previous threads that no one would possibly remember, if they weren't fixated.

People "take care of themselves". YOU "take care of yourself". If you don't, you really should in order to maintain prostate health. There's also nothing wrong with appreciating a particular body type. There's nothing wrong with depicting a particular body type. There's also nothing wrong with torturing dolls, though I admit it's not really my thing. We used to blow up our G.I. Joes when I was a kid, and I can't say I'm remorseful. But I digress... Horror has always been sexual. As I mentioned, Siskel and Ebert used to rail against this sort of thing in the 80's: complaining about "gratuitous" sex and violence. There's nothing wrong with either.

It seems to me, you're more concerned with deviation. You're performing mental gymnastics to justify cruelty in the name of compassion. I'm not an idealist. I just find it interesting, that compassion can actually lead people to cruelty.

Now, consider the point I left on, in my previous post. You were saying that morality is based on compassion. See where I'm going with this?

Edit: Here's some arora models that were banned in the 70's, by people who were motivated by compassion:

 

[popcorn]

What I'm saying, is that you're holding conflicting beliefs about morality simultaneously. You feel that morality is derived from compassion, yet feel that it's also derived from culture, so that cultural norms are binding. You can't have it both ways, because these two things often conflict with one another.[/QUOTE]

Sure I can. We as a species are conflicted and contradictory. We think we know everything when in fact we know little. Bottom line we have different views on the subject. We can write novels about it but it won't change either of our minds.

 

[popcorn]

Why do you care? I agree, he asked for advice on how to market his sex doll to a horror demographic. In doing so, he also persists in making it a sex object. So what? Is your concern moral, or about maintaining the purity of the genre? You're unusually fixated on this... and that's coming from someone who's obviously obsessive. You're even pulling in content from previous threads that no one would possibly remember, if they weren't fixated.

People "take care of themselves". YOU "take care of yourself". If you don't, you really should in order to maintain prostate health. There's also nothing wrong with appreciating a particular body type. There's nothing wrong with depicting a particular body type. There's also nothing wrong with torturing dolls, though I admit it's not really my thing. We used to blow up our G.I. Joes when I was a kid, and I can't say I'm remorseful. But I digress... Horror has always been sexual. As I mentioned, Siskel and Ebert used to rail against this sort of thing in the 80's: complaining about "gratuitous" sex and violence. There's nothing wrong with either.

It seems to me, you're more concerned with deviation. You're performing mental gymnastics to justify cruelty in the name of compassion. I'm not an idealist. I just find it interesting, that compassion can actually lead people to cruelty.

Now, consider the point I left on, in my previous post. You were saying that morality is based on compassion. See where I'm going with this?

Edit: Here's some arora models that were banned in the 70's, by people who were motivated by compassion:

View attachment 369644

Fixated? You're the one that making an issue defending this. I merely pointed out my personal opinion that I think a different forum may be more appropriate(not really horror related) and it's not something I'm into. I came across that old thread recently by accident recently and yes it stuck out when this one popped up. Just because a Frankenstein model got banned it has nothing to do with the doll the OP posted.

 

[burtial]

Fixated? You're the one that making an issue defending this. I merely pointed out my personal opinion that I think a different forum may be more appropriate(not really horror related) and it's not something I'm into. I came across that old thread recently by accident recently and yes it stuck out when this one popped up. Just because a Frankenstein model got banned it has nothing to do with the doll the OP posted.

THIS.

 

[Spazz]

Sure I can. We as a species are conflicted and contradictory. We think we know everything when in fact we know little. Bottom line we have different views on the subject. We can write novels about it but it won't change either of our minds.

In logic, when something is contradictory it's false. Period.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/70/Conflicting-Conditions

As for the Aurora models, you're equivocating. You wrote, " Personally I'm not into figures objectifying women or reading about how this can be posed in a crucifix position." Objectification is a moral concept. You're intermingling normative statements with subjective taste. It's irrational, and it's what triggered poor Butt-Hurtial. Obviously, it's relevant that scantily clad women in torture mechanisms were both popular, and banned by right wing conservatives in the 70's, because you're wanting a forum removed on similar grounds. You're offended by comments regarding sex and torture, regarding the figure.

Again, this is what moralists do. At some point, they don't have any way to defend their position, so they say "Well, my unsubstantiated belief is complex", or "God works in mysterious ways", or "It's a brute fact that doesn't require justification". It's hilarious that my willingness to write lengthy responses is presumed to be some sort of strike against my argument.

The truth is simple: There is no morality. Do as you please. The reason why lengthy posts are necessary, is that academics and religions have indoctrinated you to believe elaborate nonsense, that requires elaborate falsification. As a moralist, if you don't think changing someone else's mind is possible, I'm assuming you'll refrain from making normative claims about obligation? You'll stop telling other people that they have a responsibility to do things? Of course not. You'll keep doing it, irrationally and without justification.

