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

/oat/ - Off Topic

The OT board for chatting, /oat/meal, socializing serials, and random topics.
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags
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[Last 50 Posts]

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.

Lisbon!EZSlut7tis 3237996

BANANA BANANA
LEGALIZE BANANA
BANANA BANANA
LEGALIZE BANANA
LEGALIZE BANANA
TENDERIZA BANANA
SODOMIZE BANANA
LIQUIFY BANANA

HolyGhost!Grimes./iQ 3238571

this thread fucking sucks i give it a 0/10

Lisbon!EZSlut7tis 3238583

>>3238571

wanna help me legalize banana

HolyGhost!Grimes./iQ 3238591

>>3238583
banana is a sin

Lisbon!EZSlut7tis 3238604

>>3238591

banana is a gift from god

HolyGhost!Grimes./iQ 3238615

god does not officially recognize bananas as a fruit. they are never mentioned in the bible
bananas are the devil's work

Lisbon!EZSlut7tis 3238617

god did not mention banana because banana greatness goes without saying. banana is holiest fruit.

Lisbon!EZSlut7tis 3238621

9/11 legalize it

3238655

Bananas are berries

Lisbon!EZSlut7tis 3238665

your a berry

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3238707

File: 1428517691244.png (218.14 KB, 496x372, wtf am i reading.png)

I'd perform a marriage between a person and their pet if it was legal.

Who cares?

HolyGhost!Grimes./iQ 3238710

File: 1428517948249.webm (2.04 MB, 576x628, 1411346722380.webm)

>>3238707
...seriously?

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3238711

File: 1428517974211.jpg (192.11 KB, 571x709, XJ_BOX_360_by_14_bis.jpg)

>>3238710

Sure, why not?

HolyGhost!Grimes./iQ 3238712

File: 1428518038567.jpg (12.62 KB, 400x400, 1422916618033.jpg)

>>3238711
probably because bestiality is fucking disgusting, immoral and fucked up
you shouldn't need it to be illegal to know that

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3238713

File: 1428518121652.png (165.5 KB, 564x350, chillin out maxin relaxin all …)

>>3238712

>probably because bestiality is fucking disgusting, immoral and fucked up


Disgusting, yes, fucked up, sure. Immoral? That depends on who you ask.

If it was legal, where's the problem?

HolyGhost!Grimes./iQ 3238714

File: 1428518229757.gif (489.95 KB, 499x228, tumblr_m84pbvRoin1rbmptpo1_500…)

>Immoral? That depends on who you ask.

so the morality of rape is subjective now? k

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3238715

File: 1428518269674.png (323.51 KB, 1280x1737, who believes this shit.png)

>>3238714

Rape is a crime.

Lisbon!EZSlut7tis 3238716

>>3238714

Is it rape if the animal's so horny it fucks you? I had to kick my mother's jack russel off me once because it started humping my butt.

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3238718

File: 1428518318380.png (188.34 KB, 594x448, lemme think.png)

At least here it is.

Some parts of the world might not feel the same way.

Eliza!zIANOLEeck 3238719

File: 1428518433289.jpg (16.93 KB, 190x215, 1424028244499-3.jpg)

>objective morality

HolyGhost!Grimes./iQ 3238720

File: 1428518452160.webm (2.61 MB, 960x540, 1422381413679.webm)

>>3238715
and here we go with the autism train

>>3238718
if they don't, then they're wrong and they should

>>3238716
uh, yeah
unless you're being raped by an animal it's rape literally 100% of the time because animals are incapable of understanding/communicating consent

it's essentially the same as child molestation. "B-BUT THE 8 YEAR OLD WAS HITTING ON ME!" is not an excuse

HolyGhost!Grimes./iQ 3238721

File: 1428518497149.jpg (484.46 KB, 1930x2500, ayychoalmao.jpg)

>>3238719
>subjective morality
>subjective anything
>mfw the pseudointellectual's creed

Lisbon!EZSlut7tis 3238723

>>3238720

i was like 11

HolyGhost!Grimes./iQ 3238724

>>3238723
good for you

Eliza!zIANOLEeck 3238726

>>3238721
>subjective anything
are you one of those people who thinks music theory is an objective way of measuring how good music is?

Lisbon!EZSlut7tis 3238727

>>3238724

so really the dog raped me
i didnt even know it was humping me until my mom told me

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3238730

File: 1428518678466.jpg (82.76 KB, 900x675, sunset.jpg)

>>3238720

>autism train


Just stating facts.

>if they don't, then they're wrong and they should


According to who?

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3238732

File: 1428518732141.jpg (128.13 KB, 510x765, Space.jpg)

>>3238726

They're one of those people who thinks the world is black and white.

HolyGhost!Grimes./iQ 3238734

File: 1428518794127.webm (2.99 MB, 1280x720, 1424017002359.webm)

>>3238726
no. we won't have an objective measurement of how good music is until we understand the human brain about 10 billion times better than we currently do
music theory is an attempt

>>3238727
i wouldnt really call that rape

>>3238730
according to common sense, basic logic and god
if you think this is even debatable then shame on you

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3238736

File: 1428518855635.jpg (59.58 KB, 637x480, really nigger.jpg)

>>3238734

>common sense, basic logic


Funny, I'm not seeing either here.

