New
So, would it be considered okay to do it?
Dec 29, 2012 12:47 PM
#251
"...big social no-no." What makes it socially wrong? Morality/ethics make it wrong. Not necessarily, as you can see, a shitload of people said "Nope, looking at boobs is wrong.". |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Dec 29, 2012 1:46 PM
#252
She's already blind... no need to harass her XD |
Dec 29, 2012 1:48 PM
#253
Dec 29, 2012 2:33 PM
#254
Immahnoob said: You keep repeating that. But whose morals/ethics? Yours?No, it is not morally right, end of the story. |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Dec 29, 2012 2:38 PM
#255
katsucats said: Immahnoob said: You keep repeating that. But whose morals/ethics? Yours?No, it is not morally right, end of the story. Actually, it's more correct saying that for my morals, no, I don't believe that looking or staring at boobs is wrong. But ethically it is, ethics are the moral rules made by society. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Dec 29, 2012 2:51 PM
#256
Immahnoob said: Ethics are moral systems, and I don't think cultural ethics exist.katsucats said: Immahnoob said: You keep repeating that. But whose morals/ethics? Yours?No, it is not morally right, end of the story. Actually, it's more correct saying that for my morals, no, I don't believe that looking or staring at boobs is wrong. But ethically it is, ethics are the moral rules made by society. |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Dec 29, 2012 3:04 PM
#257
Is it okay for a girl to stare at a blind guy's crotch? |
Dec 29, 2012 3:05 PM
#258
Whatever... I'm not in the mood, nonetheless, society does not like sexual harassment, staring at somebody's privates is actually depriving them of their privacy. Or so they say. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Dec 29, 2012 3:15 PM
#259
Immahnoob said: Uh well if anyone doesn't like being looked at, they need to not go outside.staring at somebody's privates is actually depriving them of their privacy. Or so they say. |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Dec 29, 2012 3:17 PM
#260
Well, the law can be stretched enough to put that in sexual harassment laws. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Dec 29, 2012 5:09 PM
#261
What you do is none of my business; just don't get caught. |
“Girls can wear jeans and cut their hair short and wear shirts and boots because it’s okay to be a boy; for girls it’s like promotion. But for a boy to look like a girl is degrading, according to you, because secretly you believe that being a girl is degrading.”—Ian McEwan, The Cement Garden (1978) |
Dec 29, 2012 10:01 PM
#262
Dec 29, 2012 10:02 PM
#263
Immahnoob said: What don't you understand from "in a DEBATE where the SUBJECT is about NATURE there is no SUCH THING as APPEAL TO NATURE"? If you're saying that it's biologically okay to stare at breasts (thus making it okay to stare at them), it is appeal to nature. If you'd be explaining why we're attracted to breasts - that is not an appeal to nature. And as you said that ethics are just purely subjective and cannot be used to prove anything, the only conclusion I can make is: biological needs or the way we're made is enough of justification for you. It's like somebody asks "Why is X anime popular?" and you keep on repeating "IT'S AN APPEAL TO POPULARITY!". Nop. Vinter said: one-more-time are you suggesting humans aren't bound by our nature? I'm suggesting that we should not play just by nature's rules - it has no brain. We should know better than nature. Why do you think we exist? To reproduce and continue existing. That's it. If an intellectual person looks at it and says: yes, this reason is good enough for me - replication for the sake of replication. I don't think that we can call him intellectual any more. In order to facilitate this, nature has designed humans to be attracted to members of the opposite sex. This is basic biology. So you're suggesting that we should be gamed by the DNA. Only because a piece of chemistry acquired a capacity to reproduce, 4 billion years ago. Seems legit. The notion that we should distance ourselves from our biological perogative and suppress our desires is the dumbest thing I've heard in quite some time. Once you understand what these desires are for, that you're being gamed by deprivation, you suddenly understand: yeah, that's all bullshit. Humanity would end if everyone followed your advice. I'd be happy for that. Especially if for the humanity live for the sake of replication is good reason enough. They have nothing better than "I feel it's better" to justify their unconsensual(?) trespass. We find strength in numbers. The more we are, the better we are. The reason we bond together and build cities is so that we can split the work and allow some people to specialize in certain crafts, which benefits all of us. So we should perpetuate more human beings? You can kind of see that it is not the case. It's getting tougher and tougher, the Natural Resource War inevitably will occur. That is thanks to numbers. |
LUL |
Dec 29, 2012 10:03 PM
#264
Jak3 said: I see... So it's like foreplay...i like to think nothings wrong until you get caught then you are fucked. |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Dec 29, 2012 10:07 PM
#265
one-more-time said: If you think ethics is purely subjective then whatever justification you come up with is arbitrary, so what makes your reasoning better than Immahnoob's reasoning?And as you said that ethics are just purely subjective and cannot be used to prove anything, the only conclusion I can make is: biological needs or the way we're made is enough of justification for you. |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Dec 29, 2012 11:19 PM
#266
katsucats said: If you think ethics is purely subjective then whatever justification you come up with is arbitrary, so what makes your reasoning better than Immahnoob's reasoning? If you're watching somebody being raped and you know it's wrong that that person is being raped, you're kind of obliged to do something about it. That's just the way it works. Rights basically come from the obligation to undo the wrong. Rights come from some sort of need for opportunity to exist for people to fix what is broken, that's sort of we're derived from. There are no natural rights, because obviously nature has a system where "deserve" has nothing to do with it, so that would be stupid, that would be just "might makes right" which is just a morons approach. This is one of these intelligence tests. Could intelligence believe that "might makes right"? Whatever is the strongest is somehow is the rightest? Or the bestest? Intelligence wouldn't think so, would it? If a superior intelligence came to earth and it was better than us in every aspect, it was even attractive, charming, it had beautiful music. It had everything over us, it just kicked our asses in everything. But one flaw was that they're looking at us how we're looking at pigs. "It's just a pig, lets eat it." Would we have the intellectual integrity to concede that it beats us in every department, it should win, it should have it its way, because it's better than us. Or would we say: there's something wrong with these assholes, they're hurting sentient beings for their own satisfaction and that's just bullshit. I think all of a sudden everyone would understand what the vegetarian arguments are. They'd start to figure out what sentience means, they'd start to see meaning in all of these words all of a sudden as an intelligent concepts. They would say: this invading intelligence can't be intelligent, if it doesn't respect our capacity to suffer. I think, that all these people who don't respect the ability of all these animals to suffer, all of a sudden they'd change their perspective. Is that intelligent if your perspective can be changed by when your hypocrisy and duplicity can be exposed so easily? I don't think it's intelligent. |
LUL |
Dec 29, 2012 11:41 PM
#267