"How dare you! Do X, you horrible person!"

"Why must I do X? Seems illogical."

"We as a species are conflicted and contradictory! Now do what I say!"

 

[surfin4]

Not into this but the guy has a right to share with out being shamed or bullied if you dont like just move on untill you find something you do like, if i took up arms every time i was offended we would be down to about 5 people on the planet by now.

 

[popcorn]

In logic, when something is contradictory it's false. Period.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/70/Conflicting-Conditions

As for the Aurora models, you're equivocating. You wrote, " Personally I'm not into figures objectifying women or reading about how this can be posed in a crucifix position." Objectification is a moral concept. You're intermingling normative statements with subjective taste. It's irrational, and it's what triggered poor Butt-Hurtial. Obviously, it's relevant that scantily clad women in torture mechanisms were both popular, and banned by right wing conservatives in the 70's, because you're wanting a forum removed on similar grounds. You're offended by comments regarding sex and torture, regarding the figure.

Again, this is what moralists do. At some point, they don't have any way to defend their position, so they say "Well, my unsubstantiated belief is complex", or "God works in mysterious ways", or "It's a brute fact that doesn't require justification". It's hilarious that my willingness to write lengthy responses is presumed to be some sort of strike against my argument.

The truth is simple: There is no morality. Do as you please. The reason why lengthy posts are necessary, is that academics and religions have indoctrinated you to believe elaborate nonsense, that requires elaborate falsification. As a moralist, if you don't think changing someone else's mind is possible, I'm assuming you'll refrain from making normative claims about obligation? You'll stop telling other people that they have a responsibility to do things? Of course not. You'll keep doing it, irrationally and without justification.

"How dare you! Do X, you horrible person!"

"Why must I do X? Seems illogical."

"We as a species are conflicted and contradictory! Now do what I say!"

I'm a preachy nihilist I'm right and you're wrong!!
Everything I expressed about this doll I said "personally" I'm not trying to shove my beliefs down others throats like you.
Elvis was banned from a Texas town in 1956. Lets post figures of him in the horror section too.

 

[Spazz]

I'm a preachy nihilist I'm right and you're wrong!!
Everything I expressed about this doll I said "personally" I'm not trying to shove my beliefs down others throats like you.
Elvis was banned from a Texas town in 1956. Lets post figures of him in the horror section too.

Preachy (adjective ): marked by obvious moralizing.

There's no such thing as a preachy Nihilist. See previous comment regarding logic and contradiction. As for shoving my perspective down your throat, welcome to the world of logic and reason! It's a place where everything is subject to falsification, and incoherent ideas aren't tolerated. If you want unconditional tolerance and irrational dogma, stick to sociology.

False accusations regarding irrational moralism are still false, when you qualify them with "Personally". "Personally, I think you're sexist because you objectify women" is an irrational statement, just as "Personally, I think the Omnipotent Pink Unicorn frowns upon your behavior" is silly. You personally have an irrational belief. And yes, I am right. You are wrong.

Moralists used to speak in tongues. Now they speak in Cat memes.

 

[burtial]

This thread summed up-

Long extensive meandering preachings of 'Morality', sprinkled with posts from the OP about bewbz.

 

[Spazz]

Butt-Hurtial's moralist triggering, summed up:

Dude. NOBODY, and really try to understand that I mean NOBODY on this board thinks that your freaky sex doll/toy/creature looks good, or is interested in buying one from you so that they too can objectify women in the form of hideous toy dolls and tie them up, bend into sexual positions, or pleasure themselves with it.

To be crystal clear here- YOU are gross but your sex toy is on a whole other level.

A better summary of this thread: Moralists bully artist, condemning his work and description as "objectification", while wielding insults. Nihilist asks Moralists to prove the existence of morality, because they seem to feel strongly about it. Realizing they can't, Moralists rely on platitudes and cat memes, because that's the extent of their intellect.

THE END.

 

[gattlinggun]

ok...whoa.....11 pages already???im busy making some stuff...hope to post the new action figure prototype on sunday or monday....hopefully.

 

[gattlinggun]

Why do I get the feeling the real nurse is dead in this guy's basement?

lol....so the action figure actually looks real to the point that you thought i photoshopped it all?

 

[burtial]

ok...whoa.....11 pages already???im busy making some stuff...hope to post the new action figure prototype on sunday or monday....hopefully.

Hand-to-God, I hope you are trolling. Why? Because good sir, you are winning the internet at this point. You are a God walking amongst mere mortal men.