>and god


And that's where you lose.

God doesn't care.

HolyGhost!Grimes./iQ 3238738

File: 1428518905761.webm (1.98 MB, 1280x720, 1422506633651.webm)

>>3238736
lol. kay
believe whatever you want. you're wrong
go fuck your dog and tell me what a beautiful and loving experience it was

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3238743

File: 1428518979196.png (226.75 KB, 601x1329, swanky.png)

>>3238738

>believe whatever you want. you're wrong


But my friend, you're the one who's wrong. Objectively. Because my God says so.

See how silly that sounds?

>go fuck your dog and tell me what a beautiful and loving experience it was


I have no desire to have sex with animals.

Lisbon!EZSlut7tis 3238745

>>3238734

i was a CHILD grimes
how was i supposed to know what was happening
even if i cried out in ecstasy that dog is a monster and should get run ove-
oh shit wait it really did get run over
poor thing :c

HolyGhost!Grimes./iQ 3238750

File: 1428519148292.webm (2.65 MB, 1280x720, 1422655161425.webm)

>>3238743
yes, but only because you made a ridiculous claim of what god "says." obviously raping animals isn't morally good. that's silly.

saying raping animals is bad according to god isn't silly at all. just a pretty basic inference and obvious truth

essentially you're sitting here and telling me that rape isn't objectively bad. so ok. that's your belief. that's one of the most retarded beliefs i've ever heard, but it's yours, so that tells me a lot about you as a person. have a good day, won't miss you when the merger comes

>>3238745
you can't really hold animals accountable, that's a human thing

Eliza!zIANOLEeck 3238751

File: 1428519162713.jpg (540.45 KB, 960x1280, 1367297603223.jpg)

>>3238734
>it's an attempt
no it isn't, music theory only explains the inner workings of music, it doesn't mean anything about how good it is. Every single piece of music ever obeys some sort of theory.
>until we understand the human brain about 10 billion times better than we currently do
I mean if we're going the route of "music that pleases the brain is objectively the best" then fuck, pop music is objectively the best music because it is literally meant to hit all the pleasure points.

HolyGhost!Grimes./iQ 3238759

File: 1428519378235.webm (2.79 MB, 640x480, blink.webm)

>>3238751
>no it isn't, music theory only explains the inner workings of music, it doesn't mean anything about how good it is. Every single piece of music ever obeys some sort of theory.

like i said. it's an attempt
music theory doesn't explain anything about music, it just tries

>I mean if we're going the route of "music that pleases the brain is objectively the best" then fuck, pop music is objectively the best music because it is literally meant to hit all the pleasure points.


yeah, pop music pretty much is objectively the best. specifically kpop
but like i said, we don't understand the brain so we don't know what "pleasure points" even really are. why do some people get more pleasure out of listening to noise than classical? we have literally no clue, just vague ideas
music is objective, our understanding of it is not

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3238760

File: 1428519390452.png (261.51 KB, 633x463, You seem upset.png)

>>3238750

>yes, but only because you made a ridiculous claim of what god "says."


And your claim is any less ridiculous?

>saying raping animals is bad according to god isn't silly at all. just a pretty basic inference and obvious truth


But your God is not my God. Therefore, what your God says is irrelevant to me since he is not mine.

>won't miss you when the merger comes


Can't say I'll miss you either. Someone so narrow minded isn't exactly the most beneficial sort to have around.

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3238763

File: 1428519490660.jpg (66.08 KB, 640x480, drunk.jpg)

>>3238750

Another thing,

>Seeing the world as purely objective, and that you of all people has it all figured out


That's one of the most retarded beliefs i've ever heard, but it's yours, so that tells me a lot about you as a person

HolyGhost!Grimes./iQ 3238764

File: 1428519529090.webm (2.94 MB, 812x720, 1422507260274.webm)

>>3238760
>And your claim is any less ridiculous?
significantly so, because my claim is right and not blatantly wrong

>But your God is not my God.

then your god isn't the right one. i wouldn't believe in mine if i thought there was a chance i was wrong about him existing

>Can't say I'll miss you either.

then it looks like we all win :)

>>3238763
i obviously haven't figured it out. god has. all i've figured out is that god figured it out

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3238775

File: 1428519728336.png (160.33 KB, 592x450, problem.png)

>>3238764

>significantly so, because my claim is right and not blatantly wrong


Except it's not.

>then your god isn't the right one. i wouldn't believe in mine if i thought there was a chance i was wrong about him existing


You're free to believe what you want, doesn't make it right.

>i obviously haven't figured it out. god has. all i've figured out is that god figured it out


You cling so strongly to this idea that saying "God says so" is valid.

It's cute.

My god will sort it all out for you one day.

Eliza!zIANOLEeck 3238779

File: 1428519758253.jpg (123.32 KB, 800x716, fcf70a1dc6d2a66e43bc6a06c1246a…)

>>3238759
Fair enough, it is just an attempt, but nonetheless there is nothing about how "good" the music is. Just how it works.
>why do some people get more pleasure out of listening to noise than classical?
because, get this, people are different. It's almost as if there's no way to determine objectivity in music, which completely defeats your >subjective anything claim.