one-more-time said: If you think morality is subjective, then all of that is arbitrary, as in it is not derived from objective fact. As you said, there is no natural rights. If it is so that whatever reason you have to believe something is not derived from objective fact, then any conclusion that you come up with is neither better nor worse than any other conclusion, whether humanism or ethical naturalism (which isn't the same as social Darwinism, by the way).katsucats said: If you think ethics is purely subjective then whatever justification you come up with is arbitrary, so what makes your reasoning better than Immahnoob's reasoning? If you're watching somebody being raped and you know it's wrong that that person is being raped, you're kind of obliged to do something about it. That's just the way it works. Rights basically come from the obligation to undo the wrong. Rights come from some sort of need for opportunity to exist for people to fix what is broken, that's sort of we're derived from. There are no natural rights, because obviously nature has a system where "deserve" has nothing to do with it, so that would be stupid, that would be just "might makes right" which is just a morons approach. This is one of these intelligence tests. Could intelligence believe that "might makes right"? Whatever is the strongest is somehow is the rightest? Or the bestest? Intelligence wouldn't think so, would it? If a superior intelligence came to earth and it was better than us in every aspect, it was even attractive, charming, it had beautiful music. It had everything over us, it just kicked our asses in everything. But one flaw was that they're looking at us how we're looking at pigs. "It's just a pig, lets eat it." Would we have the intellectual integrity to concede that it beats us in every department, it should win, it should have it its way, because it's better than us. Or would we say: there's something wrong with these assholes, they're hurting sentient beings for their own satisfaction and that's just bullshit. I think all of a sudden everyone would understand what the vegetarian arguments are. They'd start to figure out what sentience means, they'd start to see meaning in all of these words all of a sudden as an intelligent concepts. They would say: this invading intelligence can't be intelligent, if it doesn't respect our capacity to suffer. I think, that all these people who don't respect the ability of all these animals to suffer, all of a sudden they'd change their perspective. Is that intelligent if your perspective can be changed by when your hypocrisy and duplicity can be exposed so easily? I don't think it's intelligent. Also, unless you're a dualist, intelligence is a mere product of natural evolution. So to assume intelligence has the power to arbitrate non-natural morality is questionable -- how did naturally-evolved intelligence gain insight on this non-natural morality? And if nature does have that power of insight, then why couldn't morality be reduced to nature? Where do your ethics come from? There are 3 possible answers to this question: 1. Nature <-- you've said that nature has nothing to do with morality 2. Man <-- a subjective morality cannot possibly be used to measure an objective intelligence 3. God <-- therefore, your position must lie here. |
katsucatsDec 29, 2012 11:44 PM
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Dec 29, 2012 11:50 PM
#268
katsucats said: Jak3 said: I see... So it's like foreplay...i like to think nothings wrong until you get caught then you are fucked. In a way yes it's like foreplay... Very violent foreplay... With a blind girl... And you just know which side the police are gonna choose (here's a hint, their vision isn't the greatest) |
Dec 29, 2012 11:56 PM
#269
mdude009 said: No quite to the contrary, the foreplay is quite passive. It doesn't even have to be violent when I get fucked, unless the blind girl is also kinky.katsucats said: Jak3 said: I see... So it's like foreplay...i like to think nothings wrong until you get caught then you are fucked. In a way yes it's like foreplay... Very violent foreplay... With a blind girl... And you just know which side the police are gonna choose (here's a hint, their vision isn't the greatest) And there's nothing much to fear from blind police, is there? |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Dec 30, 2012 12:05 AM
#270
katsucats said: mdude009 said: No quite to the contrary, the foreplay is quite passive. It doesn't even have to be violent when I get fucked, unless the blind girl is also kinky.katsucats said: Jak3 said: I see... So it's like foreplay...i like to think nothings wrong until you get caught then you are fucked. In a way yes it's like foreplay... Very violent foreplay... With a blind girl... And you just know which side the police are gonna choose (here's a hint, their vision isn't the greatest) And there's nothing much to fear from blind police, is there? I don't know man, I'd be way more scared of a bunch of blind guys with guns then a bunch of people who can see with guns. |
Dec 30, 2012 12:36 AM
#271
Yeah, katsucats pretty much wrote exactly what I was going to say, in post #269. To sum it up for you, one-more-time: Everything you have said is your subjective opinion, and thus it has no more or less value or relevance than anyone elses. |
> The Fellow MAL Users Social Link has reached level 6! > Your power to create Forum Posts of the Anime Arcana has grown! |
Dec 30, 2012 12:55 AM
#272
But I did explain why we're attracted the breasts, I think you missed all those discussions AND even my latest explanation, which included the reasons. Also, "not playing by natures rules" in situations that don't hurt us in any way is retarded. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Dec 30, 2012 2:56 AM
#273
Of course it is.. take a picture as well while you're at it! |
"Only one with the courage to shoulder the burden of their own fate can be called a hero.." |
Dec 30, 2012 2:57 AM
#274
I stare at everyone's boobs. Even some of you fat guys on here |
tfw no gf tfw i keep getting the banhammer on here tfw Koleare keeps banning me every other day tfw I'm misunderstood by le mod |
Dec 30, 2012 3:12 AM
#275
Dec 30, 2012 4:47 AM
#276
Apologizing in advance for the grammatical and punctuation errors, English is not my native language. katsucats said: If you think morality is subjective, then all of that is arbitrary, as in it is not derived from objective fact. As you said, there is no natural rights. If it is so that whatever reason you have to believe something is not derived from objective fact, then any conclusion that you come up with is neither better nor worse than any other conclusion, whether humanism or ethical naturalism (which isn't the same as social Darwinism, by the way). Also, unless you're a dualist, intelligence is a mere product of natural evolution. So to assume intelligence has the power to arbitrate non-natural morality is questionable -- how did naturally-evolved intelligence gain insight on this non-natural morality? And if nature does have that power of insight, then why couldn't morality be reduced to nature? Where do your ethics come from? There are 3 possible answers to this question: 1. Nature <-- you've said that nature has nothing to do with morality 2. Man <-- a subjective morality cannot possibly be used to measure an objective intelligence 3. God <-- therefore, your position must lie here. Immahnoob said that ethics are just subjective and cannot be used to prove something. I'm suggesting that every statement defining or declaring value is just as obvious, just as real, just as "in the world" as the fact of saying: the Earth is round. The fact that sentient beings create welfare that has substance and integrity, and that you can harm it in ways that are intrinsically and fundamentally negative is a fact. It's not a subjective made-up fantasy, it's not a "Three pigs" story. It's the story of the actual circumstance, it's a truth in the world. It is not "I like chocolate ice-cream", I'm saying: sentient beings have feelings and feelings are the only thing of value in the universe. The existence of value as a reality, as some part of reality that we're describing philosophically or intelligently attempting to describe what is the game, what's the game we're playing and what's the value components of the game we're playing. I'm basically arguing that there's