[ home ] [ site / arch ] [ pony / oat / anon ] [ rp / art ]

/oat/ - Off Topic

The OT board for chatting, /oat/meal, socializing serials, and random topics.
Password (For file deletion.)

Site maintenance in progress! Posts made now may be lost.

Ponychan-MLPchan Merger >>>/site/15219

File: 1428498336113.png (524.34 KB, 869x800, tumblr_lw0vmdmjiQ1r74go9o5_128…)

Anonymous 3237871[View All]

As a concept, slippery slope isn't well understood. On the face of it a lot of these kinds of arguments can be very specious and absurd. For example, if we allow homosexuals to marry it won't be far off before we can marry our pets. Or, if we socialize medicine, why not haircuts while we're at it?

That kind of thoughtless extrapolation will bulldoze right through natural stopping points on the slope. Obviously marriage should be for people, and bad hair days aren't a matter of life and death, right? So it's easily apparent even to the least informed how irrational those formulations of the argument are.

If you unpack the rationale behind slippery slope though, it's really not that insane. The concern is always that some principle is being altered, or degraded specifically. Some people see regress where others see progress.

The seatbelt law "slippery slope" isn't concerned just with seatbelts. Unpacking it just a little, the principle that appears under "attack" is freedom. Freedom vs. safety (and what a beloved debate this gem is), and the question as always is "should the state be nannying us?"

This should be fairly easy to dismiss out of hand. What freedom is it you're specifically concerned about? The freedom to die horrifically and preventably in a car wreck? Anyone who's life was saved by a seat belt they were forced to wear should have the good grace to thank you afterward. To be sure, I have no doubt that seatbelts save lives and the statistics reflect that. Everybody should wear a seatbelt.

BUT, this is missing the point. Yes, there are always concerns about freedom when a new law is passed (which are usually ignored since preserving the freedom to do something objectively stupid doesn't get a lot of people hopping), but that's really NOT the primary concern. The actual principle is individual responsibility. The actual question is, "what truly makes us safe?"

The thinking is that knowledge makes us safer. Conscientiousness makes us safer. Understanding risk makes us safer. Knowing that even if you do everything right you can still have an accident, will make you safer. And if you're this kind of person, you don't need to be told to wear a seatbelt.

Compulsion can make you safer. The threat of a ticket can make you safer. But that benefit stops when you step outside your car. What else are you going to do today? Drive a forklift? Smoke a cigarette? Cross the street at rush hour? Shingle your roof? Run with scissors? Go to bed without flossing?

The statistics support the (mandatory) use of seatbelts, but there are never any statistics available for the road not taken. If the objective instead were to foster the quality of character that compels a person to buckle up or don their helmets without being told, would that not be better than bubble wrapping everything piecemeal?

Maybe that's not possible. Maybe it's pie in the sky. And anyway, repealing the seatbelt law isn't going to magically translate into a nation-wide boost in common sense. But the people who think in terms of principles know this, and the objective is always long term. Any given specific law is just another opportunity to turn the tide. Rid the world of these laws, and fatalities will be up tomorrow. But what about in 20 years? 50? 100? And not just in cars; what about all risky activities? And not just physical ones, you might get smarter with your investments too! Good luck collecting those statistics and interpreting them - and principled thinkers know that as well.

Yet, the (literally) immeasurable benefit of principled thinking is seen manifested as progress everywhere, socially and technologically. It's worth taking a good hard look to see precisely what the interplay of principles are between a new law and it's "slippery slope" objectors. If you do, one side may still be right and the other wrong, but they will start to look less crazy.

Now for fun, try to unpack the pet marriage and tax-funded haircuts arguments on your own.
112 posts and 75 image replies omitted. Click View to see all.


File: 1428604283912.jpg (108.43 KB, 1024x578, Zoe-Trent-image-zoe-trent-3656…)

I'm aware of the shadow puppet parable, and I think it's a very accurate depiction of how people live their lives.


File: 1428604326061.png (35.6 KB, 180x200, 1428532421406.png)

That's still retarded.

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3241570

File: 1428604436115.png (229.75 KB, 612x464, That's swell.png)



Not considering gay unions a "marriage" means that the "sanctity" of real marriages is protected.


