MyAnimeList.net

Forums

Recent Posts | My Watched Topics | My Ignored Topics | Search

Should the Law Be Used to Enforce Morality?

Pages (6) « 0.2 1.2 [2.2] 3.2 4.2 » ... Last »
05-30-12, 7:25 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 15011
one-more-time said:
Post-Josh said:
No risk, no reward, my friend.

A one-liner as answer? Sweet.


I have nothing left to say to you on this, is all.
 
05-30-12, 7:33 PM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1428
Post-Josh said:
No risk, no reward, my friend.

Lets risk giving somebody else Elephant man disease, Autism, 18 years of retardation, horrific medical procedures, lets risk all that just so we can justify our existence.

When does life gets stupid and ludacris enough for you to say "This is pretty stupid". It certainly seemed stupid enough for me at a young age to be quite certain that I'm not going to reproduce, I'm not going to throw any victims on this planet.
These little illustrations in my life, which made crystal clear, I'm not saying that these are things that convince you, but they just make it clear, vivid images of the first cat that I got stuck with and how it died, I'll never get those images out of my head, I can't calculate any value that I would trade, if I had the power to change how the animal died, I can't think of some positive thing, some Lamborgini-type possession that I could put as a value and say "That is what they was worth". Right there my math is already finished, it's blown up over a stupid cat. How can you people just look at this slop, to see what happens to people, to see what happens to animals every day in the wild,
and say "It's all okay, my standards are too high", how low will you go? How bad it has to get?
There's no horror that human beings will not endure, because they are so possessed, what you sort of can see in a competition sports, you'll see what people resort to, what people do, they're so driven, we used to have blood-sports, that is ho much it meant to people to play this ego game, this "triumph over" game, and for some people it's all about - "I'm going to win, life is not going to beat me". It's just en Ego trip.

With what kind of confidence, well some people will coincide "Well yea, this looks a little bit messy, BUT" and the BUT always comes up like "human beings do do some interesting stuff". The most everything, if you look at what they're doing, is to do with some sort of drama or entertainment or something that's feeding that ego, the part of us that lives by carelessly through stories.

For people not to coincide this desire factor, addiction thing, the fact that we are compelled down to our toes, so to speak, to play, to want to need, to feel like we are not hole, the only way we be can hole is through this "medium", this living thing but not to recognize that it never works out none wins the "game of life", they all end up gone, the end, that's it, and for what? How many times you have to do it? What's the accomplishment? A million human beings, a billion human beings, a trillion human beings? Just seems that here is no perspective at all, the number that finally will be, ill be an arbitrary number if somedys going to make a rational argument that somehow universe is diminished because it was just 10 zillion human beings that ever lived, 20 zillion would've been better?

C'mon, it's just an experience, you're caught up in it and addicted to it, there is just no need to impose addiction to somebody else, there is no need to throw somebody else through that door in-to that really messy place.
I mean, if life was well constructed, our consciousness had great adventures, then you could make an argument that there is no harm, but that is not a reality, not even close to reality we can create and part of the whole mechanism what makes us want is that deprivation, that feel that we are unfinished, undone, we are in a need of something, something HERE while you're alive, not dead. Just understand that is just a mechanism in our head, this mechanism isn't much different for heroin addict, just recognize that, quit pretending that this is worth the trouble, worth the risk, especially the risk.
The imposition, throwing somebody in-to it, creating them and putting them in there, being God, giving them not Garden of Eden but a sloppy, shitty world to live in.
I have to make the accusation again, apparently most human breeders are more malicious than God, at least God started off with a Garden of Eden, he had the sense to create the paradise for man kind, he didn't create human beings in-to a shit and that is what you're doing. You're playing God and putting your creation in shit, kind of makes you an asshole.

@Baman, Nihilists value nothing. Antinatalists value suffering. I'm not a Nihilist, can you stop with your ignorance already?
"Living is what scares me. Dying is easy."
-Charles Manson

 
05-30-12, 7:47 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 15011
I'm glad you got that out of your system, now kindly shut the fuck up.
 
05-30-12, 7:48 PM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 15175
one-more-time said:
@Baman, Nihilists value nothing. Antinatalists value suffering. I'm not a Nihilist, can you stop with your ignorance already?
Uh, nope.
Moral nihilism states that morality is a human construct. Whether or not they themselves still hold any values while knowing this is a individual choice. I am one and I still have my moral preferences even though I do in no way regard them as rigid guidelines, and would throw them away without a second thought if needed to. And just being a "nihilist" does not necessarily include moral nihilism either.
So if we're ignorant from drawing a logical conclusion (Since indeed, you are a existential nihilist, as you yourself so clearly have expressed), then you are doubly so for not knowing that nihilism is a multifaceted term.

Eigi man ek þá lǫg jómsvikinga ef ek kviði við bana eða mæla ek æðruorð. Eitt sinn skal hverr deyja
 
05-30-12, 7:58 PM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1428
Existential nihilism is the philosophical theory that life has no intrinsic meaning or value. <wiki>

Antinatalists value suffering.

Or you have not faced any antinatalists before?

Calling me Nihilist enough times will not make me such.
Modified by one-more-time, 05-30-12, 8:17 PM
"Living is what scares me. Dying is easy."
-Charles Manson

 
05-30-12, 8:25 PM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 15175
Your whole argument is about how it's bad to put people into existence because existence entails suffering right? Thus, you are saying life has no meaning and has no value in face of suffering. So existential nihilism is clearly included.

Eigi man ek þá lǫg jómsvikinga ef ek kviði við bana eða mæla ek æðruorð. Eitt sinn skal hverr deyja
 
05-30-12, 8:29 PM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 13016
Kaiserpingvin said:
Monad said:
Is not a moral necessity. It's pretty much a living necessity. No one will have even the slightness of decent life in a crazy world where everyone is a beast and you have to sleep with one eye open.
Hell our species as a whole might have died because the only reason we are more powerful than wild animals is because we form rules and groups that lead to a society structure that allows to support each other.
Even if we didn't became food we might as well have turned back into monkeys since our brain will be useless in a chaos environment where knowledge can find piece to be implemented.
'
So? Even granting something as ridiculous as the lack of laws would lead to total extinction, to hold the perpetuation of our species as a good thing is a moral fucking claim.