just one truth to the reality, to the function of the game, to the value of the game. We either get the right answer either the wrong answer, there are no multiple answers. The fact that pie is a food is a fact. What kind of a pie you like is factual, but not relevant, it is not intrinsic value of the pie. It being desirable to you doesn't mean it has intrinsic value, but it does have intrinsic value as food as potential nourishment. The state of our consciousness creates value. Every second of our lives, our consciousness is in a state of comfortable or uncomfortable. We're on a line of comfort, either low or high in terms of good or bad relative positions. Being in that state we radiate, in a sense, we create a gravity weight of value weight. You can metaphor it in a different ways. In a sense we do radiate a capturable amount of this substance called welfare or a condition. That's one of the properties of being conscious. When you're unconscious your welfare is not relevant, meaningful or substantial, you are not generating any value at that moment. When you are conscious, you are generating a positive either negative weight to the value pool. You are putting water in or you're taking water out of the NET value ether of the universe. These are metaphors, but the only way you can talk about this is metaphorically, because obviously value isn't a material thing. It is a conceptual description of relationship of properties that something has, they are not visible properties they are invisible nonmaterial, but they are fundamentally, in my opinion, discernible and definable. There's a certain and definite difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, the difference is significant, it's not irrelevant, it's not meaningless, it's not like the "dark side versus light side of the moon", no - it's meaningful difference, it's all the difference that matters in all of the universe, the welfare of the consciousness, the feeling thing that can be in a negative state. Negative in all of what that word implies: negative in bad, negative in bad, negative in void. You can use all these descriptive words like: rotten, nasty, wasteful, stupid.. it is decidedly negative, decidedly less positive, decidedly different than neutral or positive state. The positive state is the trickier one, I would argue that most positive are merely the correction of the type of negative state, the deprivation creates a hunger and a hunger creates the opportunity for satisfaction. Essentially it's sinking in a quicksand to the noise, to the nastiness. And as you pull out of noise and nastiness, the suffocation, there is comfort and joy of fresh air, the ability to go back to the state you might have thought wasn't even that good state, but now it is a spectacular state, because it isn't negative anymore. Desire sort of works in that mechanism. It pushes and pulls you with by relieving manipulations of our psychology as I would argue. It creates the opportunity for the positive, it does it in a way where it sneaks the negative into us and pulls the gratification out of us. Kind of a gross example, but maybe the formation of a pimple. It grows on you slowly, the pain can come on you gradually. Once it's there, there's this opportunity for the relief, there's this opportunity to gain comfort. And so I'm kind of arguing that our psychology works in a lots of different ways. But the mechanism that plays with us is that the tensions and pains are built into us gradually and slowly so we don't see ourselves being put into negative condition. But we can realise this huge potential release of this tension and frustration. I might argue something like orgasm is merely a reflection of just how you're being relieved of being little tensions that exists inside of you. If you take yourself in a neutral state, analyze your psychology, analyze your state of being. You can find miseries, you can find discomforts: pulled muscle here, these little nags and cruds, even the weight of gravity sometimes you can feel it on you as a tension, you can almost feel the potential to be relieved. That's what I would argue, that these pleasure sensations are built out of is it's merely body collecting saddle negative states and then providing you with a "taste" of what it feels like to be relieved of those, that'd be what we call pleasures. Even the gratification in eating is creating a kind of physical bodily neutrality from which we're deriving the pleasure we're gaining. Basically the game is to take you out of the physical confinement. That's why most entertainments are called escapism, in a a sense that's part of the mechanism of the pleasure is escaping yourself, escaping the physical body and becoming liberated to fantasise or live in some other dimensional world in terms of your thoughts are no longer contained in brain, but extended in some other medium like movie screen or other mechanism. Anyways, I don't want to get lost in that. But the key argument is that this idea that there are people who will argue that there is somehow a possibility that value isn't set and intrinsic, that it is up to some sort of subjective interpretation. That somehow there's subjective way to define it, and I find it logically impossible to go with that model, because that model eventually will lead to some idea that the Holocaust didn't matter, that the suffering doesn't matter. And that you could double it, triple, quadruple, times and times the speed of light squared, and somehow you hadn't done a negative thing. When I think the intrinsic fundamental negative character of being in a negative state of consciousness, no matter how you call that. I might call my neutral state: boring, dull and tedious. Obviously to somebody, who's been lost in a desert for a week without water or comfort, this state of consciousness is bliss, because his state is so negative. But that's the only reason why it is, is only because his state is negative, it doesn't mean that he's subjectively allowed now to say that this state is a good state or that it has some sort of intrinsic value of great positive value. It just means that he, personally, is in a negative state and relative to his state this is a positive state, but that this state has any absolute positive value. I would still argue that the whole feeling mechanism is a zero sum mechanism and that it can be pararelled to the desire mechanism, which is a zero sum mechanism, where there is nothing wrong until your brain makes something wrong. There is nothing to chase until your brain creates the hunger, the hunger doesn't exist in the food, the hunger exists in our perception. The value does not exist in terms of the desirability of having it in it, where intrinsically the value exists in the state of this consciousness in terms of it being clearly definable describiably in a more negative or a less negative state, we can do the relative thing even if we can't define where it converts from positive to negative, we can definitely and absolutely say that: this state is better than that state, when we compare these two states of being. I would argue that if we could taste true neutrality, true escape from desire, tension, want, all these projections of "I need". That state would be rather blissful, that might be even orgasmic, and that's truly the true neutral. We're just in this diluted state, because we're so deep in a hole. We have this sense of gravity telling us that we're climbing, we're improving our state, but we have no conception of the fact that we're really going up, but we're just getting out of negative hole. We're still below the neutral zero, it's just an illusion of a progress, because we're getting out of a hole our psychology creates. So again, we're sort of back to the argument of "need that doesn't need to be created", "the replication for the sake of replication", these are all self-justifying mechanisms, they contrive the defence for themselves, our function is to fix the lesser condition and improve it to better condition. That's the basic desire mechanism, the function of the being a value creator, caught up in a value mechanism. That's the intuitive structure is going to be focused on a simple idea