File: 1428604871441.png (84.31 KB, 297x295, zoe_5014.png)

Because it is not your place as a human to judge the will of God. If a gay couple marries, and they go to hell, that is not your problem nor is it your job to prevent it from happening.

Nowhwere in the scripture does it say that men have the authority to dictate the laws of God. If someone is violating the rules of God, it is his and only his right to judge and punish them for it.

Which means no one should be forcing anyone to follow the rules set forth by God but God himself.

Anonymous 3241589

That's still retarded.

If god's approval is what makes it a marriage, and god's a gay-bashing bigot, then gay 'marriages' won't be marriages. So they've already fucking won regardless of what word we use.

I mean, unless the gay-haters in question are so confused they think 'marriage' is a divine word set down by the heavens, and that to misuse it is blasphemy or some shit. This would require not knowing even half a shit about language or history, but when has that ever stopped anybody...

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3241603

File: 1428605286358.jpg (35.59 KB, 300x320, adorable 2.jpg)


>Because it is not your place as a human to judge the will of God

In their view, that's not what they're doing. God has already laid down his will, and we're supposed to follow it.

They see making the law of man directly oppose the will of God as defiance, and that abiding it will have consequences.


>If god's approval is what makes it a marriage, and god's a gay-bashing bigot, then gay 'marriages' won't be marriages

Right, but see above, allowing man to defy God's will will supposedly yield negative consequences a la Sodom and Gomorrah.

>I mean, unless the gay-haters in question are so confused they think 'marriage' is a divine word set down by the heavens, and that to misuse it is blasphemy or some shit.

It's blasphemous to declare a union unrecognized by God as a "marriage" when God has already determined what marriage is.

>This would require not knowing even half a shit about language or history, but when has that ever stopped anybody...


!BabsseeDZ6 3241617

File: 1428605533544.jpg (304.86 KB, 2000x1601, 320986__safe_solo_sweetie+bell…)

It's like you assholes are physically incapable of seeing the point. I don't care how you frame the law as an institution (in literally the most asinine way possible btw); I'm asking .. uh, actually telling you that the reason the "average person doesn't want [those things] to happen to them" is because of the psychology inherent to us as an objective class of things.


File: 1428605865660.jpg (84.24 KB, 1024x574, Zoe-Trent-image-zoe-trent-3656…)

Um. I'm pretty sure that people don't like being killed due to base, primal survival instincts.

You don't want to get killed because it would kill you.

You don't want to have things (food) stolen from you because it's a threat to your survival.

You don't want to be raped because you want to choose the best candidate to pass on your genes, etc.

It's just a manifestation of base primal instincts.


File: 1428605997916.png (95.88 KB, 660x763, Zoe_Trent.png)

God also gave man free will and to deny man the opportunity to defy God of his own volition is to defy the nature of God's work in itself.

!BabsseeDZ6 3241646

File: 1428606056084.png (379.75 KB, 3183x3379, 548224__safe_solo_vector_sweet…)

I already know you'll need more illustration, so lets make it even simpler.

Your nervous system. Everyone has one and they work more or less the same. We all understand "sweet". We all understand "stabbing pain". It's inherent in our nature. Generally, we want the first but not the second. Again, inherent in our nature.

Morality? Basically the same thing. Inherent in our nature, based on the things we want to pursue and want to avoid.

uh yeah, no shit. That's what I'm saying.
That's why I don't, and you shouldn't, buy into the "morality is subjective" line.

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3241653

File: 1428606158049.jpg (47.89 KB, 488x477, Do you expect me to believe ci…)


>God also gave man free will and to deny man the opportunity to defy God of his own volition is to defy the nature of God's work in itself.

This is a test. You have free will, but to use it for sin is to invite punishment.


File: 1428606361142.png (84.31 KB, 297x295, zoe_5014.png)

Yes. But that is the choice of the individual, and to deny a person the option to make that choice defies free will, thus, defies God. If someone has a gay marriage, they go to hell. If you prevent someone from having a gay marriage, you go to hell.

Simple logic.

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3241679

File: 1428606549644.jpg (7 KB, 259x195, 10.jpg)


>Inherent in our nature, based on the things we want to pursue and want to avoid.

What people want to pursue and avoid is not always the same, meaning a single objective morality cannot exist, and certainly isn't inherent in collective human nature.