How hard is this to get?


Who said anything about holding our species as a good thing? It's not about being good or bad is because existence is everything so even if it's bad it changes nothing in our attempt to keep it.
 
05-30-12, 8:40 PM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1428
Baman said:
Your whole argument is about how it's bad to put people into existence because existence entails suffering right? Thus, you are saying life has no meaning and has no value in face of suffering. So existential nihilism is clearly included.

Nihilists believe everything is awash and that nothing should be done about the suffering of others. You can tip-toe around how many times you want, interpret how you please, antinatalists are not nihilists. If you call me such - I don't care, you're wrong, that's it.

Buddhism is often mistakenly classified as nihilistic or existentialist too.
"Living is what scares me. Dying is easy."
-Charles Manson

 
05-30-12, 8:47 PM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 15175
one-more-time said:
Nihilists believe everything is awash and that nothing should be done about the suffering of others. You can tip-toe around how many times you want, interpret how you please, antinatalists are not nihilists. If you call me such - I don't care, you're wrong, that's it.

Buddhism is often mistakenly classified as nihilistic or existentialist too.
Lol, again, what "nihilists" are you talking about here? "nihilism" is a colloquial term describing philosophical viewpoints that disregard one or more forms of "meaning" in life, whether it be meaning of morals, life itself or even epistemological nihilism. Clearly you have a completely wrong idea of what nihilism is.

And with Buddhism, it is a mistake because it focus on self denial and entropy as a means to an end, with important value to both life and morality still being very much in place in terms of attaining Nirvana.
So the question is simple, do you think the world has intrinsic value and meaning? If not, then you are a existential nihilist, no matter what other things you might also be. And if you claim I'm wrong, you're also refusing the definition of the words we're using, so then you'd probably be kind of a epistemological nihilist as well, really.

Eigi man ek þá lǫg jómsvikinga ef ek kviði við bana eða mæla ek æðruorð. Eitt sinn skal hverr deyja
 
05-30-12, 9:06 PM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 824
@one-more-time

Banatar said "That harm is not negligible, because the quality of even the best lives is very bad-and considerably worse than most people recognise it to be."

Do you not see something wrong with that statement? What objective criteria was used to grade human lives? What objective criteria is used to determine what is painful or what is suffering? Most often in my own life pain/suffering is merely a feedback loop that informs me something is wrong. Of course if one is suffering more than they think they are, does it even matter?

Even assuming it does, why should I mind having children, if they, like me can successfully delude themselves into thinking their life is ok? At any rate, the conclusion I come to is that he has a very crude and simple definition of pleasure and pain which oversimplifies things leaving a lot to be desired, among other things I found flawed, but I have a feeling we won't reach middle ground here so I'll conclude there.

This topic certainly derailed though, interesting progression that I can't say I saw coming. *shrugs*

 
05-30-12, 9:22 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 3078
Baman said:
one-more-time said:
@Baman, Nihilists value nothing. Antinatalists value suffering. I'm not a Nihilist, can you stop with your ignorance already?
Uh, nope.
Moral nihilism states that morality is a human construct. Whether or not they themselves still hold any values while knowing this is a individual choice. I am one and I still have my moral preferences even though I do in no way regard them as rigid guidelines, and would throw them away without a second thought if needed to. And just being a "nihilist" does not necessarily include moral nihilism either.
So if we're ignorant from drawing a logical conclusion (Since indeed, you are a existential nihilist, as you yourself so clearly have expressed), then you are doubly so for not knowing that nihilism is a multifaceted term.

Moral Nihilism, Existential Nihilism... Now where have I heard these terms. Oh, right, the first paragraph of Nihilism on Wikipedia "-_- I think this is the point where labelling becomes over-ridiculous. On top of that, labelling someone you consider an existentialist... lol, Baman, that's kind of offensive. Nihilism is simply the rejection of intrinsic value, in one way or another. I don't think we need to label every little core intricacy that follows it. Anyway, "existential nihilism" is a useless term, since anti-foundationalism covers that philosophical area.
 
05-30-12, 9:28 PM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1428
@Baman

Antinatalism is philosophical position that does come out of Nihilism, that is why there is lots of similarities- the life is a futile game. That comes out of Nihilism.

Antinatalism also comes out of religion. This is something that isn't talked about much, but if you look at Buddhism, Hinduism, Non-duality, agnosticism(tho it's a bit different).
If we look at the definition of Antinatalism, they all attribute negative value towards birth, they all see consciousness as being harmful, they all see life as suffering, as soon there is self-awareness.
Nihilism states that everything is futile and no course of action does not change anything whatsoever, everything is meaningless. When it comes to this subject I'm an activist, to be activist you need passion, it needs to be against indifference, thet state that Nihilism brings is indifference, because its acknowledgement of meaninglessness of everything being meaningless.
In order to be activist you cannot be thinking that everything is meaningless, otherwise you would not have a cause to be an activist for. I'm against Nihilism.

Even tho Antinatalism comes out of Nihilism thought, religion. Antinatalism has been turned into activism, by some people, into optimism, retains the hope of the possibility of being able to end all sentient life on earth, or life as a whole. You need a hope in order to be activist, what ever kind of activist you are. That gives a passion, a meaning, for these reasons I'm not a Nihilist, I'm not a skeptic, I'm sure about my self in may ways, Nihilist doubts everything.
You can be Antinatalist and you can be Antinatalist activist, you can be both - Nihilist and Antinatalist.

But I'd go so far that calling yourself Antinatalist without having activist attitude is like calling yourself non-rapist.

