User Controls
I decree today that life is simply taking and not giving.
-
2018-11-20 at 2:27 AM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks Are you being for real?
Are you actually advocating for ethical amoralism?
TFW you just took a shot of D X M and a hit off the meth pipe and you be seeing nihilists and shit.
I have no idea if that's what I'm advocating for, I just thought it was a fun stance to take on OP's decree/question.
I don't think anything I've said is wrong. So yeah: I'm actually advocating this, for real, but I don't necessarily believe it. *shrug* -
2018-11-20 at 2:34 AM UTC
Originally posted by HTS I have no idea if that's what I'm advocating for, I just thought it was a fun stance to take on OP's decree/question.
I don't think anything I've said is wrong. So yeah: I'm actually advocating this, for real, but I don't necessarily believe it. *shrug*
Well, the logical path to ammoralism is a well worn path, sadly.
But if humans, and the emotions they experience, are intrinsically valuable, (and, quite frankly, anyone arguing against that sounds like an absolute psychopath), then there is a logical source of ethical guidance.
It's just all a matter of interpretation, and prioritizing fundamental values. -
2018-11-20 at 2:48 AM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks But if humans, and the emotions they experience, are intrinsically valuable, (and, quite frankly, anyone arguing against that sounds like an absolute psychopath),
I am but a humble autist, and would prefer not to be bludgeoned about by screaming borderline personalities who think "I don't like this/this makes me sad" is an argument.
Dispassionate, emotionless logic is fair. It sucks for everyone equally. -
2018-11-20 at 2:54 AM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks But if humans, and the emotions they experience, are intrinsically valuable, (and, quite frankly, anyone arguing against that sounds like an absolute psychopath), then there is a logical source of ethical guidance.
So I need to cause as much emotional pain as I can? Pff this rule sux! -
2018-11-20 at 8:37 PM UTCAm I still ill?
-
2018-11-20 at 11:49 PM UTC
Originally posted by HTS I am but a humble autist, and would prefer not to be bludgeoned about by screaming borderline personalities who think "I don't like this/this makes me sad" is an argument.
Dispassionate, emotionless logic is fair. It sucks for everyone equally.
That's... kinda true... but also kind of fucked up.
An AI program could be designed to help solve world problems, and it might just calculate, with every last variable considered, that it would be optimal to kill all humans. -
2018-11-20 at 11:50 PM UTC
-
2018-11-20 at 11:50 PM UTC
-
2018-11-20 at 11:57 PM UTC
Originally posted by esbity Am I still ill?
do u still rock ur khakis with a cuff and a crease?
Originally posted by gadzooks Wut? Where do I imply that it would be beneficial to negatively impact other people.
I thought it implied all emotions were equally valuable, and the negative has more effect. -
2018-11-21 at 12:42 AM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks An AI program could be designed to help solve world problems, and it might just calculate, with every last variable considered, that it would be optimal to kill all humans.
And honestly... what would be so bad about that? I mean at least we'd have died for a reason. Imagine a hyper-intelligent AI killing us because watching humans die makes it happy, or because it was angry at humans for creating it, or it was sad and wanted a change of scenery.
Would you rather die because an AI calculated that of all the infinite possibilities that was the best option, or because an AI was feeling emotional about us as a species? -
2018-11-21 at 1:01 AM UTC
Originally posted by HTS And honestly… what would be so bad about that? I mean at least we'd have died for a reason. Imagine a hyper-intelligent AI killing us because watching humans die makes it happy, or because it was angry at humans for creating it, or it was sad and wanted a change of scenery.
Would you rather die because an AI calculated that of all the infinite possibilities that was the best option, or because an AI was feeling emotional about us as a species?
Between the two, of course I'd take the rational/logical decision to annihilate humanity than that which was swayed by emotion.
But those aren't the only two possible scenarios - that's false dichotomy.
I'd rather this decision-making thing do everything in it's decison-making powers to ensure that we stay alive.
If it absolutely (LOGICALLY) has to hit the kill switch for the greater good, then I guess for it.
I actually don't think we're really in disagreement here. -
2018-11-21 at 1:10 AM UTC
Originally posted by Nil do u still rock ur khakis with a cuff and a crease?
Still, puffing my leafs, still fuck with the beats, still not lovin police.
Originally posted by Nil I thought it implied all emotions were equally valuable, and the negative has more effect.
To be honest, I'm totally lost on where you're coming from, and miscommunication could in all probability been my own fault.
Naturally, we would want to reduce negative emotions, and increase positive emotions, in humans.
I don't see much reason to argue against that, it's just a matter of how to do it, and that's where politics and the like come in. -
2018-11-21 at 8:53 PM UTC
-
2018-11-21 at 11:06 PM UTC
Originally posted by esbity https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8BJvVV-fnls
Oh damnit, I thought you were like a gifted poet or something. -
2018-11-21 at 11:09 PM UTCBut, finding music that resonates with you can be a very healing experience.
-
2018-11-21 at 11:09 PM UTC
-
2018-11-22 at 12:29 AM UTCcan't fap to this
-
2018-11-22 at 2:07 AM UTC