>Everyone has one and they work more or less the same. We all understand "sweet". We all understand "stabbing pain". It's inherent in our nature. Generally, we want the first but not the second. Again, inherent in our nature.

This is not a good example as it's a physiological reaction to avoid pain and seek out pleasure.

Moral questions are those like the one about killing.

Few people want to be killed themselves, but this doesn't mean that there's an inherent, moral opposition to killing others. There are, and have been many cultures with absolutely no problems killing other people, yet others abstain from any violence at all.

If there's an objective morality, how can this happen? Why are all people not opposed to killing?


File: 1428606759875.jpg (84.24 KB, 1024x574, Zoe-Trent-image-zoe-trent-3656…)

Because morality is a protective buffer.

People don't want to be killed but killing others is not a threat to their survival and may even benifit it.

However, since this is true for everyone, the easiest way to prevent death is to ban killing of others. Basically, "I want to kill, but I don't want to die. So I will give up my ability to kill to prevent threat to my own death."

It's a trade. That's it.

Anonymous 3241694

what if a poorly-defined word can't actually be objective until you define it more rigorously

Anonymous 3241695

>I will give up my ability to kill to prevent threat to my own death.
wow it's like you hate america


It should be "prevent threat to my own life."

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3241737

File: 1428607926289.jpg (82.76 KB, 900x675, sunset.jpg)


This is why I am not into this sort of God.


Yet, not all cultures embrace that idea. Human sacrifice was a common practice for thousands of years, and nobody once thought of it as "morally wrong". And that's not even killing in self-defense, it's just killing for your own perceived benefit. Spartans killed their newborns who were imperfect, again killing without even the justification of self-defense. The Mongols killed tens of millions of people just because they felt particularly conquer-y, and didn't think it was "wrong".

Yet the people of the Sirionó of Bolivia have no traditions of aggression, violence or war. The Paliyan of India are the same, without so much as an individual murder recorded.


If a moral question as basic as "is killing wrong" yields no consistent answer, there cannot possibly be an objective morality inherent in all people.


File: 1428608475260.jpg (84.24 KB, 1024x574, Zoe-Trent-image-zoe-trent-3656…)

Objectively killing is not wrong. In fact it is absolutely nessicary for survival.

Most human societies have adopted it as being "wrong" to prevent having the threat of being killed something they have to worry about on a regular basis.

Basically what it boils down to is that the entire reason that killing "feels" wrong is because of empathy. Empathy is an advanced function of the brain that allows a creature to understand the view of another creature via imagination. This gives them a deeper understanding of their own actions and as such, burdens them with the understanding of consequence. Most animals have little-to-no ability to empathize, and even those who do only have so in a limited capacity, including humans.

So the "wrong" feeling you have when you do something bad is your brain's empathy giving you an idea of what you have done and how it would feel to have it done to you. Serial Killers and such usally have a very low or almost non-existant ability to empathise, which is why they can kill with seemingly no personal qualms.

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3241772

File: 1428608696792.png (99.18 KB, 525x714, 7.png)


So...we agree?


File: 1428608779600.png (84.31 KB, 297x295, zoe_5014.png)

I guess so. Morality is mostly just an idea humans have come up with to explain the sway of empathy.

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3241781

File: 1428608907447.jpg (138.35 KB, 640x480, whipped ass nigga.jpg)


I don't know if that's quite the idea behind it, but same idea so whatever


File: 1428609077439.png (302.67 KB, 2400x1920, zoe_trent_lps_vector_by_kotano…)

Morality is like Rights. They don't actually exist but we all pretend they do in order to feel better about ourselves, and that's fine.

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3241790

File: 1428609268854.png (59.47 KB, 366x421, no thx.png)


They can exist, but they exist only through the ability to be enforced.


File: 1428609591135.jpg (108.43 KB, 1024x578, Zoe-Trent-image-zoe-trent-3656…)

They exist in idea only, yes.

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3241811


Ideas enforced by the rule of law are a bit more substantial than others. The way you're saying it makes them seem fleeting and barely existent.


File: 1428609801133.png (84.31 KB, 297x295, zoe_5014.png)

Morality is like a unicorn.

It's not a real thing, but practically everyone knows what it is through shared understanding and accceptance of the concept.