If you look at the Albert Camus book "the Stranger", you can see what a Nihilist would look like. Or movie "The Man Who Sleep"/"Un Homme Qui Dort".

I've had enough of "You are a Nihilist" for past years, lets not go there. I know who I am better than you do.

@rekindleflame, take a look at Benatars book "Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence".

Anyways, I'm off for a sleep.
Modified by one-more-time, 05-30-12, 9:40 PM
"Living is what scares me. Dying is easy."
-Charles Manson

 
05-30-12, 9:51 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 15011
Sleep is meaningless though imo.
 
05-30-12, 9:55 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 891
In the cases where the 'lack of morality' harms other people or takes away their freedoms, yes the law should be involved. E.g. Murder, cannibalism, rape etc

In the cases where the 'lack of morality' does not harm other people or take away their freedoms, no the law should not be involved. E.g. Gay relationships, prostitution (but lets also make them pay taxes like the rest of us), and pornography.
 
05-30-12, 10:01 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 3078
one-more-time said:

If you look at the Albert Camus book "the Stranger", you can see what a Nihilist would look like. Or movie "The Man Who Sleep"/"Un Homme Qui Dort".


Wa-wa-wait a minute! The Stranger is not a nihilistic book! Meursault goes through most of the book indifferent (indifference ≠ nihilism), with him embracing life with happiness and acceptance at the end. How the fuck is that nihilism? That's existentialism!

I have to agree with Baman, buddy. I don't think you know what Nihilism is. Try Turgenev and Nietzsche for more depth.
 
05-30-12, 10:07 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 15011
I have never read The Stranger, but if that's true, lol.
 
05-30-12, 10:12 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 3078
Post-Josh said:
I have never read The Stranger, but if that's true, lol.

Are you implying that what I said might not be true? I am not a liar, Josh.
 
05-30-12, 11:11 PM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 824
lucjan said:
one-more-time said:

If you look at the Albert Camus book "the Stranger", you can see what a Nihilist would look like. Or movie "The Man Who Sleep"/"Un Homme Qui Dort".


Wa-wa-wait a minute! The Stranger is not a nihilistic book! Meursault goes through most of the book indifferent (indifference ≠ nihilism), with him embracing life with happiness and acceptance at the end. How the fuck is that nihilism? That's existentialism!

I have to agree with Baman, buddy. I don't think you know what Nihilism is. Try Turgenev and Nietzsche for more depth.


Interesting, I would have actually agreed with one-more-time here, that Meursault was nihilistic finally "embracing" absurdism in prison. I found it to be very similar to one of Camus's other works The Myth of Sisyphus. Although Meursault certainly displays traits from nihilism, existentialism, and hedonism, so I suppose one could make the case either way.

 
05-30-12, 11:14 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 3078
rekindledflame said:
lucjan said:
one-more-time said:

If you look at the Albert Camus book "the Stranger", you can see what a Nihilist would look like. Or movie "The Man Who Sleep"/"Un Homme Qui Dort".


Wa-wa-wait a minute! The Stranger is not a nihilistic book! Meursault goes through most of the book indifferent (indifference ≠ nihilism), with him embracing life with happiness and acceptance at the end. How the fuck is that nihilism? That's existentialism!

I have to agree with Baman, buddy. I don't think you know what Nihilism is. Try Turgenev and Nietzsche for more depth.


Interesting, I would have actually agreed with one-more-time here, that Meursault was nihilistic finally "embracing" absurdism in prison. I found it to be very similar to one of Camus's other works The Myth of Sisyphus. Although Meursault certainly displays traits from nihilism, existentialism, and hedonism, so I suppose one could make the case either way.

Absurdism isn't Nihilism.
 
05-30-12, 11:51 PM

Offline
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 380
The conversation has taken an extremely satisfying turn

Also I apologize for calling OMT scum

I still think Asexuals are scum though so I dunno if my apology holds water? Who cares let's wrap this bad boy up with some existential literary recommendations

Anyone ever read Nausea? Do not spoil it for me I bought it in hopes that it would be better than L’Étranger (though I do enjoy Camus's writing in The Fall [the descriptive/narrative bits] and Myth of Sisyphuck)
 
05-31-12, 5:17 AM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 15175
lucjan said:
Moral Nihilism, Existential Nihilism... Now where have I heard these terms. Oh, right, the first paragraph of Nihilism on Wikipedia "-_- I think this is the point where labelling becomes over-ridiculous. On top of that, labelling someone you consider an existentialist... lol, Baman, that's kind of offensive. Nihilism is simply the rejection of intrinsic value, in one way or another. I don't think we need to label every little core intricacy that follows it. Anyway, "existential nihilism" is a useless term, since anti-foundationalism covers that philosophical area.
But nihilism in itself doesn't say much specifically of what's being rejected, so what exactly you mean with "nihilist" is pretty vague and has to be seen in context, thus you might as well define it further. It's one thing to use it as a general term to describe something as being nihilistic, but if you're talking about it as a philosophical idea, surely it's better to be accurate.
And I find existentialism and existential nihilism to be pretty much interchangeable when it comes to meaning of existence and morality, really. The only real difference being that the former also advocates persistence in creating one's own meaning.
one-more-time said:
Nihilism states that everything is futile and no course of action does not change anything whatsoever, everything is meaningless. When it comes to this subject I'm an activist, to be activist you need passion, it needs to be against indifference, thet state that Nihilism brings is indifference, because its acknowledgement of meaninglessness of everything being meaningless.
Not quite. It's wholly possible to be a positive thinking nihilist in a more existentialist way. Stating that there is no purpose or meaning in anything does not mean everything is futile, you can still enjoy things on your own no matter how meaningless they are.
glitchhunter said:
In the cases where the 'lack of morality' does not harm other people or take away their freedoms, no the law should not be involved. E.g. Gay relationships, prostitution (but lets also make them pay taxes like the rest of us), and pornography.
That's why I can't fathom why prostitution isn't legalized more. Everyone should be able to acknowledge the fact that they cannot ever be rid of it, so why not at least keep it controlled and neat, and even get tax money out of it? It's the only option that makes any sort of sense.