HolyGhost!Grimes./iQ 3238792

File: 1428520054560.jpg (147.72 KB, 1008x1512, aie.jpg)

>>3238775
it's 100% valid. but really i don't need god to know that rape is wrong. that's pretty obvious. that it isn't to you is, again, pretty funny and also sad
moral relativism honestly makes me fucking sick. it's so cowardly. "female genital mutilation in uganda? eh, fuck it, it's their way! how could it possibly be wrong?"

>>3238779
there are and will ever be a finite amount of people. that means there will be a limited range of right and wrong answers at the absolute best, which is still objective

also, sure, people are different (somewhat) but they're also very similar. so i don't doubt that there are unifying trends that, combined with environmental influence, would probably explain pretty much everything pretty handily

also, a lack of a way to determine objectivity available to us does not make something subjective. that's like saying that just because i haven't worked out the answer to a math problem that there is no right or wrong answer.

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3238797

File: 1428520162298.gif (64.6 KB, 250x400, swag_by_mlaatrscribbles-d4dkan…)

>>3238792

>it's 100% valid.


Except it's not.

>but really i don't need god to know that rape is wrong. that's pretty obvious


To most of us it's wrong, yes.

>that it isn't to you is, again, pretty funny and also sad


You know what's sadder?

Moral objectivity. It's like you have no idea you've been brainwashed.

Lisbon!EZSlut7tis 3238808

HolyGhost!Grimes./iQ 3238830

File: 1428520736422.gif (1.17 MB, 500x253, 1424323268413.gif)

>>3238797
>To most of us it's wrong, yes.

funny how that works. across the vast majority of human civilizations there are common factors, similar moralities established among nearly all of them. stuff like rape, murder, etc is considered wrong by pretty much all of them. sure, there are some variations, but it's almost as if - almost - as if - there's some kind of intrinsic morality held in common by all humans. it's almost like it's objective or something

also funny how you believe in intrinsic rights but not intrinsic morality. that's REALLY funny

>Moral objectivity. It's like you have no idea you've been brainwashed.


nah. see, moral objectivity drives you to take action. to stand up for what's right. moral subjectivity just makes you lazy, diminishes your motivation for making change. fuck it, there's no right or wrong, what's it matter if people are being mass-murdered on the other side of the globe? fuck, it, there's no right or wrong, what's it matter if people are homeless and starving outside my door? that's the REAL brainwashing. the marxist and leftist ideology that you've let yourself be convinced by into believing that everybody is special and unique and a special little snowflake. the upper class pushing and convincing you that there's no point in trying to change how things are, to fix the injustices that they create because, like i said, fuck it :)

i thought you were red-pilled this whole time. but now i know. you're just a kid with no clue

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3238853

File: 1428521288915.jpg (54.21 KB, 640x480, searching for a fuck to give.j…)

If there's an objective morality, then there's a source for it.

Where's the source?

Without one, there can be no objective morality.

"God said so" is not valid no matter how much you want it to be.

>also funny how you believe in intrinsic rights but not intrinsic morality. that's REALLY funny


Your gross misunderstanding of my position is what's funny.

People, by nature have no constraints beyond their own physical and mental limitations. They are free to do anything.

Choosing to live in an organized fashion, like our modern world, means choosing certain restrictions on yourself. Otherwise, people are totally free.

>nah. see, moral objectivity drives you to take action. to stand up for what's right.


Or what you PERSONALLY think is right, not what necessarily IS.

>moral subjectivity just makes you lazy, diminishes your motivation for making change. fuck it, there's no right or wrong, what's it matter if people are being mass-murdered on the other side of the globe? fuck, it, there's no right or wrong, what's it matter if people are homeless and starving outside my door? that's the REAL brainwashing. the marxist and leftist ideology that you've let yourself be convinced by into believing that everybody is special and unique and a special little snowflake. the upper class pushing and convincing you that there's no point in trying to change how things are, to fix the injustices that they create because, like i said, fuck it :)


So much delusion.

Moral subjectivity stops you from doing absolutely nothing. If you BELIEVE something to be wrong, you have the ability to try and do what you feel is necessary about it. You're free to do what you feel is right, and so is everyone else. That doesn't mean other people won't disagree and try to stop you though. Just because you're unable to understand that you can have a moral code independent of some authority other than yourself doesn't mean everyone is.

You're weak minded, and I always knew that.

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3238880

File: 1428521751413.jpg (35.59 KB, 300x320, adorable 2.jpg)

Existentialism
x
i
s
t
e
t
i
a
l
i
s
m

HolyGhost!Grimes./iQ 3238884

File: 1428521813561.jpg (116.96 KB, 743x990, 1422382725850.jpg)

>>3238853
>People, by nature have no constraints beyond their own physical and mental limitations. They are free to do anything.
>poeple have no contraints except the constraints that they have
wow, what an amazing insight! clearly you've put a lot of thought into this. and by a lot i mean none

>If there's an objective morality, then there's a source for it.