Thauma!TURTLEsW8. 3241830

File: 1428609989598.jpg (608.74 KB, 1000x973, 67a534d518c124616e3793a09f3c68…)

She means they don't exist as a universal thing.

Sometimes your comparisons are like a cracked mirror, I can use them to look at myself but the image will be flawed and sometimes you just gotta question why you're looking at the reflection instead of the thing itself!


File: 1428610166645.jpg (84.24 KB, 1024x574, Zoe-Trent-image-zoe-trent-3656…)

I use comparisons because the concepts I elaborate on often involve methods of thought that don't translate well directly to people who don't use them.

It's like me trying to translate my thoughts into something everyone else can understand, but it coming out as broken english.

Thauma!TURTLEsW8. 3241853

File: 1428610483446.gif (10.64 KB, 460x300, 99765f1d11853f6895d0345682499f…)

But don't you hate it when people start going "BUT IT'S NOT THE SAME THIIING"?


File: 1428611524518.png (35.6 KB, 180x200, 1428532421406.png)

Yes. It is very frustrating.


File: 1428612690422.jpg (45.21 KB, 570x420, sad_zoe_trent____by_monsterhig…)

The main issue is that I think in what I can only describe as "human binary", in other words, thoughts without connotation.

For example. If someone were to keep a pet inside at all times to protect them from being hurt, it can also be said that they are confining that animal.

Protect has a positive connotation.

Confine has a negative connotation.

People use words in connotation to reflect their personal views on a subject. A person who agrees with a subject will usually use words with positive connotation to describe them. People who disagree with a subject will use negative connotation.

I don’t use connotation at all. I use the word I feel best describes what I am trying to say regardless of connotation, but people are not used to that so they often think I approve of or disaprove of things I really have no feeling about based solely on the words I am using.

It's very hard for me to communicate because I simply have no need for connotation and I am not good at using it effectively.

Thauma!TURTLEsW8. 3241909

File: 1428613609505.png (635.36 KB, 1000x1000, 577a09c2c047afc7cf01c3e0b11c8b…)

I understand what you mean, though I wouldn't call it "human binary". I'd call it... I dunno. I've tried to find a word for it, though I'm sure somebody somewhere has found a word for it. I've referred to it as "Everything act and every existence has as much negative effect on things as they have positive effects, it's all a matter of perspective how much the effects are noticed".
I can say it's probably not that rare of a thing to think about. It's merely a standpoint of not believing in an inherent good or bad effect of things, or at least in an overall balance of them.
Though people have asked me sometimes in response where I could find the good to counteract the bad I see in the killing of an innocent child, in which case I really haven't been able to come up with a proper answer yet. The best I thought about is that the satisfaction it brought to the killer, and maybe the parents of the child somehow gaining mental fortitude eventually, but it's a grim thing to think about.


File: 1428613818266.jpg (84.24 KB, 1024x574, Zoe-Trent-image-zoe-trent-3656…)

I don’t understand the thing about the child. Could you elaborate?

Thauma!TURTLEsW8. 3241918

File: 1428614006383.jpg (175.17 KB, 830x900, 415ff2da136c596be6bf2956bfa51b…)

It's a thing I was asked (by myself or somebody else, I don't remember) when I told them that I believe you could find an equal amount of good and bad in all things if you look for them hard enough.
Then I was posed that question, because murder of an innocent child is so heartless that it's very difficult to come up with positive things to say about it to offset how bad it is, thinking about the years spent on bringing him/her up, the effort, feelings of family and friends, effect on society and things like that.


File: 1428614190240.png (302.67 KB, 2400x1920, zoe_trent_lps_vector_by_kotano…)

Good and bad are entirely relative and have no basis on anything other that one's own perceptions.

What makes a deed good or evil is not the deed itself, but why it was done.

If the person commiting the murder of the child was a time traveler coming back from a future where the child had become a dictator that destroyed half the world, killing the child would make the man a hero.

Actions are benign. Intent is the only thing that determines good or bad.