that if I improve my state of being - I will do so, because it is necessarily logical, it's just by intrinsic and fundamental truth that it's better to feel better. But it's just inescapable logic to improve the condition not degrade the condition, it's much better to make it more efficient than less efficient, much better to make it productive instead of being excessively consumptive inefficient. That's the nature of the nature, there isn't anything for us to do here. The best you can do is, if you're going to optimize your existence, is to fix a lot of broken, sloppy and messed up things. If you can make other people happy - it's good. If you can it so it's easier for them to do something - that's good. If you can facilitate or lubricate the world in a sense that you made it easier for things to elevate their condition, including yourself, yourself is a consciousness of importance. But obviously you are not the only consciousness, and in most cases we can do more to fix other peoples problems, because they're easier to fix than we can fix our own when exist in one of these rich countries. It's fairly easy to elevate the state of somebody in Africa, 50cents elevates their state of being, 100$ makes them deliriously happy. Where it doesn't work on us. The efficient, the practicality would be that you can do more elevation of the state of consciousness by working on these other individuals than trying to work on yourself just because of the mechanics, just because of the steady state level at what you're at it becomes harder and harder to gain distance from the negative state. As you get closer to the surface, because of the mechanics it gets harder and harder to make more progress, it's almost like Einstein’s speed of light: you get closer and closer to speed of light, you become heavier and heavier and it becomes harder to gain any velocity that would move you faster. And it's kind of a failure of the mechanism - the more you have, the harder it is to make that progress. I want to emphasize the point that it's the futility of the mechanism is that it's all just carrots and whips and it's all made up in our perception and they're all made of essentially a whip, there isn't really a carrot, there's absence of whip. That's the dilemma we're caught up in, we're thinking that we're chasing the carrot, but we're really chasing is relieving the absence of the contrived desire, it's the relieving of the hunger, reliving of the desire that we're calling the satisfaction, but we're really taking away the negative to create the positive. That's all there is in a universe, the only way to "make" a positive is to correct a negative, to eliminate the negative is the only true positive. It is a difficult subject, because we're talking about something that is invisible: value. Value has no physical structure, but I'm claiming it is just a real as the matter in universe. The value of a welfare of a child is just as real as the Moon or the Earth, it's maybe more real in a sense that it is the only thing that has any significant weight, any meaning weight. All these things with all this dense material gravity have no meaning weight unless they're somehow implicating something that feels. But other than that they have no meaning, no relevance, no meaningful existence. This invisible thing of a consciousness is the thing where all the real meaning weight in universe exists. I will concede that it is hard to make a proof for it, I can't use a microscope or a scales, I have to use only logical argument to prove the truth of it. ~~on the other note, also @Vinter. This whole idea of intelligence and what can be done with it is an important subject, because people really do have this silly notion that intelligence has some sort of exponential growth potential.. that you actually can go somewhere. That the game somehow is going to leap out of Shakespearean drama into some other dimension of purpose and function, but it's not. We're made to be gladiators, we're competitive animals, we only play the game, because we're filled with a desire to play it. Hunger, food is stupid looking if you're not hungry. Sex is pretty gross if you're not horny. It's just the way it works, the truth of it is that it's all contrived crap for us, the more intelligent you get - the more you're going to be able to figure out that it's all just crap. Intelligence can't play stupid games, the smarter you get the less likely it is that you're going to be caught up in a game where you know that you're being played. It's like the mule with with carrot on a stick in front of him, it ain't going to work on something intelligent, something with intelligence will thing: I'll just eat the stick and then I can eat the carrot. They're going to figure out a way, they're not going to allow themselves to be duped and keep chasing the carrot. They're not going to fall for it. You don't need to exponentially grow intelligence to get there, we're already there. All you have to do is to be a little bit of intelligent and you can figure it out. It's a dumb, stupid, idiotic game. It's carrots and whips and you're just being f- mules to a DNA molecules replication for the sake of replication. And you have the arrogance to call yourselves intelligent? And you're falling for this game? C'mon. It's a joke. What is your counter-argument? What is it? You don't have anything. There is no evidence in a cosmos of anything brilliant. There's just a bunch of solar systems and galaxies and nebulas crashing into each other. There's just shit turning into radiation out there. Then you go smaller, what do you have? Electrons, photons and little packets of energy, you got nothing. There is no magic anywhere here. So here we are mechanically caught up in this merely because of this process of replication, the fact that one piece of chemistry acquired the capacity to do this "evolving" replicating, and that's it.. there's no other p-u-r-p-o-s-e. That's it - replication for the sake of replication. Replication, because it did it. period. Is that an intelligent statement? Does intelligence say: "Ohh yea, I really totally get that, yea that's a totally sufficient explanation, yes we should totally get behind the 5 letter sentence defining our existence, yea that's totally good enough!" No, no, sorry. Five word sentences are not good enough, intelligence demands more than that, intelligence should demand more than that, intelligence has to demand more than that otherwise it is not intelligent. Intelligence fails, it's corrupted if it's full of bullshit. You put bullshit in, you put fake words into the language and you brake it. That's what we have here - a bunch of fake in this theory of life, people have injected a bunch of fake into their theory of life and it's no longer an intelligent theory. It's a theory full of fake, fraud, bullshit. Because the truth is the replication for the sake of replication, and the truth is sentience creates the vulnerability to harm, it invents harm. So you invent harm so you can replicate something for the sake of replicating it. Yeah.. that math.. Intelligence cannot look at that math and say: yes that makes sense, good idea! No, something unintelligent, something possessed by desire, something bigoted against intelligence is the only thing that can make sense out of that. |
one-more-timeDec 30, 2012 4:52 AM
LUL |
Dec 30, 2012 4:55 AM
#277