>Where's the source?
God. but you already know that, which is why you said my answer wouldn't be valid. you know what doesn't make something valid? you saying that isn't. i'd say i'm gonna go with him over you, buddy

>If you BELIEVE something to be wrong, you have the ability to try and do what you feel is necessary about it.


it isn't belief if you think there's a chance that you're wrong. that's what's called a guess. and with that comes doubt. you know what comes with doubt? inaction

>You're weak minded, and I always knew that.


at this point it's clear that you're going to say whatever it takes to stop yourself from realizing the correct path. refusing to acknowledge the existance of a correct path is a great way of doing that. i've given it my try, but now i'm just wasting valuable time that i could be spending on more worthwhile people by continuing this conversation.

the right answer will always be right in front of you. whenever you feel like noticing it, it'll be there. have fun with your empty, meaningless life until then

filtered

3238895

File: 1428522039354.jpg (72.59 KB, 1024x576, Zoe-Trent-image-zoe-trent-3656…)

Holy shit the bible thumper schtick is getting old.

>>3238880
You should know better than to try and reason with a troll, Hands.

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3238897

File: 1428522043444.png (162.1 KB, 675x800, buddybot.png)

>>3238884

>wow, what an amazing insight! clearly you've put a lot of thought into this. and by a lot i mean none


Except it's true.

>God.


Sorry, that's still not the right answer.

>it isn't belief if you think there's a chance that you're wrong


Except it is belief. A belief is, from the dictionary an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

There are lots of beliefs.

>at this point it's clear that you're going to say whatever it takes to stop yourself from realizing the correct path.


I'm already on it.

>filtered


>Get's rekt with reason

>Filters opponent
>Worse loser than Toybox

Literally autistic.

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3238903

File: 1428522135430.jpg (138.35 KB, 640x480, whipped ass nigga.jpg)

>>3238895

Reasoning? No, I'm humoring him.

HolyGhost!Grimes./iQ 3238926

File: 1428522602184.webm (2.13 MB, 720x956, 1428427698592.webm)

>except it's true

true how? subjectively true? kek

>Sorry, that's still not the right answer.


by your belief system, everything is the right answer. so i'm actually right

>Except it is belief. A belief is, from the dictionary an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.


you could almost say "acceptance that a statement is objective"

>Literally autistic.

>won't go to a new website because of his EPIC BELIEFS
>stamping his foot like a child and having a tantrum for attention
>will probably show up on ponychan eventually anyways when he realizes /mlp/ is complete shit
>mfw i'm the one who's the autistic here

you literally abide by CUCK: THE BELIEF SYSTEM, where any big dicked Zebra can tell you that he wants to fuck your wife and you'll have to let him because, hey, where he comes from that's just how it is!

also filtering you instantly made the front page 200% better. i can't wait for the merge where i won't even have to see your name

Eliza!zIANOLEeck 3238935

File: 1428522652716.png (434.21 KB, 558x900, tumblr_n8rvmsGzT01r9msrro1_128…)

>>3238792
>there are and will ever be a finite amount of people. that means there will be a limited range of right and wrong answers at the absolute best, which is still objective
Could you explain this, I'm not sure what you mean.
>also, sure, people are different (somewhat) but they're also very similar. so i don't doubt that there are unifying trends that, combined with environmental influence, would probably explain pretty much everything pretty handily
that's under the assumption that unifying trend = good. There are known unifying trends, such as people generally like it when a fifth or leading tone eventually resolves to a tonic. However does that mean that music that doesn't have that, such as 12 tone music, is bad? People like Schoenberg and Stravinsky were some of the most influential artists ever, and their music was often completely atonal. You wouldn't have meme grips without Schoenberg. I personally enjoy and take pleasure from listening to music like that, does that mean I'm wrong in liking it because the majority find it unpleasant?That puts a lot of power into the hands of people who for the most part, don't listen to a lot of music, or at least aren't educated enough to appreciate it (I think an educated music listener should be able to appreciate, not necessarily enjoy, all types of music). I wouldn't say that a majority view = correct view.
And I'm not saying this to imply that pop music is somehow inferior and that 2deep classical is superior, just that the fact that people can't appreciate something shouldn't be an indication of it being bad.
>>3238830
>moral objectivity drives you to take action. to stand up for what's right. moral subjectivity just makes you lazy, diminishes your motivation for making change.
I don't see why you couldn't just fight for what you personally think is right rather than just fight for a universal truth.

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3238947

File: 1428522882122.gif (239.07 KB, 280x207, walk.gif)

>>3238926

>true how? subjectively true? kek


No, physical limitations are pretty objective. The human body goes only so far on it's own.

>by your belief system, everything is the right answer. so i'm actually right


You're no more right or wrong than I am, objectively.

>you could almost say "acceptance that a statement is objective"


U wot

>you literally abide by CUCK: THE BELIEF SYSTEM, where any big dicked Zebra can tell you that he wants to fuck your wife and you'll have to let him because, hey, where he comes from that's just how it is!