Eigi man ek þá lǫg jómsvikinga ef ek kviði við bana eða mæla ek æðruorð. Eitt sinn skal hverr deyja
 
05-31-12, 5:36 AM

Offline
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 61
hell no, morality is too up in the air and differs between each individual, everyone believes in different things and attempting to force everyone under one umberella will restrict rights and freedoms in life which i would rather not lose to be honest. if christian morality took over, gays would be prosecuted, non white races will be pushed down and other moral grey areas will be halted such as abortion etc. stem cell research will come to a sudden end... would rather not lose these freedoms.
wubwubwubwub
 
05-31-12, 6:16 AM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6400
Slurpentine said:
I still think Asexuals are scum
What am I reading.
 
05-31-12, 6:48 AM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 2202
Well this topic has certainly gone off with a bang.

I am not going to get into a debate about labels of different philosophies or the stuff about Benatar's Asymmetry because I don't know enough about them all to make any arguments about them, and because I don't think there is much point in arguing about definitions because what matters at the end of the day is the arguments or ideas behind them.

I see life as an experience. What comes before life is unknown to me and to anyone else, and so questioning whether that is better or worse than life at the present seems like a futile endevour and irrelevent. We cannot judge life in contrast with what comes before or after, because we cannot say what either of those is like.

You can say that life is not worth living though, and in that situation you are normally able to end your own life, or have someone end your life for you. That choice is yours to make, so by giving birth to someone you are not robbing them of any choice.

Even so, I would like to live my life until the natural end, or at least until I am at a stage where I can no longer experience anything positive anymore. If I am immobile and terminally ill with an illness, or if I grow bored, perhaps I will end my life prematurely. However, I don't think I would kill myself, even in those situations.

I am curious about what happens after you die, but since I will find that out (if there is anything to find out) eventually, and because life offers so much to experience I don't think ending life prematurely is a wise thing to do.

I do not believe life has any higher purpose, but I see that as a good thing rather than a negative thing, because it means we are not under any obligations to please anyone but ourselves or those who we wish to please. We do have to conform to laws too, but for the most part I would conform to those laws anyway.

I would imagine I am some form of existentialist but I am not sure of any more than that. I have read Nausea but I haven't looked into it in any greater depth, and I held these views before reading that novel too.
 
05-31-12, 6:50 AM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 15011
lucjan said:
Post-Josh said:
I have never read The Stranger, but if that's true, lol.

Are you implying that what I said might not be true? I am not a liar, Josh.


ALRIGHT, ALRIGHT.
 
05-31-12, 9:39 AM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 1712
I stand by my beliefs that the government should not be able to enforce morality. Maybe it's because I have rather low morals myself, but I never liked that the government could tell me what to enjoy in my own house that's not hurting anybody. And just because you don't like it doesn't mean that I should have to stop doing it.

Gay marriage is the biggest one that comes to my mind. I mean, fuck. There are people so horrible about it, they've all congregated in North Korea Carolina and passed a god damn law against it. That right there is a prime example of the government trying to "enforce morality".
 
05-31-12, 9:59 AM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 15175
ycart59 said:
Gay marriage is the biggest one that comes to my mind. I mean, fuck. There are people so horrible about it, they've all congregated in North Korea Carolina and passed a god damn law against it. That right there is a prime example of the government trying to "enforce morality".
And a breach of the human rights as well (Yes, I know they "interpret" article 16 to fit their bigoted views, but it still goes against the fundamental principles of the declaration).

Though of course, speaking of the human rights, they too, are no more than rules enforcing morality.

Eigi man ek þá lǫg jómsvikinga ef ek kviði við bana eða mæla ek æðruorð. Eitt sinn skal hverr deyja
 
05-31-12, 11:23 AM

Offline
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 380
LolitaDecay said:
Slurpentine said:
I still think Asexuals are scum
What am I reading.


a man acknowledging the truth
 
05-31-12, 11:29 AM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 3078
Baman said:
]But nihilism in itself doesn't say much specifically of what's being rejected, so what exactly you mean with "nihilist" is pretty vague and has to be seen in context, thus you might as well define it further. It's one thing to use it as a general term to describe something as being nihilistic, but if you're talking about it as a philosophical idea, surely it's better to be accurate.
And I find existentialism and existential nihilism to be pretty much interchangeable when it comes to meaning of existence and morality, really. The only real difference being that the former also advocates persistence in creating one's own meaning.


There's still many factions in Nihilism yet to be labelled; regardless, the labelling has gotten out of hand. There's already a term for what's considered existential nihilism—there doesn't need to be two.

Existentialism doesn't reject morality like "existential nihilism" does, or anti-foundationalism. They're very different, imo. Existentialism is a bittersweet "face-reality" kind of philosophy. Its core modus of living lies in present-experience and the relishing of those experiences. With that, existentialism forces you to face reality with a conviction of what's moral and what's not. That's what Kierkegaard said, at least. Regardless, since existentialists reject labels, quite vehemently at that, giving them a dual-layer label is just going to piss them off more.


Baman said:
ycart59 said:
Gay marriage is the biggest one that comes to my mind. I mean, fuck. There are people so horrible about it, they've all congregated in North Korea Carolina and passed a god damn law against it. That right there is a prime example of the government trying to "enforce morality".
And a breach of the human rights as well (Yes, I know they "interpret" article 16 to fit their bigoted views, but it still goes against the fundamental principles of the declaration).

Though of course, speaking of the human rights, they too, are no more than rules enforcing morality.