one-more-time said: If value is objective and not informed by nature, then what informs it?katsucats said: If you think morality is subjective, then all of that is arbitrary, as in it is not derived from objective fact. As you said, there is no natural rights. If it is so that whatever reason you have to believe something is not derived from objective fact, then any conclusion that you come up with is neither better nor worse than any other conclusion, whether humanism or ethical naturalism (which isn't the same as social Darwinism, by the way). Also, unless you're a dualist, intelligence is a mere product of natural evolution. So to assume intelligence has the power to arbitrate non-natural morality is questionable -- how did naturally-evolved intelligence gain insight on this non-natural morality? And if nature does have that power of insight, then why couldn't morality be reduced to nature? Where do your ethics come from? There are 3 possible answers to this question: 1. Nature <-- you've said that nature has nothing to do with morality 2. Man <-- a subjective morality cannot possibly be used to measure an objective intelligence 3. God <-- therefore, your position must lie here. Immahnoob said that ethics are just subjective and cannot be used to prove something. I'm suggesting that every statement defining or declaring value is just as obvious, just as real, just as "in the world" as the fact of saying: the Earth is round. The fact that sentient beings create welfare that has substance and integrity, and that you can harm it in ways that are intrinsically and fundamentally negative is a fact. It's not a subjective made-up fantasy, it's not a "Three pigs" story. It's the story of the actual circumstance, it's a truth in the world. How are humans alone privy to such a supernatural construct? Do you believe this ability is a result of evolution, or have humans somehow developed supernatural abilities? And if value is objective, why do you suppose everyone has different values? |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Dec 30, 2012 5:49 AM
#279
katsucats said: If value is objective and not informed by nature, then what informs it? How are humans alone privy to such a supernatural construct? Do you believe this ability is a result of evolution, or have humans somehow developed supernatural abilities? And if value is objective, why do you suppose everyone has different values? I'll try to answer if I'll find some time for writing, but I highly doubt on that. Even watching an anime is a better use of my time. It's just these forums have proven to me that it's pointless to write long-ass replays, because essentially I'll get in a response one-liners or something like: Post-Josh said: I'm glad you got that out of your system, now kindly shut the fuck up. Oh, totally forgot about: "Go kill yourself, that'll solve the problem!". Yeah, no thank you, not going to waste my time. From what I've observed, you like arguing about semantics, but I'm sorry that is not subject I'm interested in. |
LUL |
Dec 30, 2012 6:01 AM
#280
Actually, some people don't feel suffering as we feel it... Morales and ethics are still subjective in every way you take it, we just adhere to them because we live in a society (or more like, we want to do so and we've always lived like this, thus we're used to it as human beings, living alone might produce mental problems in a long run). If you think it clearly, a lot of things we feel or do, we do it by instinct, we don't put thought in it. Even what we defined as "good" and "bad" came from our instincts. "Rape" is "bad" because it's not efficient, "slavery" is "bad" because it also lacks efficiency, "love" is "good" because it's a "positive (we deemed it as such) feeling" because it produces euphoria (your brain releases chemicals because of "love", like oxytocin, dopamine, adrenaline etc, making you "happier"). And what do I mean by this? We're not going against nature, we're trying to, but it does not work, we still have feelings of attraction and we do not truly choose our partners, everything we deemed in a way isn't actually deemed by ourselves, but by the already implemented feelings we feel. And if I go further it will become bullshit, but you get what I mean. Nonetheless, I explained pages ago why we're attracted to breasts, I explained that we're doing this for thousand of years and that we won't stop now. Also, why the fuck would you write so goddamn much for a subject you can write in less and make it more comprehensible? Nobody will read all that, I scanned it fast. |
ImmahnoobDec 30, 2012 6:05 AM
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Dec 30, 2012 6:10 AM
#281
Immahnoob said: Also, why the fuck would you write so goddamn much for a subject you can write in less and make it more comprehensible? Nobody will read all that, I scanned it fast. Sorry for participating in discussions where it is a norm to elaborate your position well enough. Where the people participating the discussion care about things being discussed and they're not "arguing for the sake of winning argument". This isn't the first time I post something so long on MAL. But this most likely will be last time. Time to learn from my own mistakes. |
LUL |
Dec 30, 2012 6:12 AM
#282
I'm sorry to tell you, but you could have made it easier and faster to read while your position would have still been elaborated properly. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Dec 30, 2012 6:15 AM
#283
Immahnoob said: I'm sorry to tell you, but you could have made it easier and faster to read while your position would have still been elaborated properly. Sucks to be you, who's used to one-liners. Or hardly half-page posts. "TL;DR ANYONE!? TOO MANY LETTERS!", right? lol, fuck off once and for all. |
LUL |
Dec 30, 2012 6:16 AM
#284
You've just repeated your points in about 3-4 times in one single post with different words. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Dec 30, 2012 7:43 AM
#285
one-more-time said: Immahnoob said: I'm sorry to tell you, but you could have made it easier and faster to read while your position would have still been elaborated properly. Sucks to be you, who's used to one-liners. Or hardly half-page posts. "TL;DR ANYONE!? TOO MANY LETTERS!", right? lol, fuck off once and for all. I'm not going to spend my time reading stuff from someone I don't know and whose opinion I probably don't care about, writing your argument in a concise way is a sign of intelligence learn how to do it. |
Dec 30, 2012 9:26 AM
#286
They can stare all they want, but if they touch them I would round house kick their dick off. |
"What has two arms, two legs, and is alive? Not your favorite character lol! xD" |
Dec 30, 2012 9:35 AM
#287
Roloko said: They can stare all they want, but if they touch them I would round house kick their dick off. Yes yes. You can look but you can't touch. |
"Every man shall reap what he has sown, from the highest lord to the lowest gutter rat. And some will lose more than the tips off their fingers, I promise you. They have made my kingdom bleed, and I do not forget that" |
Dec 30, 2012 9:49 AM
#288
Its no more appropriate or acceptable than staring at any other female's bosom. |
Let this be our little secret, no needs to know we're feeling HIGHER AND HIGHER AND HIGHER! |
Dec 30, 2012 3:31 PM
#289
one-more-time said: You could write an entire philosophy book and it would still be useless if it doesn't answer core questions that could invalidate the whole thing. I decided not to respond to the rest of your post so that we don't establish some kind of precedent for sophistry and kettle logic -- throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. Instead, let's stick to the basics, shall we?katsucats said: If value is objective and not informed by nature, then what informs it? How are humans alone privy to such a supernatural construct? Do you believe this ability is a result of evolution, or have humans somehow developed supernatural abilities? And if value is objective, why do you suppose everyone has different values? I'll try to answer if I'll find some time for writing, but I highly doubt on that. Even watching an anime is a better use of my time. It's just these forums have proven to me that it's pointless to write long-ass replays, because essentially I'll get in a response one-liners You believe in X. X could be a simple or a complicated idea. X must be informed by something -- all knowledge comes from somewhere. You could believe by our powers of empirical observation, X is evident, but then that would implicate nature, and you've said specifically that X has nothing to do with nature. You could believe that X is informed by our individual experience, but then it would be subjective, and wouldn't be as evident as some scientific fact. Once we establish that X has no source, and no evidence, it doesn't matter whether X is 1 sentence long, or a 20 paragraph essay. |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Dec 30, 2012 8:55 PM
#290