Please point out where my beliefs dictate anyone can just do what they want and I can't do anything about it?

I believe I actually said the exact opposite when I said, "If you BELIEVE something to be wrong, you have the ability to try and do what you feel is necessary about it. You're free to do what you feel is right, and so is everyone else. That doesn't mean other people won't disagree and try to stop you though."

So on top of being autistic, you're illiterate or just plain stupid.

You're out of your league, friend, I suggest you keep that filter on before you get more bootyblasted.

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3238956

File: 1428523118301.jpg (400.96 KB, 829x914, vintage.jpg)

ITT Grimes thinks the existence of physical objective truths automatically implies objective morality as well

HolyGhost!Grimes./iQ 3238970

>Could you explain this, I'm not sure what you mean.

a range of correct answers isn't subjective is the point.

>I personally enjoy and take pleasure from listening to music like that, does that mean I'm wrong in liking it because the majority find it unpleasant?


do you think that you're finding that music pleasurable independent of your brain? obviously not. there's a REASON that you find that music pleasurable, a reason that could conceivably be deduced with sufficient technology.

>that's under the assumption that unifying trend = good


the "assumption" is that a UNIVERSAL trend = good. which comes from my belief that people are innately good.

HolyGhost!Grimes./iQ 3238972

oops

>I don't see why you couldn't just fight for what you personally think is right rather than just fight for a universal truth.


because then what would be the point? if i think my point of view is no more correct then somebody else's, why would i push mine onto other people? EVER? it'd make no sense

HolyGhost!Grimes./iQ 3238974

>hands
>a hypocrite on top of everything else

"YOU'RE NO MORE RIGHT OR WRONG THAN I AM, OBJECTIVELY." - THE REVEREND HANDS

BRAVO SIR

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3238982

File: 1428523690816.png (261.17 KB, 497x372, well....png)

>>3238935

>I don't see why you couldn't just fight for what you personally think is right rather than just fight for a universal truth.


Because some people don't value themselves and can only derive any sense of meaning by letting an authority dictate everything about their way of living.

>>3238974

>Implying hypocrisy

>Implying you're not being illiterate again

That statement means that objectively, neither of us is "right". We both believe what we believe, and one person's truth is not another person's truth.

All of which is consistent with everything I've been saying.

Bravo on being retarded, again.

You're really outdoing yourself today.

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3238989

>Grimes
>A illiterate, butthurt crybaby

"I CANT FUCKING READ OH GOD HOW DID I GET HERE WHY ISNT MY FILTER STAYING ON???" - HOLYGHOST

HolyGhost!Grimes./iQ 3238991

File: 1428523892093.gif (750.72 KB, 245x254, tumblr_m4te2wTaQA1qdcel5o3_250…)

>YOU'RE NO MORE RIGHT OR WRONG THAN I AM, OBJECTIVELY.
>YOU'RE NO MORE RIGHT OR WRONG THAN I AM, OBJECTIVELY.
>YOU'RE NO MORE RIGHT OR WRONG THAN I AM, OBJECTIVELY.
>YOU'RE NO MORE RIGHT OR WRONG THAN I AM, OBJECTIVELY.
>YOU'RE NO MORE RIGHT OR WRONG THAN I AM, OBJECTIVELY.
>YOU'RE NO MORE RIGHT OR WRONG THAN I AM, OBJECTIVELY.
>YOU'RE NO MORE RIGHT OR WRONG THAN I AM, OBJECTIVELY.
>YOU'RE NO MORE RIGHT OR WRONG THAN I AM, OBJECTIVELY.
>YOU'RE NO MORE RIGHT OR WRONG THAN I AM, OBJECTIVELY.
>YOU'RE NO MORE RIGHT OR WRONG THAN I AM, OBJECTIVELY.
>YOU'RE NO MORE RIGHT OR WRONG THAN I AM, OBJECTIVELY.
>YOU'RE NO MORE RIGHT OR WRONG THAN I AM, OBJECTIVELY.
>YOU'RE NO MORE RIGHT OR WRONG THAN I AM, OBJECTIVELY.
>YOU'RE NO MORE RIGHT OR WRONG THAN I AM, OBJECTIVELY.

IM STILL LAUGHING FROM READING THIS
LOL OMG

>CUCK: THE BELIEF SYSTEM

>CUCK: THE BELIEF SYSTEM
>CUCK: THE BELIEF SYSTEM

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3238995

File: 1428523945809.jpg (126.43 KB, 576x720, butthurt report form.jpg)

HolyGhost!Grimes./iQ 3239000

>>3238995
that form is no more right or wrong than you are, objectively

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3239002

File: 1428524032527.png (267.98 KB, 361x691, wow stop posting.png)

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3239011

>Declares "filtered"
>Continues to respond

BUTTHURT
U
T
T
H
U
R
T

HolyGhost!Grimes./iQ 3239015

File: 1428524148320.jpg (144.95 KB, 848x1280, 058 - 2aCavFH.jpg)

>just cooked up a tasty salmon
>hands is no more right or wrong than i am, objectively
>watching better cuck saul in another tab
>hands sitting here salty as fuck that i filtered him and can't even see his garbage posts unless i literally descend from the heavens and ALLOW them to appear on my screen
life is truly good
god is great
i am great
objectively

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3239021

File: 1428524223337.png (243.1 KB, 931x960, snoop lion.png)

May your subjective idea of God soothe your blistered bum, Grimes.