For some reason, American Conservatives seem to think America is a Christian nation, and cherry pick their way through the bible for laws... It doesn't matter if article I of the constitution says "separation of church and state," or if restricting marriage to the Christian definition breaches the establishment clause, or that even one of the founding fathers, and the 2nd president—John Adams—stated America was not a Christian nation nor founded on Christian principles in article 11 of The Treaty of Tripoli. It just doesn't fucking matter with these people. They only adhere to their own convoluted ideas and will strip away everyone's right if it suits their fancy—not to mention, they're bastardizing the founding of America with distorted lies.
 
05-31-12, 11:44 AM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1428
@AnnoKano and not only.

I keep using the heroin addict as an example, because most people can look at them and say "They're out of their f- minds", they're possessed by the demon, the drug, they're making crazy evaluation, they'll ruin their families lives, they'll ruin peoples lives all around them, their own life will have no dignity, no purpose, no anything they'll be just disgusting, wretched, putrid, horrific, zombie-like frankenstein mongster. They'll keep crawling.

I'm sort of arguing if you take the human being out of the game, above the game, make them responsible for the game, maybe people will be able to see and say "This is naughty, this isn't simple" at minimum. From my perspective, when I look through this all context, this whole context of understanding is a piece of chemistry, damnit, all it's doing is consuming and reproducing, that's the mission, there is no grander accomplishment, there is no getting there, we can have a brain as big as the f- moon and we still not going to be able to make any sense out of it, it just doesn't have a purpose, doesn't have anywhere to go, only thing we can use our intelligence to do is find some way to medicate against the pain and the suffering and the negative parts of it. Even if we do the best we can do, the best perfection we can get is to make it fail-safe, to make it perfectly fail-safe, no harm, no foul, all fun desire and fun pleasure, no hard desire, no hard deprivation, but then what are we?
We're just some sort of thing, that you throw "Big Macs" into and it smiles, what is that? There is no accomplishment either. There's no resolution, there's no else to go, there's just different colours, we can paint different colours, it's like the phantasmagoricals and their bullshit with their psychedelics, I mean it's connected to pretty colours and that's what is all about, they're so wallow in a fact that "Ohh yea, they're changing the colours, the colours are swirling", that's enough to keep them distracted and satisfied. But it's nothing in comperasment to the context, it's silly, it's embarrassingly silly to undo the real hard suffering that has been endured, that's part of the context, you have to remember how we got there, that's not just a maze game that you snap your fingers and there's these sophisticated little humans doing this chasing game, these 2 billion years of evolution with feeling organisms in it, being the consumables and the consumers, 2 billion years is a goddamn long time.
A lot of writhing, a lot of horror, a lot of crocodiles chomping. It's hard to make a rational argument to justify handful of it. That's hell lot of a price to pay for "Mc Donalds", what are we doing? An orgasm! I mean.. how many do you need? Didn't you done that? Everything there's left is the desire part, the part that just regenerates, the hunger, the food, "I need the food", "I need to get fucked one more time". That's going to run through our heads, we're never going to be able to give up on it, there's always something you want to do one more f- time. That is the nature of the beast, we're made to desire, to want more of it, to feed on it.

We're just chasing an illusion, and illusion has tied to this notion of satisfaction, of completeness, and somehow our brain prevents us from learning, the completeness will never be complete, satisfaction will never be enduring, it'll slip through our fingers and it'll be gone, it'll never be in our grasp, it'll always the carrot on the stick, and the dumb mule will keep chasing the carrot, it's going to dry up and shrivel up before we ever get to it. That's the context, I'm saying that this is a discussion that can take place within intelligence not emotions, you can't just sit there and as each other "Oh, how do you feel about your life?", because that is not dealing with the reality. Your life might not be the average life, it might not be the colour that is the meme of life, what this thing has been for billions of years.
It's not a fair way to evaluate, you can't ask yourself "Well if I profited from this experience", that's really not good enough.

What I'd say, the part of the context, if you're going to continue this conversation, would be to talk about how would you think if were responsible, you had no interest, no personal interest in the game, you're not going to be allowed to play it. You were creating life on another planet, you had the decision to make "Do I press the Start button?", that's the position you're in. The start button is sitting there, and you're gonna press it, it won't go anywhere, that's the one fact you do know. There will be organisms chasing, chasing, chasing, chasing, chasing, they will never be satisfied, they will never be complete, because that is not the nature of animal, it doesn't exist that way. And if it did, it would be empty, it would be pointless, because the chase is what the brain is made to do, it has to completely change what we are, to make us functional as even just tickle-me-Elmo, as even just a nerve that wallows around in some sort of twitchy orgasmic pleasure.
If it doesn't have any context it doesn't have any meaning, the context has to be created by having the ugly compared to, the pain.
The pleasure really is, if you start analyzing it what it's constructed out of, I would sort of make the argument that it's constructed out of our own pain, the tension and these little discomforts, the little ant-bites, we have all these little irritations, all these little tensions, all these little aggravations that's annoying us all the time. Sense of pleasure, enjoyment is sort of built out of those moments when something happens - boy, we're relieved of the angst and tension, that's part of the irony that you almost have to have the negative to even have the positive, even at our core the negative comes first, wihtout the negative we can't build the positive, this is sort of math, you sort of establish red and black numbers. Part of my point was if you analyze what can make a positive number it really is eliminating the negative. Getting rid of deprivation, getting rid of harassment, getting rid of discomfort, that's basically what all positives are made out of, whether discomfort is in your self or in somebody else, that's how you live a productive life, theoretically, is by giving comfort, creating it for another people and for yourself.

People still amaze me that hey cannot get this idea that consciousness is gonna go on beyond you, it's going to keep living on this planet, it's quite obvious in your own interest to prevent lives being lived that you would not want to live because they're going to be lived, if you can prevent them - how can you not win in that situation? You know what consciousness is, you their suffering is equal to your own, their humiliation is equal to your own, all that shit is equal to your own. Why would you sit there and say "Oh, go ahead and let it happen, because it's not me". It just doesn't work, it doesn't matter whether is you, it's a same consciousness that you are.Why would you want to happen to that? It's not any different than you, except the irrelevance, the only difference is our irrelevant differences, so if you'll do something to save yourself from something it just makes logical sense that you would do same ammount of work to prevent it happening to somebody else.