Has anyone really been far as decided to use even go to do more like look? |
Dec 30, 2012 9:50 PM
#291
Akito_Kinomoto said: Has anyone really been far as decided to use even go to do more like look? Bro, do you even lift? |
Dec 31, 2012 1:08 AM
#292
Akito_Kinomoto said: Has anyone really been far as decided to use even go to do more like look? Well, more than that would be illegal or I'll get attacked by a furious female. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Dec 31, 2012 2:09 AM
#293
Akito_Kinomoto said: Has anyone really been far as decided to use even go to do more like look? You've got to be kidding me. I've been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It's just common sense. |
> The Fellow MAL Users Social Link has reached level 6! > Your power to create Forum Posts of the Anime Arcana has grown! |
Dec 31, 2012 3:03 AM
#294
Spoilered for massive offtopicness @one-more-time I'll apologise if my writing is unreadable, but hey, Language in some ways, is pretty inefficient in transmitting the basic data of the Universe. First, after reading parts 1 & 2 I'll summarise this person's writing, in terms of quoted block texts: Part 1
Personally I disagree. See below. Part 2 is about how 'following' fate is unintelligent. Personally as somewhat a Fatalist, it's pretty funny. Intelligence is being 'more,' yet I personally don't see a possibility 'anything' can get 'intelligent.' 1 one-more-time said: I'm suggesting that every statement defining or declaring value is just as obvious, just as real, just as "in the world" as the fact of saying: the Earth is round. The fact that sentient beings create welfare that has substance and integrity, and that you can harm it in ways that are intrinsically and fundamentally negative is a fact. It's not a subjective made-up fantasy, it's not a "Three pigs" story. It's the story of the actual circumstance, it's a truth in the world. It is not "I like chocolate ice-cream", I'm saying: sentient beings have feelings and feelings are the only thing of value in the universe. Did you take any philosophy classes? Because I'm sure someone thought of that before, yet you're not giving me/us any key terms to which everyone can follow. This is, in general, bad practice(c.f. Time Cube, Imagining the Tenth Dimension) Because you seem to love reading, I'll have you read what I'm trying to say: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_mathematics#Foundational_crisis In the end, you're telling that things are 'self-evident.' It's as if your existence is self-evident, and actions are self-evident. Everything that is, is. This is how I read your position, so clarify if I'm mistaken. Going further(i.e. assuming such predicates are correct all the way) I would like to question how certain things are obvious. By which mechanism are they obvious? The Earth is not 'round,' neither is the description an oblate spheroid any closer to what 'the Earth' is. I'm also afraid this way of foundation gives rise to circular logic. (The Earth is round, Round is the Earth, the Earth is a collection of gas and dust, a collection of gas and dust is the Earth, the Earth is located X away from Y, X away from Y is the Earth...) In short, it doesn't ground properly at all. It's simply not an appropriate foundation. (unless you prove otherwise) (Also note further I'm not giving you an appropriate foundation, because personally my knowledge gives rise to nothing, and not nothing as in Nihilism too, but that I don't know) 2 one-more-time said: The existence of value as a reality, as some part of reality that we're describing philosophically or intelligently attempting to describe what is the game, what's the game we're playing and what's the value components of the game we're playing. I'm basically arguing that there's just one truth to the reality, to the function of the game, to the value of the game. We either get the right answer either the wrong answer, there are no multiple answers. I don't know what you are referring to, but unless you refer to Game Theory, don't ever use the word 'Game.' Rereading this paragraph, I'm quite sure game theory is not being referred to. 3 one-more-time said: The fact that pie is a food is a fact. What kind of a pie you like is factual, but not relevant, it is not intrinsic value of the pie. It being desirable to you doesn't mean it has intrinsic value, but it does have intrinsic value as food as potential nourishment. The state of our consciousness creates value. Every second of our lives, our consciousness is in a state of comfortable or uncomfortable. We're on a line of comfort, either low or high in terms of good or bad relative positions. Being in that state we radiate, in a sense, we create a gravity weight of value weight. Please link pie as food and its value to consciousness, because the difference is rather jarring. I'm not sure what you mean by 'creation of value.' Do you mean that consciousness is the means that which value can be measured? Or do you mean that consciousness is the means by which value is increased? Do you mean that consciousness is means by which value can exist? The last sentence has no meaning. 4 one-more-time said: You can metaphor it in a different ways. In a sense we do radiate a capturable amount of this substance called welfare or a condition. That's one of the properties of being conscious. When you're unconscious your welfare is not relevant, meaningful or substantial, you are not generating any value at that moment. When you are conscious, you are generating a positive either negative weight to the value pool. You are putting water in or you're taking water out of the NET value ether of the universe. These are metaphors, but the only way you can talk about this is metaphorically, because obviously value isn't a material thing. It is a conceptual description of relationship of properties that something has, they are not visible properties they are invisible nonmaterial, but they are fundamentally, in my opinion, discernible and definable. There's a certain and definite difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, the difference is significant, it's not irrelevant, it's not meaningless, it's not like the "dark side versus light side of the moon", no - it's meaningful difference, it's all the difference that matters in all of the universe, the welfare of the consciousness, the feeling thing that can be in a negative state. Negative in all of what that word implies: negative in bad, negative in bad, negative in void. You can use all these descriptive words like: rotten, nasty, wasteful, stupid.. it is decidedly negative, decidedly less positive, decidedly different than neutral or positive state. I'll extend this to economics, and I end up with Hedonism You like reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonism The obvious extension is to pump each sentient being on Earth as far as we can with drugs that are known to cause happiness. We can 'manufacture' happiness today. Economics guarantees optimal output(it's designed that way), and so we need not worry about side effects, as they are taken in the account. Correct me if I'm wrong, but apparently this is tied to the value of the Universe, which, to me, sounds like a ridiculously bogus claim as I know, on a fairly qualitative basis(i.e. I can't do mathematics), Cosmology and how String Theory is related. 