HolyGhost!Grimes./iQ 3239024

File: 1428524312886.jpg (54.28 KB, 960x635, 126 - OgD7Rwn.jpg)

hands please give me your gf's address so i can come and cuck you while you're forced to watch because i'm no more right or wrong than you are, objectively

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3239037

File: 1428524453356.png (118.52 KB, 631x305, uuuunnggggghhh.png)

With every post you make, you only show the world just how fanny-flustered you are, Grimes. There's an objective fact for you.

HolyGhost!Grimes./iQ 3239039

ADDRESS PLS

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3239040

File: 1428524517904.gif (1.66 MB, 320x240, wink.gif)

Your tears sustain me

3239042

my butt also hurts

ouch...

HolyGhost!Grimes./iQ 3239043

your gf's address is no more right or wrong than i am
you may as well just give it to me

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3239045

File: 1428524610832.gif (1.7 MB, 178x120, u mad tunak tunak tunn.gif)

>>3239042

You see how mad he is, right?

Beautiful.

HolyGhost!Grimes./iQ 3239049

i am no mad or not mad than you are, objectively

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3239055

File: 1428524823987.jpg (237.98 KB, 600x798, 1339387872841.jpg)

Shhh, be calm, my little autistic friend. Your jimmies need not rustle so.

HolyGhost!Grimes./iQ 3239058

File: 1428524909539.jpg (238.76 KB, 970x1458, 038 - w5JwNHD.jpg)

>hands wakes up
>2000 pounds
>no reason to work out because there's no right or wrong
>tries to get out of bed
>can't
>decides there's no reason to get up anyways because there's no right or wrong
>slowly opens his laptop that he left resting on his massive stomach
>wipes cheeto dust off the screen
>"t-today i'll tell everyone that female genital mutilation is neither right nor wrong"
>gets tired after typing in a few letters of the url
>decides that there's no reason to, they can stop if it if they want to cause there's no right or wrong anyway
>silently goes back to sleep
>dies in his sleep of a massive heart attack
>burns in hell for eternity for the deadly sin of sloth

objectively

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3239064

File: 1428525043640.jpg (224.84 KB, 960x720, rustlemania.jpg)

Shhhh...

HolyGhost!Grimes./iQ 3239066

gotta go to school now byyyeeeeeeee xD

3239081

File: 1428525403394.jpg (108.43 KB, 1024x578, Zoe-Trent-image-zoe-trent-3656…)

And there goes Grimes. Off to loiter near his local elementary school and pretend the 5th graders are korean girls.

Oh well, at least now we won't have to deal with him for a few hours.

Trixishy!.TrixiSHY. 3239089

File: 1428525637367.jpg (40.95 KB, 496x700, 1403723208629.jpg)

So uhh... What's this thread about...?

3239097

File: 1428525814552.jpg (84.24 KB, 1024x574, Zoe-Trent-image-zoe-trent-3656…)

>>3239089
I dunno really.

Slipery slope discussion. Derailed into Bible Thumping by Grimes yet again.

Trixishy!.TrixiSHY. 3239099

File: 1428525862771.png (362.41 KB, 1365x768, 119de1f868306c54ef3b5a6e2c3655…)

>>3239097
So complete chaos?

HolyGhost!Grimes./iQ 3239135

>>3239081
im going to college where a cute asian girl sits right behind me, however she's like 35 so i'm not sure i'm gonna go for it
damn shes cute though

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3239160

File: 1428526841428.png (472.85 KB, 718x536, oh god is this shit.png)

>>3239089

Slippery slope is not a good argument, essentially.

3239243

File: 1428527661771.png (84.31 KB, 297x295, zoe_5014.png)

>>3239099
No, it was remarkably predictable actually.

Same formula. Grimes acts better than anyone else, complains about people not following God, then picks something out of an argument and then repeats it over and over again in a failed attempt to be clever.

The Person Who Posts As Fluttershy (Element of Self-descriptive Usernames) 3239273

>>3239089
A guy who doesn't know what a slippery slope is telling other they don't know what a slippery slope is.

Trixishy!.TrixiSHY. 3239279

File: 1428528236810.png (175.01 KB, 807x1100, 43d5a708e7efdd8973f92fcb6329f0…)

Lisbon!EZSlut7tis 3239322

>>3239279

That picture got my hopes up for a second.

Trixishy!.TrixiSHY. 3239328

File: 1428529032463.png (139.73 KB, 667x1000, ffdf9026fc9b1d323a5f512e298fd7…)

>>3239322
Why's that?

Lisbon!EZSlut7tis 3239336

>>3239328

i thought foxxorz was posting again which would be really weird considering what's about to happen but i wouldn't be against it you know

Trixishy!.TrixiSHY. 3239341

File: 1428529224855.jpg (92.99 KB, 700x449, 1405637992910.jpg)

>>3239336
Aww... I'm sorry. I miss seeing him post, too..