I'm here, I do not mean MAL, to prevent my own re-existence, I'm here to defend my consciousness from being thrown back into your stupid game again, going through the same realizations "Oh, I'm on a planet of f-tards, how the f- I ended up in this shithole?", I don't want anybody to come to that realization ever again, I don't want anybody to live a stupid and contrived, idiotic life. I see incentive in it, in a personal way, I'm protecting sentience, which I understand what it is, I feel it, I know it, I've experienced it, I'm saying I don't want sentience living in crap, I don't want it living in mediocrity, I don't want it living it squalor.
It's to my advantage as a consciousness to prevent that, because if I would not want to live that life then I have no business not doing something to prevent that life, that's just logical.
What's the difference whether I suffer right now or I suffer a hundred years from now? Or I suffer a thousand years from now? What's the difference?
What's the difference if my name is John or Fred or Bob or Alice. It doesn't matter, does it? No, it's consciousness.

The values are made out of suffering equation and it matters how many holocausts there are, how many WW's there are, how many people are living in squalor, all that shit matters, what's going to control that is what people have in their heads, what kind of bullshit is in their brains, the world is overpopulating there no doubt about it we're going to consume over consume resources, our economies are fucked and that is all a product of compeltely unrealistic perceptions of our reality of the circumstances we're existing.

Excusing procreation with "I'm designed to do that, that is what Evolution made me", it insults my intelligence, it insults your own intelligence.

@Slurpentine, do I care for your apology or your insults? It comes out of your ignorance, I'm not going to take it seriously. If you want to call me scum - I'm okay with that. If you want to call group of people a scum - you better find a good argument for it, otherwise you're just ignorant douchebag.
Modified by one-more-time, 05-31-12, 11:52 AM
"Living is what scares me. Dying is easy."
-Charles Manson

 
05-31-12, 11:48 AM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 3078
^ Fuck, that's an essay... And you didn't even double space it! Good luck, Anno.
 
05-31-12, 12:00 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 15011
Dude, we get it. You had a bad childhood, or some shit, and have a negative outlook on existence. You've yet to explain what makes you qualified to say "this is how life is for other people", "this is how other people think", "this is what consciousness means" (for example some theories say you can't even prove other people exist, or that other people can think), "this is what 'getting there' means", "this outlook is the only and correct outlook", "this is what suffering means for other people", "this is what joy means for other people", "this is what purpose means for other people", "this is what value means for other people", etc. How do you know your logical and emotional reasoning is even "correct"? You don't.

You're not God's greatest gift to earth spouting the one and only truth on an anime forum, eating your Cheetos, drinking your diet Pepsi. You just come off as a douche.
Modified by josh_, 05-31-12, 12:10 PM
 
05-31-12, 12:13 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 3078
All I read was "big mac," "mcdonalds," and "orgasm." I think I know where his priorities are.
 
05-31-12, 12:16 PM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1428
Post-Josh said:
Dude, we get it. You had a bad childhood, or some shit, and have a negative outlook on existence.

Attack the philosophy, counter-argument, not insult me without knowing of who I am, what I've experienced. It's childish.

You've yet to explain what makes you qualified to say

Apparently you didn't read what I wrote before.

What makes you competent to impose life on someone? What makes you qualified to gamble with others welfare? To risk with their life? Because you are made such? Find a better excuse.

You're not God's greatest gift to earth spouting the one and only truth on an anime forum, eating your Cheetos, drinking your diet Pepsi. You just come off as a douche.

If you cannot argument your position then shut the f- up, please. Calling me names does not contribute the discussion in any way. Your childish insults are amusing tho. Bye.

I wouldn't write anything on this forum at all, but it just turned out that way.

lucjan said:
All I read was "big mac," "mcdonalds," and "orgasm." I think I know where his priorities are.

One of the reasons why I didn't bring up such discussion. Your insults are irrelevant to philosophical discussion, grow up, please. See, I can insult you too.
Modified by one-more-time, 05-31-12, 12:19 PM
"Living is what scares me. Dying is easy."
-Charles Manson

 
05-31-12, 12:20 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 15011
Theoretically if one were to eat a big mac while having an orgasm, would life finally have purpose?

But seriously, yeah my response was "childish". If you think your posts haven't been equally "childish" in almost every regard, well that's laughable. I'm not responding seriously to someone who insinuates they understand the deepest truths of this world beyond a shadow of a doubt, sorry.
 
05-31-12, 12:25 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 3078
one-more-time said:

One of the reasons why I didn't bring up such discussion. Your insults are irrelevant to philosophical discussion, grow up, please. See, I can insult you too.

Who said I was insulting you?
 
05-31-12, 12:29 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 15011
I'll answer this part seriously though, again.

one-more-time said:
What makes you competent to impose life on someone? What makes you qualified to gamble with others welfare? To risk with their life? Because you are made such? Find a better excuse.


It has nothing to do with us being born ourselves. It's because we feel that we are competent, because we feel that we are qualified. Just like you feel that bringing a child into the world is the worst thing that could ever possibly be done, other people feel that it is the right thing to do.

We gamble with other's welfare every day, we put other's lives at risk every day. Yes, things can go wrong. Yes, it's arguably "your fault" if and when they do. However, things can "go wrong" (whatever that even means) with fucking anything, that's the worst argument I've ever heard. No matter what you choose to do OR choose not to do, things can and will "go wrong". Maybe your decision to not have any children will turn out to be the "wrong" decision. You seem to think that your viewpoint and your choices are "neutral", and you're wrong. In my humble ass opinion, that is.
 
05-31-12, 12:33 PM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 80
Whoa. Well the law should enforce it up to a certain point. As if you go by mob-rule you are immediately impeding on the rights of people who don't want what the majority want. Something like stealing, etc. is correctable, but in the end I guess morals are enforced up to the point where it doesn't get to much in to peoples rights.