5 one-more-time said: The positive state is the trickier one, I would argue that most positive are merely the correction of the type of negative state, the deprivation creates a hunger and a hunger creates the opportunity for satisfaction. Essentially it's sinking in a quicksand to the noise, to the nastiness. And as you pull out of noise and nastiness, the suffocation, there is comfort and joy of fresh air, the ability to go back to the state you might have thought wasn't even that good state, but now it is a spectacular state, because it isn't negative anymore. Desire sort of works in that mechanism. It pushes and pulls you with by relieving manipulations of our psychology as I would argue. It creates the opportunity for the positive, it does it in a way where it sneaks the negative into us and pulls the gratification out of us. Kind of a gross example, but maybe the formation of a pimple. It grows on you slowly, the pain can come on you gradually. Once it's there, there's this opportunity for the relief, there's this opportunity to gain comfort. And so I'm kind of arguing that our psychology works in a lots of different ways. But the mechanism that plays with us is that the tensions and pains are built into us gradually and slowly so we don't see ourselves being put into negative condition. But we can realise this huge potential release of this tension and frustration. I might argue something like orgasm is merely a reflection of just how you're being relieved of being little tensions that exists inside of you. Basing arguments on a 'negative state' only seeks to question what causes the negative state, which you have said are self-evident. Unfortunately, they are not. Pain is a mechanism of the nervous system. Happiness is another mechanism of the nervous system. As above, apply economics and get answer. That's the answer to which I believe is being referred to in the opening, because optimisation generally only gives one answer. I also believe with this much talk of value, that maximisation of it follows. 6 one-more-time said: If you take yourself in a neutral state, analyze your psychology, analyze your state of being. You can find miseries, you can find discomforts: pulled muscle here, these little nags and cruds, even the weight of gravity sometimes you can feel it on you as a tension, you can almost feel the potential to be relieved. That's what I would argue, that these pleasure sensations are built out of is it's merely body collecting saddle negative states and then providing you with a "taste" of what it feels like to be relieved of those, that'd be what we call pleasures. Even the gratification in eating is creating a kind of physical bodily neutrality from which we're deriving the pleasure we're gaining. Basically the game is to take you out of the physical confinement. That's why most entertainments are called escapism, in a a sense that's part of the mechanism of the pleasure is escaping yourself, escaping the physical body and becoming liberated to fantasise or live in some other dimensional world in terms of your thoughts are no longer contained in brain, but extended in some other medium like movie screen or other mechanism. I'm pretty sure escapism doesn't refer to physical confinement or incarceration, of any kind. When someone claims their home is a prison, I don't believe 'escapism' refers to 'escaping' that 'prison.' This paragraph is of no value, for it explains nothing. (further) 7 one-more-time said: Anyways, I don't want to get lost in that. But the key argument is that this idea that there are people who will argue that there is somehow a possibility that value isn't set and intrinsic, that it is up to some sort of subjective interpretation. That somehow there's subjective way to define it, and I find it logically impossible to go with that model, because that model eventually will lead to some idea that the Holocaust didn't matter, that the suffering doesn't matter. And that you could double it, triple, quadruple, times and times the speed of light squared, and somehow you hadn't done a negative thing. When I think the intrinsic fundamental negative character of being in a negative state of consciousness, no matter how you call that. I might call my neutral state: boring, dull and tedious. Obviously to somebody, who's been lost in a desert for a week without water or comfort, this state of consciousness is bliss, because his state is so negative. But that's the only reason why it is, is only because his state is negative, it doesn't mean that he's subjectively allowed now to say that this state is a good state or that it has some sort of intrinsic value of great positive value. It just means that he, personally, is in a negative state and relative to his state this is a positive state, but that this state has any absolute positive value. I'll give you that: the Holocause didn't matter - suffering doesn't matter Instead of writing so much, you could've just said you disagree with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism You have not said anything more to which I cannot find in Wikipedia, on relativity of things. 8 one-more-time said: I would still argue that the whole feeling mechanism is a zero sum mechanism and that it can be pararelled to the desire mechanism, which is a zero sum mechanism, where there is nothing wrong until your brain makes something wrong. There is nothing to chase until your brain creates the hunger, the hunger doesn't exist in the food, the hunger exists in our perception. The value does not exist in terms of the desirability of having it in it, where intrinsically the value exists in the state of this consciousness in terms of it being clearly definable describiably in a more negative or a less negative state, we can do the relative thing even if we can't define where it converts from positive to negative, we can definitely and absolutely say that: this state is better than that state, when we compare these two states of being. Has no addition to what you've proposed. Repetition is not looked kindly upon. 9 one-more-time said: I would argue that if we could taste true neutrality, true escape from desire, tension, want, all these projections of "I need". That state would be rather blissful, that might be even orgasmic, and that's truly the true neutral. We're just in this diluted state, because we're so deep in a hole. We have this sense of gravity telling us that we're climbing, we're improving our state, but we have no conception of the fact that we're really going up, but we're just getting out of negative hole. We're still below the neutral zero, it's just an illusion of a progress, because we're getting out of a hole our psychology creates. So again, we're sort of back to the argument of "need that doesn't need to be created", "the replication for the sake of replication", these are all self-justifying mechanisms, they contrive the defence for themselves, our function is to fix the lesser condition and improve it to better condition. That's the basic desire mechanism, the function of the being a value creator, caught up in a value mechanism. That's the intuitive structure is going to be focused on a simple idea that if I improve my state of being - I will do so, because it is necessarily logical, it's just by intrinsic and fundamental truth that it's better to feel better. But it's just inescapable logic to improve the condition not degrade the condition, it's much better to make it more efficient than less efficient, much better to make it productive instead of being excessively consumptive inefficient. If you're saying the same thing twice, it's called Tautology, which, generally, has to be true. (I will not discuss cases of A( is true), if A (is true), hence A( is true), A( is true) which is the usual tautological case as being false, because I'd prefer to use physics to describe it) You've use a lot of text to say it is better to be better, and that we don't reach 0. Brevity is wit. There's a reason why logic symbols were invented: they weren't invented so that 'normal people' couldn't read the Principia; they were invented for mathematicians by mathematicians to read, and it's a very concise(absolutely what you're lacking) language that names the important data. 10 one-more-time said: That's the nature of the nature, there isn't anything for us to do here. The best you can do is, if you're going to optimize your existence, is to fix a lot of broken, sloppy and messed up things. If you can make other people happy - it's good. If you can it so it's easier for them to do something - that's good. If you can facilitate or lubricate the world in a sense that you made it easier for things to elevate their condition, including yourself, yourself is a consciousness of importance. But obviously you are not the only consciousness, and in most cases we can do more to fix other peoples problems, because they're easier to fix than we can fix our own when exist in one of these rich countries. It's fairly easy to elevate the state of somebody in Africa, 50cents elevates their state of being, 100$ makes them deliriously happy. You cannot prove or disprove the consciousness of others. To take it as an 'obvious' thing is to be mistaken on the nature of consciousness. It's written $100, and it doesn't do anything unless you mean GDP, which means '$100 of goods' which means food, infrastructure, water, shelter, entertainment, transport, etc. Are you trying to justify charity? Because, as always, you could have mentioned charity rather than verbose useless letters. 