Thauma!TURTLEsW8. 3241933

File: 1428614521160.png (778.43 KB, 620x878, 8c9b0e99a7955f8e0171a2a7375f5b…)

I accept the relativity. It's like... choosing your own relative standpoint on an issue, and then measuring the good and bad sides of that issue based on your standpoint.
Why it was done is part of it. The satisfaction, the result, harm done, physical or psychological gains, opportunities made or destroyed, all of it contributes to why the deed can be considered having made a positive and negative effect at the same time.
He doesn't have to be a time traveler to make a positive effect through the killing. After all, he wouldn't have done it if he didn't plan to get some sort of satisfaction out of doing it to begin with. That or some sort of purpose higher than that for some future benefit, but that would depend on what the child represents and we can't talk about that based on such a simple example. For all we know the child could be the son of an important figurehead.

I guess all in all I'm saying you can always say "Well that thing looks shitty/great, but think of the flipside..."


File: 1428614694577.png (84.31 KB, 297x295, zoe_5014.png)

Really what it boils down to is understanding the reality, and then accepting that the fantasy is more viable.

Thauma!TURTLEsW8. 3241947

File: 1428614793609.jpg (699.08 KB, 999x1164, 471c745595366efdfdb7bdd987a4a5…)

Irrelevant, but true.
Speaking of fantasy, I bought Viper today. The fighter class ship.


File: 1428614986682.png (84.38 KB, 240x240, 940c96f7243cfa7ad20b692650415c…)

I upgraded to a new one as well. I forgot the name but it's the large flat one.

Also, it's not really irrelevant.

What it is, honestly is being able to and understand the fundamental futility of existence, but realize that pretending that there are reasons and justifications is much more fufilling, so it's better just to play along and have fun with it while you can.

Thauma!TURTLEsW8. 3241973

File: 1428615278862.jpg (553.61 KB, 600x800, 727b7b53852b857b7e6a824b46a1cf…)

Oh well that is true, gotta have fun with things.


File: 1428615387650.png (118.63 KB, 443x316, 6c1.png)


File: 1428615628799.jpg (46.64 KB, 600x338, Cobra4.jpg)

I just looked it up. Cobra MK III.

This is my new ship.

Thauma!TURTLEsW8. 3242023

File: 1428616623164.jpg (271.87 KB, 600x700, 919fb9be34a9dbc061514fda182229…)

Oh nice, I was going to save up for that but after reading up on things found out that it's more of a jack of all trades ship that is better for long distance travel and trading compared to Viper, so I went with the all out skirmish combat option.


File: 1428617012741.jpg (301.08 KB, 1280x720, S01E08_-_I_am_Zoe.JPG)

I like the utility.

Currently my ship has two medium gimbal mount burst lasers and two small multi-cannons for extra hull penetration after dropping enemy shields. It also has a bounty scanner, auto dock computer, shield booster and a cargo capacity of 24.

Thauma!TURTLEsW8. 3242040

File: 1428617121000.jpg (217.84 KB, 1000x565, 5d71fdc7d20ad4d423a147272c6086…)

Yeah, cargo is pretty huge on that thing apparently for a ship that's not a hauler. Mine only has 4 right now though I can get it up to 8 I think if I wished so.
I have multicannons, but I'm considering switching out. I will try to confirm if weapon types deal more or less damage to shields and armor, especially a comparison between lasers and multicannons, and if there isn't a significant difference, will switch to an all laser setup to save from ammunition money.


File: 1428617341398.jpg (84.24 KB, 1024x574, Zoe-Trent-image-zoe-trent-3656…)

The main benifit I see to multi-cannons over lasers is sustained fire. Multi-cannons rarely overheat and only need minimal power going to the weapons systems to keep them going, this is offset by their limited and costly ammo consumption. Lasers use no ammo, but draw emense energy for sustained fire, and even with a top notch power relay with full power to weapons they will still eventually overheat.

HolyGhost!Grimes./iQ 3242256

holy shit tldr

!BabsseeDZ6 3242686

File: 1428633423886.jpg (72.92 KB, 610x770, 354834__safe_solo_sweetie+bell…)

Like I said, I don't know why people think objective morality means the ten commandments or using the same tool for every problem regardless of circumstance.

No, we don't all want the same things, but the things we want, we tend to want for the same kinds of reasons.

Tarra.exe The 8bit operator !3NiGhtwiNg 3243467


Delete Post [ ]
[ home ] [ site / arch ] [ pony / oat / anon ] [ rp / art ]