If I recall, there was a guy naked in his own house a while back and somebody saw him naked, called 911, and the police arrested him in his own house for being naked in his own house. So what would you do? Is the house alright, or how about the lawn? etc.

We can also see morals in the punishment people get for crimes. We don't go by hamarabi's code anymore, but I bet some people wish that if somebody steals there hand should be severed. And I bet the majority of people would probably want a rapist to have a certain part removed once convicted. So in the end, morals are ever changing in society and the government will always try to stay in power and enforce whatever their state/ county will want. Like violence in video games, etc. etc. etc.

I say that as long as the government doesn't censor me I am fine. Which sadly, they are trying to do. -points to the evil USA internet law not to long ago-

Excuse my random tendencies. But would like to see what if we had the Death Note in the hands of a Light?
 
05-31-12, 12:38 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 3078
I don't mean to be condescending, one-more-time, and I really don't, but your English isn't good enough to be lecturing anyone on philosophy. I had a fairly difficult time understanding just what the fuck you were getting at with that essay of a response. And it's not just your grammar, but your exposition and sentence structure as well. It's all just fuck.
 
05-31-12, 12:47 PM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1428
lucjan said:

Who said I was insulting you?

Mr.Mac'n'Orgam was funny tho, why did you edit it?

I don't mean to be condescending, one-more-time, and I really don't, but your English isn't good enough to be lecturing anyone on philosophy. I had a fairly difficult time understanding just what the fuck you were getting at with that essay of a response. And it's not just your grammar, but your exposition and sentence structure as well. It's all just fuck.

Pardon for not having perfect English, it's not my native. Yet I think it's not that bad, compared to others, plus my vocabulary isn't shallow.

@Josh,
how about you start thinking, rationally? Sway away your emotions, going only by emotions is worst thing you can do. I'm not feeling it, I've made a rational argument, even several arguments, to back up my position. And you're saying that you're going to procreate just because you feel it's the right way to do?

That you feel satisfied, that your life is okay, and your think that your kid would be okay with such life is irrelevant. My parents went by emotions, which is pretty obvious, and here I am - wondering in what kind of shit hole I've ended up.

Seems that for you it's okay if only minority disagrees with your view on life, how wonderful and gorgeous it is. Millions of people suicide, they disagree with your delusions and find it unacceptable to impose this crap on them, they cannot even exit this world properly, they have to do it the dirty way, and sometimes it fails, people even try to suicide several times and it fails again.
I don't have control of two most important things in my life - the birth and the death. Doesn't that seem a little bit stupid for you? Shouldn't on this planet live people who like it?

I have a simple question for you, which I already asked once - "Would you legalize rape if we found out that 9 out of 10 woman secretly enjoyed it?" This is simple analogy. There always is a person who's dragged along in your joy-ride.
Modified by one-more-time, 05-31-12, 12:52 PM
"Living is what scares me. Dying is easy."
-Charles Manson

 
05-31-12, 12:55 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 3078
one-more-time said:

I have a simple question for you, which I already asked once - "Would you legalize rape if we found out that 9 out of 10 woman secretly enjoyed it?" This is simple analogy. There always is a person who's dragged along in your joy-ride.

Uhh, it's rape because the women DON'T enjoy it. Hence why it's forced.

one-more-time said:

Pardon for not having perfect English, it's not my native. Yet I think it's not that bad, compared to others, plus my vocabulary isn't shallow.

Like I said, I don't want to come off condescending, but my tone is naturally sardonic, so sorry :(

Your English is not good enough for these long, complex responses. It's particularly difficult because almost every one one of your sentences is run-on, and I can't find where the hell to break off from.
Modified by lucjan, 05-31-12, 12:59 PM
 
05-31-12, 12:57 PM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 938
I'm posting without having read the whole thread. Just saying.



Morals are subjective, and I hope that's something most of us can agree on.
To each his own, right? Is gay marriage immoral? Yes, it is immoral to those who see it as such (Mostly religious people). But that should hold no significance in law. The law governs everyone, not just religious people, so it must be objective. Gay marriage does not cause harm to anyone, so it should not be illegal. (That's right, you crazy christians - They aren't hurting you!)

Although morals are subjective, certain things, although not inherently wrong (nothing is inherently wrong), become immoral for the sake of societal structure. Stuff like murder and rape, for example. I agree that those should be illegal, because it involves an individual harming another individual against their will. The law should serve to protect individuals from other individuals, and it does.

But what the law shouldn't do is protect people from themselves. There should be no laws telling people what they can and can't do to themselves on their own time. If I want to smoke weed (I dont' smoke and never will) on my own time, in my own home, alone, who does that cause harm to? Myself, but I've accepted to risk and chosen my own path. It's a simple freedom, being able to live your life how you see fit.

One with a similar mindset to mine might argue that hard drugs should also be legal, since people should have the choice to take them. I don't think so though, and I'll tell you why. After taking hard drugs, there is no more "choice" involved. I mean sure, it's feasible that you could go cold turkey on a hard drug addiction, but more often than not, addicts require help simply to stop. I don't think hard drugs should wind a user up in prison, perse, but I think they should be confined to a rehab clinic of some sort. Basically, it's a small exception to my previous point.

In summary, morals are subjective, and thus don't belong in the law, something that governs people of many different subjective viewpoints. The law should not tell anyone how to live their life, but it should protect people from outwards threats.
 
05-31-12, 12:57 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 15011
one more time said:
stuff


That's the ironic part. You believe your philosophical and moral stances are rational. I could have replaced the word 'feel' with 'think', it wouldn't have made a difference.

Let's look at just your last post, for instance. You don't like your life -> no one like theirs. That's not rational. Life and death are the two most important things in life. That's not rational. Shouldn't only people who like it live on this planet? Enjoyment is a relative measure, so that's not rational.

As for your analogy (that's not an analogy, by the way), sex is legal, yes.
 