Eliza!zIANOLEeck 3239499

File: 1428532452103.jpg (112.78 KB, 1157x1280, 1423674973880.jpg)

not sure if it's worth replying by now, I had class sorry
>>3238970
>a range of correct answers isn't subjective is the point.
I'm not sure what you mean by range of correct answers, I'm saying that there is no correct answer. I mean unless you think that every single persons taste is itself a correct answer, to which since everyone's taste is different I would think would be too much of a ridiculous amount of correct answers to be useful, so there might as well be no correct answer.
>there's a REASON that you find that music pleasurable, a reason that could conceivably be deduced with sufficient technology.
no doubt, but not everyone finds the same thing pleasurable. Sure you can say the majority of people find something pleasurable, but I'm sure I can find you a significant population of people who don't. Are those people just wrong then? If so you're implying that some people are born with incorrect taste in music, which seems kinda silly to me.
>the "assumption" is that a UNIVERSAL trend = good. which comes from my belief that people are innately good.
there is no such thing as a absolutely universal trend, because nothing is universally agreed upon. There are trends that a lot of people agree with, but there's always a sizable opposition that you can't just ignore as wrong.
>why would i push mine onto other people?
Because you value your beliefs greatly and above other people's? You can think someone else is wrong from your point of view, while also acknowledging that empirically they're not wrong. Or you could not push your beliefs onto other people and let them live. If you see someone suffering, help them because they want to be helped, not because you think their suffering is wrong.

!BabsseeDZ6 3239609

File: 1428534296790.png (189.47 KB, 461x487, 322875__safe_solo_twilight+spa…)

I dunno why people think objective morality requires either the ten commandments to be real, or that it means using the same tool for every job, no matter how inappropriate the circumstance.

Take something super easy and nearly universally agreed on, like, killing is bad. Most people make an exception to that rule for self defense. Why do we think it's bad, and why do we make that exception? Ultimately, for no other reason than our physical objective reality, and the basic psychology inherent in our nature as the discrete, physical, objective kind of thing that humans are.

The bullshittery of subjectifying everything is a consequence of imagination. Just because you can't literally put your finger on the thing that makes the preservation of life good, isn't any sort of a good excuse to imagine away the cause we have for thinking that and proposing another way of thinking in which life is meaningless and our choice to preserve it subjective and arbitrary.

That apparent possibility isn't a problem with objective morality derived from reality. It's a problem with you can't brain so good.

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3239681

File: 1428535947175.png (403.45 KB, 632x462, say what.png)

>>3239609

I disagree.

There are objective aspects to reality, but there is no objective morality.

Anonymous 3239755

people existed before seatbelt laws and probably weren't better

>>3238716
have you tried not bending over and making kissy-lips

Anonymous 3239757

>>3238736
how in cock's name would you know if god cares or not
like if you're hypothesizing a completely unsupported entity how could you possibly make assertions about its pretend feelings

>>3238745
>even if i cried out in ecstasy that dog is a monster
Liz, shhhh
even over the internet I can hear your boner.

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3239772

>>3239757

>tips fedora

Anonymous 3241237

Everyone knows what seatbelts are for.
But I don't think there's such a broad consensus bout what marriage is for.

3241375

File: 1428598913558.png (84.31 KB, 297x295, zoe_5014.png)

>>3239609
The reason why we percieve general things like killing and stealing as bad is because basically, anything the average person doesn't want to happen to them, we label as bad.

Killing, stealing, rape, etc. No one wants these things to happen to them, so we make laws to stop people from doing it.

Our 'morality' is nothing but a social defensive mechanism used to protect us from ourselves.

Heavy Mole 3241432

>>3241375
Glaucon made the same argument in Plato's Republic.

3241456

File: 1428601333090.jpg (108.43 KB, 1024x578, Zoe-Trent-image-zoe-trent-3656…)

>>3241398
Marriage can be between whatever the fuck you want it to be since the whole thing is made up anyway.

>>3241432
I wouldn't be surprised seeing as how it's blatantly obvious.

3241475

File: 1428601715756.png (84.38 KB, 240x240, 940c96f7243cfa7ad20b692650415c…)

>>3241456
That being said, do I think marriage should only be between a man and woman?

Yes. Because that is the rules the church made for it. It's their thing, they can keep it how they want. However, I also believe that in following with the code of seperation of Church and State, that the state should not recognize marriage as legally binding in any way, shape or form. It should hold no weight at all in any legal matters. Instead, anyone who wants to join as a couple, regardless of gender, religion or race, must get a civil union issued by the state and only the state, not a preacher, and only that union is legally recognized by the state.

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3241507

File: 1428602345789.png (306.98 KB, 592x443, Well, you see....png)

>>3241475

Marriage predates "the church".

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3241511

File: 1428602449852.png (47.47 KB, 479x1374, The robot looks at you with a …)

Also a marriage does have to be legally recognized by the state for it to have any meaning outside of a spiritual one, just having the ceremony means nothing without getting the marriage license

3241517

File: 1428602581668.jpg (72.59 KB, 1024x576, Zoe-Trent-image-zoe-trent-3656…)

>>3241511
Yes, but the license should not be issued by a preacher. It should be issued by a state employee.

