I wasn't making a philosophical claim. I was expressing an emotional reaction to my own intrusive fantasies. You're answering a question I wasn't asking.
You may not have intended to make an explicit philosophical argument, but the emotional reaction is still based on evaluations. Calling the fantasies “fucked” means you are interpreting them through prior judgments about what is degrading, shameful, abnormal, or unacceptable.
So I was not treating the word as an isolated metaphysical thesis. I was addressing the evaluative framework producing the disgust. You have expressed similar judgments about yourself and others before, so the reaction is not detached from your broader beliefs. Those judgments may also contribute to how the fantasies are formed, repeated, and interpreted. That does not mean they are consciously chosen, but intrusive thoughts do not arrive with their own objective meaning. The brain supplies the labels, significance, shame, and narrative afterward.
Oh, so now we're pretending that calling something "fucked" is just subjective opinion with no real weight behind it? That's complete bullshit. When someone's fantasies are genuinely destructive, that's an objective fact, not just my personal evaluation—their damage is measurable, it's real, people get hurt because of these twisted thoughts they won't let go of. And it absolutely matters what people think about them, it matters enormously, because society's judgment is what keeps people from acting on their worst impulses, so dismissing moral disapproval as "just brains producing evaluations" is exactly the kind of reasoning that lets dangerous people justify anything. The real incoherence is pretending we need some perfect logical framework to condemn something when the consequences speak for themselves—destroyed lives, trauma, people destroyed by someone's selfish fantasy obsession. You can't hide behind philosophy and say "well, the logic might be flawed" when someone's actually hurting people, when the fantasy itself is the problem, not some abstract reasoning error. And another voice in my head, the one that's usually right about these things, keeps saying that people who defend fantasies with this kind of intellectual gymnastics are just trying to avoid accountability for the damage they cause or enable, and honestly, I think it's onto something.
You are changing the subject from fantasies to actions. A fantasy occurring in someone’s brain is not identical to carrying it out. If someone acts and causes injury, the injuries and functional consequences can be objectively observed. Calling either the fantasy or the action “fucked,” however, remains an evaluation of those facts rather than an additional measurable property.
Society’s judgments can influence behavior, but causal influence does not make those judgments objectively true. Fear of rejection or punishment may deter actions regardless of whether the rule being enforced is coherent, incoherent, accurate, or delusional. Social enforcement proves that groups can condition organisms, not that their moral labels exist independently of them. I also never argued that consequences require a “perfect logical framework.” I said that merely attaching “fucked” to something explains nothing. Identify the actual consequence, causal connection, or contradiction. In this case, you have not shown that Delora’s intrusive fantasies have harmed anyone. You replaced a fantasy with a hypothetical act, described the act’s consequences, and then projected those consequences backward onto the thought itself.
And a voice in your head agreeing with you is not independent confirmation. It is another event produced by the same brain already making the claim.
So if Delora's fantasy was fullfilled on you. You wouldn't find that fucked up? As far as evaluation goes. Don't fool yourself into thinking the truth in observation is personal. The external validation is the result that would imminently manifest.
If your devices were vandalized beyond repair, they would be too fucked up to function. A deluded moron worse than yourself would argue it isn't really fucked up and pretend to use it.
I'd also like to take this time to say that if your children are stupid, beat them, or the world will. Yes, beat them when they think and do stupid, or else they're better off being killed. Fucked up is a thing, without ignorance.
If the fantasy were carried out on me, my nervous system would predictably produce pain, fear, and resistance. My body could also be objectively injured or rendered unable to function normally. None of that establishes “fucked up” as an observer-independent moral property. It establishes physical damage and a subjective reaction to it. Your device analogy changes the meaning of the phrase. A vandalized device can be “fucked up” in the functional sense because it no longer performs the function for which it was designed. That is measurable relative to an identified standard. Calling a fantasy or person “fucked up” is an evaluative judgment involving disgust, condemnation, or abnormality. You cannot prove the second meaning by giving an example of the first. Consequences can be externally observed, but observations do not interpret themselves. “The device no longer turns on” describes a condition. “This is morally fucked up” adds a judgment generated by an observer. The existence of an effect does not convert every interpretation of that effect into objective truth.
Your statement about beating children undermines your argument further. You present violence as justified by your own evaluation that a child is “stupid,” while pretending evaluations become facts merely because consequences follow. Beating produces pain and injury, but those effects do not prove your judgment was true or your response logically warranted. “Fucked up is a thing” therefore remains an assertion built on equivocation. Damage, dysfunction, pain, and consequences can be measured. The moral or emotional label attached to them still comes from a brain.