05-31-12, 1:04 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 2202
one-more-time said:



Goodness, you don't half ramble on, do you?

I'm not sure how to break this up and answer you point by point, because it is pretty much a stream of conciousness. Might I suggest that you stop referencing things like heroin addicts, big macs and similar analogies because they do not make what you say any clearer or easier to understand, and it makes you sound like an angsty teenager. I'm not saying you are an angsty teenager, but let's say I am not surprised others are reacting to you this way, and it's probably because of things like that.

As far as I could gather from what you've said, you seem overly focused on humanity having some sort of final conclusion, and the absence of that final conclusion is what is causing you so much distress. Please, correct me if I am wrong about this but that is what I took from your post.

Personally I am not concerned so much with the final conclusion of life, whether such a thing exists or not. What does matter to me is the journey that we make through life, and that includes both the bad things and the positive things. A life free from misery seems like a fantasy and it is true that had I not been born, chances are I would never have experienced misery. But I wouldn't have experienced anything else either and for me, living in a world with so much to experience would make not existing a bit of a waste. Both a waste for me, and a waste of the world.

I also think that you're making the presumption that everyone else feels the same way you do, and if the people on this thread are anything to go by then that is clearly not true. Should everyone else be denied the chance to exist simply because you don't see the purpose of it or because you want to shelter them from misery?

In my experience not being allowed to make choices, even if those choices are made to protect me, brings its own form of misery. My parents did not want me to leave home for University because they were concerned I wouldn't be able to hack it out there in the real world. They are convinced they were right and I am convinced they weren't. In either case, taking the decision in their own hands without asking me how I felt about it made me feel miserable. How can you be sure, by preventing other people from existing, they wouldn't feel the same way?

I suppose they won't because they were never brought into existence in the first place, but as I said before we still have the opportunity to take our own lives if we are unhappy with them. You haven't done yourself in yet, and that is because you have found a purpose, even if that purpose is something futile. And I presume that if you were only concerned for yourself, you would have killed yourself by now, so as to avoid the inevitable suffering that awaits you in later life. Why can't others have a purpose in their lives either?

Anyway, as a conclusion, if you had somehow been given the opportunity to prevent my existence, then I would not have thanked you for it. What makes you think you should be able to make decisions on the behalf of others, and why do you think you know what is best for them?
 
05-31-12, 1:10 PM

Offline
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 380
one-more-time said:


you better find a good argument for it, otherwise you're just ignorant douchebag.


I don't even have to demonstrate why asexuals are scum (or rather that asexuality is scummy)

it's pretty obvious to everyone who doesn't profess it
 
05-31-12, 1:13 PM

Offline
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 380
skutieos said:
I'm posting without having read the whole thread. Just saying.



Morals are subjective, and I hope that's something most of us can agree on.
To each his own, right? Is gay marriage immoral? Yes, it is immoral to those who see it as such (Mostly religious people). But that should hold no significance in law. The law governs everyone, not just religious people, so it must be objective. Gay marriage does not cause harm to anyone, so it should not be illegal. (That's right, you crazy christians - They aren't hurting you!)

Although morals are subjective, certain things, although not inherently wrong (nothing is inherently wrong), become immoral for the sake of societal structure. Stuff like murder and rape, for example. I agree that those should be illegal, because it involves an individual harming another individual against their will. The law should serve to protect individuals from other individuals, and it does.

But what the law shouldn't do is protect people from themselves. There should be no laws telling people what they can and can't do to themselves on their own time. If I want to smoke weed (I dont' smoke and never will) on my own time, in my own home, alone, who does that cause harm to? Myself, but I've accepted to risk and chosen my own path. It's a simple freedom, being able to live your life how you see fit.

One with a similar mindset to mine might argue that hard drugs should also be legal, since people should have the choice to take them. I don't think so though, and I'll tell you why. After taking hard drugs, there is no more "choice" involved. I mean sure, it's feasible that you could go cold turkey on a hard drug addiction, but more often than not, addicts require help simply to stop. I don't think hard drugs should wind a user up in prison, perse, but I think they should be confined to a rehab clinic of some sort. Basically, it's a small exception to my previous point.

In summary, morals are subjective, and thus don't belong in the law, something that governs people of many different subjective viewpoints. The law should not tell anyone how to live their life, but it should protect people from outwards threats.


I feel there's a deconstructionist attempt to separate morals from law

and it isn't too successful
 
05-31-12, 1:14 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 15011
What he really means is he's going through a dry spell and people keep calling him an asexual. It would get on my nerves too.
 
05-31-12, 1:15 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 3427
How the hell does the lack of sexual attraction to others make someone scummy?


 
05-31-12, 1:16 PM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1428
lucjan said:
Uhh, it's rape because the women DON'T enjoy it. Hence why it's forced.

Life is forced. And people seem to be okay with that that some people look around and call life what it is - shit, when themselves don't see a thing over their delusions, the fake cheese, their pink balloon party. They'll keep dragging them along, "you just stay at back and get over your pesimist attitude, we're having fun here, don't you see".

It's a simple question, imagine that if we found out that one out of ten women secretly enjoyed rape, would that be okay for you?
And for the sake of asking, I'll give you one more - How many people have to die in WW3, in a horrific, unimaginable way, for you to say "No more, this is too much"? How many?

Your English is not good enough for these long, complex responses. It's particularly difficult because almost every one one of your sentences is run-on, and I can't find where the hell to break off from.

Seems that English has different use of comma than my language.

@Josh,
shoulda give up after your first one-liner. Bye.
"Living is what scares me. Dying is easy."
-Charles Manson

 
05-31-12, 1:16 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 3078
Gogetters said:
How the hell does the lack of sexual attraction to others make someone scummy?

Dude, this is an anime forum. Almost everyone here is a tentacle raping monster. Asexuals are just out of their element here.
 
Top
Pages (6) « 0.2 1.2 [2.2] 3.2 4.2 » ... Last »