>>3241507
Yeah yeah yeah. The modern "marriage" is based on the christian version, and that's what we're talking about.

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3241524

File: 1428602936417.png (251.2 KB, 634x463, Jenny plays TF2.png)

>>3241517

>Yes, but the license should not be issued by a preacher


It's not, the officiant just performs the ceremony. All legally binding documents are through the state.

>The modern "marriage" is based on the christian version


Not really.

3241539

File: 1428603439201.png (35.6 KB, 180x200, 1428532421406.png)

>>3241524
That doesn't make any sense.

If the actual documents aren't issued through the church, why the fuck are people bitching about gay marriage? There is no sanctity of state issued documents. They can't do that.

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3241545

File: 1428603604602.png (403.45 KB, 632x462, say what.png)

>>3241539

>If the actual documents aren't issued through the church, why the fuck are people bitching about gay marriage?


They don't care about the legal aspect of it, they care about the spiritual. They don't care if gays got a civil union that provided all the same legal benefits of marriage, they just dont want it to be considered a "marriage" because "marriage" is between a man and a woman according to most religions.

3241549

File: 1428603725022.jpg (84.24 KB, 1024x574, Zoe-Trent-image-zoe-trent-3656…)

>>3241545
That's retarded.

Heavy Mole 3241557

File: 1428604087189.jpg (15.62 KB, 192x179, lucy116.jpg)

>>3241456
Perhaps; but the classical argument is that it only seems obvious because we are ignorant of the nature of reality, like cave dwellers watching shadow puppets while the sun shines outside.

Of course, that whole view is predicated on whether or not you believe that ideas exist independently of mind, or that form exists independently of matter. Still, that point you have argued is the starting point of the whole thing.

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3241559

File: 1428604143823.jpg (16.7 KB, 445x323, the shit i put up with.jpg)

>>3241549

It actually makes sense from their perspective. A real marriage to them is one formed in accordance with God's law, the legal benefits are just a side bonus, the important thing is God's approval. Same-sex marriages are not allowed by God in their view, and that's where consideration ends. They don't care what legal benefits are given, they just don't want the union of two gay people to be called a "marriage".

Not much else to say

3241566

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

>>3241557
I'm aware of the shadow puppet parable, and I think it's a very accurate depiction of how people live their lives.

3241567

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

>>3241559
That's still retarded.

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3241570

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

>>3241567

Why?

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

3241584

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

>>3241570
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

>>3241570
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)

>>3241584

>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.

>>3241589

>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...


Explain.

!BabsseeDZ6 3241617

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

>>3241375
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.

3241628

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

>>3241617
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.

3241639

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

>>3241603
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.

>>3241628
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…)

>>3241639

>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.

3241669

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

>>3241653
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)

>>3241646

>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?

3241689

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

>>3241679
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

>>3241689
>I will give up my ability to kill to prevent threat to my own death.
wow it's like you hate america

3241699

>>3241695
It should be "prevent threat to my own life."

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3241737

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

>>3241669

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

>>3241689

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.

https://books.google.com/books?id=rOq4XV94wLsC&pg=PA798&lpg=PA798&dq=paliyan+no+murder&source=bl&ots=nMx5AShJ5h&sig=qzxjpBOE2OOYDgF7Y8qTkoQXCn8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=d9MmVbEwx6WwBYfggKgM&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=paliyan%20no%20murder&f=false

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.

3241764

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

>>3241737
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)

>>3241764

So...we agree?

3241775

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

>>3241772
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)

>>3241775

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

3241787

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

>>3241781
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)

>>3241787

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

3241802

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

>>3241790
They exist in idea only, yes.

The Reverend Hands!Slavshit.Y 3241811

>>3241802

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.

3241818

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

>>3241811
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…)

>>3241802
>>3241811
She means they don't exist as a universal thing.

>>3241818
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!

3241842

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

>>3241830
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…)

>>3241842
But don't you hate it when people start going "BUT IT'S NOT THE SAME THIIING"?

3241873

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

>>3241853
Yes. It is very frustrating.

3241897

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

>>3241853
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…)

>>3241897
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.

3241914

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

>>3241909
I don’t understand the thing about the child. Could you elaborate?

Thauma!TURTLEsW8. 3241918

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

>>3241914
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.

3241924

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

>>3241918
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…)

>>3241924
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..."

3241939

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

>>3241933
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…)

>>3241939
Irrelevant, but true.
Speaking of fantasy, I bought Viper today. The fighter class ship.

3241957

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

>>3241947
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…)

>>3241957
Oh well that is true, gotta have fun with things.

3241979

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

3241988

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

>>3241957
I just looked it up. Cobra MK III.

This is my new ship.

Thauma!TURTLEsW8. 3242023

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

>>3241988
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.

3242037

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

>>3242023
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…)

>>3242037
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.

3242042

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

>>3242040
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…)

>>3241679
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

aaaaaaaaaaaaaah
TLDR


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