11 one-more-time said: It's not 'Einstein's' speed of light, it is the way momentum works.Where it doesn't work on us. The efficient, the practicality would be that you can do more elevation of the state of consciousness by working on these other individuals than trying to work on yourself just because of the mechanics, just because of the steady state level at what you're at it becomes harder and harder to gain distance from the negative state. As you get closer to the surface, because of the mechanics it gets harder and harder to make more progress, it's almost like Einstein’s speed of light: you get closer and closer to speed of light, you become heavier and heavier and it becomes harder to gain any velocity that would move you faster. And it's kind of a failure of the mechanism - the more you have, the harder it is to make that progress. Also, just name diminishing returns. 12 one-more-time said: I want to emphasize the point that it's the futility of the mechanism is that it's all just carrots and whips and it's all made up in our perception and they're all made of essentially a whip, there isn't really a carrot, there's absence of whip. That's the dilemma we're caught up in, we're thinking that we're chasing the carrot, but we're really chasing is relieving the absence of the contrived desire, it's the relieving of the hunger, reliving of the desire that we're calling the satisfaction, but we're really taking away the negative to create the positive. That's all there is in a universe, the only way to "make" a positive is to correct a negative, to eliminate the negative is the only true positive. Repetition of the 9th block of text I quoted. 13 one-more-time said: It is a difficult subject, because we're talking about something that is invisible: value. Value has no physical structure, but I'm claiming it is just a real as the matter in universe. The value of a welfare of a child is just as real as the Moon or the Earth, it's maybe more real in a sense that it is the only thing that has any significant weight, any meaning weight. All these things with all this dense material gravity have no meaning weight unless they're somehow implicating something that feels. But other than that they have no meaning, no relevance, no meaningful existence. This invisible thing of a consciousness is the thing where all the real meaning weight in universe exists. I will concede that it is hard to make a proof for it, I can't use a microscope or a scales, I have to use only logical argument to prove the truth of it. To which, I reply to the last sentence, that you have not. Please don't repeat Fermat, for Fermat proved absolutely nothing And not all conjectures get proven, either, some do get disproven. ~~on the other note, also @Vinter. one-more-time said: This whole idea of intelligence and what can be done with it is an important subject, because people really do have this silly notion that intelligence has some sort of exponential growth potential.. that you actually can go somewhere. That the game somehow is going to leap out of Shakespearean drama into some other dimension of purpose and function, but it's not. We're made to be gladiators, we're competitive animals, we only play the game, because we're filled with a desire to play it. Hunger, food is stupid looking if you're not hungry. Sex is pretty gross if you're not horny. It's just the way it works, the truth of it is that it's all contrived crap for us, the more intelligent you get - the more you're going to be able to figure out that it's all just crap. Intelligence can't play stupid games, the smarter you get the less likely it is that you're going to be caught up in a game where you know that you're being played. It's like the mule with with carrot on a stick in front of him, it ain't going to work on something intelligent, something with intelligence will thing: I'll just eat the stick and then I can eat the carrot. They're going to figure out a way, they're not going to allow themselves to be duped and keep chasing the carrot. They're not going to fall for it. You don't need to exponentially grow intelligence to get there, we're already there. All you have to do is to be a little bit of intelligent and you can figure it out. It's a dumb, stupid, idiotic game. It's carrots and whips and you're just being f- mules to a DNA molecules replication for the sake of replication. And you have the arrogance to call yourselves intelligent? And you're falling for this game? C'mon. It's a joke. What is your counter-argument? What is it? You don't have anything. There is no evidence in a cosmos of anything brilliant. There's just a bunch of solar systems and galaxies and nebulas crashing into each other. There's just shit turning into radiation out there. Then you go smaller, what do you have? Electrons, photons and little packets of energy, you got nothing. There is no magic anywhere here. So here we are mechanically caught up in this merely because of this process of replication, the fact that one piece of chemistry acquired the capacity to do this "evolving" replicating, and that's it.. there's no other p-u-r-p-o-s-e. Quite a dramatic piece of text on nihilism and intelligence. one-more-time said: That's it - replication for the sake of replication. Replication, because it did it. period. Is that an intelligent statement? Does intelligence say: "Ohh yea, I really totally get that, yea that's a totally sufficient explanation, yes we should totally get behind the 5 letter sentence defining our existence, yea that's totally good enough!" No, no, sorry. Five word sentences are not good enough, intelligence demands more than that, intelligence should demand more than that, intelligence has to demand more than that otherwise it is not intelligent. Intelligence fails, it's corrupted if it's full of bullshit. You put bullshit in, you put fake words into the language and you brake it. That's what we have here - a bunch of fake in this theory of life, people have injected a bunch of fake into their theory of life and it's no longer an intelligent theory. It's a theory full of fake, fraud, bullshit. Because the truth is the replication for the sake of replication, and the truth is sentience creates the vulnerability to harm, it invents harm. So you invent harm so you can replicate something for the sake of replicating it. Yeah.. that math.. Intelligence cannot look at that math and say: yes that makes sense, good idea! No, something unintelligent, something possessed by desire, something bigoted against intelligence is the only thing that can make sense out of that. As expected, there's nothing on what 'intelligence' actually 'is.' Vinter said: Akito_Kinomoto said: Has anyone really been far as decided to use even go to do more like look? You've got to be kidding me. I've been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It's just common sense. I'm sorry, but your English is in the way. So you're saying if someone decided to do it, it will happen? |
Dec 31, 2012 7:37 AM
#295
If they're covered, no. If they're popping out, be my guest. People who expose their boobs are just begging you to look, imop. |
More topics from this board
Poll: » It is illegal to put mermaids in aquariums?Absurdo_N - 4 hours ago |
8 |
by Absurdo_N
»»
4 minutes ago |
|
» You may not be able to have offspring with your alien partner.Absurdo_N - 2 hours ago |
7 |
by Nette
»»
36 minutes ago |
|
» Getting my cat to eat wet food?Rivermind - Today |
9 |
by traed
»»
42 minutes ago |
|
» Should I confess to a friend of mine?SHSL_simp - Jul 14 |
34 |
by FZREMAKE
»»
42 minutes ago |
|
» Am I the only one who doesnt like discord?Bensku - Today |
44 |
by fleurbleue
»»
1 hour ago |