User Controls
The retarded thread: Fuck, §m£ÂgØL made one first edition
-
2016-07-24 at 12:06 AM UTC​
I don't do drugs to get high. I do do drugs so I can function without crippling chronic pain. What I take, it works and I can function. I don't like to lose control, hence why I very rarely drink at all. My reasons for using drugs are much different than most of the drug use that goes on here- Malice and I don't have a lot in common, but I'd say at least for why we use drugs, we share common ground- we do it to improve the quality of our lives and be able to function.
Funny how so many opiate addicts have totally legitimate pain issues that just have to be managed, I swear on me mum, it's the truth, let me tell you. I guess for some of them it's true but you can imagine why it would be hard for someone to take you at your word on that. It's something that's basically impossible for people to verify and a very convenient justification for addiction.Translation: He's a total fag. Fuck the bees and the cows and the fish, they exist to make my tea sweet, give me a cold glass of milk in the morning a nice steak at dinner or sushi should i desire it. How is this fair? It isn't but life sucks and then you die. The cosmic die cast me to be a human, too bad lesser animals. Except for cats, cause i get value other than nutrition from them. They are lucky like that.
Do you really believe that? You seem to have some notion of ethics beyond troglodytic might-makes-right, I've seen you repeatedly rebuke child rapists to establish yourself as a better class of pedophile (an argument I'm partially amenable to), so presumably you consider children to have some right to security beyond their personal ability to maintain it. But isn't the abused child just equally maligned by the cosmic die and such is life? Don't they exist, from the perspective of a rapist, merely as a means to sexual gratification in the same way animals live, on your view, to satisfy your desires?
Now you might say "apples and oranges, human children are of the same kind as me and are thus afforded special privileges", which OK, maybe there's an argument there but you have to actually make it. You can't handwave with "that's just how things are" on the subject of animal welfare but suddenly pull normative claims out of your pocket when we start talking about humans unless you articulate why humans belong to a special class where such claims apply and why animals are not part of that class. -
2016-07-24 at 12:24 AM UTCLanny, I have actual evidence in form of doctors, MRIs, and an 11 year history of my chronic pain documented. I was being prescribed pain medication for my chronic pain since I was 16 and only stopped due to it becoming too expensive- I never sold my pain meds because I genuinely needed them (I was on hydrocodone 10's, percocet 10's, xanax, soma and a whole host of bullshit pills like naproxen and prednisone too) an had them legally for 6 years. Im busy with shit ATM, but at some point when I can be fucked with finding my paperwork I'd gladly show you proof. I know a lot of people justify whatever they use with saying they are in pain, I know I am, I have actually hard evidence of it dating back over a decade, but even so I tend to err on the benefit of the doubt- many people do have painbbe itbdocumented or not, its a big problem I honestly believe is under treated especially in recent years. What does it matter anyway? I've been a good mom, I've worked more than most the degenerates here, never been charged nor convicted of a crime and my schooling has only been stalled by my problems I have and a series of bad events out of my control.
-
2016-07-24 at 12:35 AM UTC
Fuck you. What's this about not wanting to talk to me yet why are YOU addressing me? I'm not a liar, thief or user like you. You want to stir the shit, because if you do, we can stir the shit and I promise you won't like it. I've only wished you good. I don't understand why you feel the need to attack and continue to hurt me. I've said before, out of respect for BOTH of us, if you feel the need to communicate, you have my email, my phone number, to be civil, I'd hope you'd choose to do it there. This is the last time I will request such and anymore bullshit from you here or IRL, or communications made here to hurt me, my son, or my reputation will be taken as an attack and I swear you will regret it. I understand you're in pain, you're delusional, and suffering from penibut wds which likely is making you more paranoid than usual and feeling a lot of negative emotions- I truly wish you to feel well again, but just because you're suffering mentally, physically, and emotionally is no reason to take it out on me. Again, I hope you take care of yourself and get well soon. I wish you only the best in life, §m£ÂgØL, and if I can help you in anyway, you're welcome to contact me.
No, fuck YOU. I've already put up with you for long enough. Don't even try to threaten me because I know you are all talk and no walk. I know you better than anyone else here and know how much of a lying thieving cunt you really are. -
2016-07-24 at 12:42 AM UTCLol, females.
-
2016-07-24 at 12:58 AM UTCOkay, §m£ÂgØL, I haven't before because I genuinely love you despite all your hurt. I've done nothing but try to be civil and respect your wishes, but you can't or don't truely want to do that. I hurts me to have to do this, but I cannot take anymore of your pain you've dealt to me. Just remember, you asked for it. I did not threaten you- I promised you that if YOU hurt myself or those I love here or IRL I would make you regret it. You are very deluded, but hey... You hate me anyway and instead of being able to just not converse, you gotta pull this shit and frankly... I'm tired of it.
-
2016-07-24 at 1:31 AM UTCPoor §m£ÂgØL is always the victim- I'll forever be the reason his life sucks despite sparing him from 18 years of child support. Somehow LENDING money I still intended to pay back is theft and I even gave collateral he returned voluntarily. Nothing I can do will make him happy. He is a sad hurting man that can only strike out to hurt others who've tried to be a friend to him because in his delusions he sees them as the enemy. I've even given him his wish of being left alone- I haven't called, texted or emailed. I text back at 3 am when I was accused of calling and was busy doing other things- I swear I hadn't called. He was the last one to call me. Now this shit when I specifically made an effort to avoid contact until I was directly addressed and attacked. I tried to just put it all aside an just move on. Apparently, §m£ÂgØL is incapable of that- he lives in the past and uses abytbinf as an excuse for why his life sucks. Sorry you're inwds, every time before I made every effort to help you through them but you can't remember that now. I wish you'd delete all the hurtful things you've said to me here, I would do the same and we could just move the fuck on.
-
2016-07-24 at 2:56 AM UTC
​
Do you really believe that?
No. However, if i value steak, it is in my interest to keep the race of cows alive, if i like honey, i should make sure bees are around to make it. It's a symbiotic relation.​
You seem to have some notion of ethics beyond troglodytic might-makes-right, I've seen you repeatedly rebuke child rapists to establish yourself as a better class of pedophile (an argument I'm partially amenable to), so presumably you consider children to have some right to security beyond their personal ability to maintain it.
Of course.​
But isn't the abused child just equally maligned by the cosmic die and such is life?
Well it is unfortunate children are the object of desire for pedophiles, but this is simply a fact. Facts aren't inherently right or wrong.​
Don't they exist, from the perspective of a rapist, merely as a means to sexual gratification
I suppose they do but it doesn't make it right to rape them.​
Now you might say "apples and oranges, human children are of the same kind as me and are thus afforded special privileges", which OK, maybe there's an argument there but you have to actually make it. You can't handwave with "that's just how things are" on the subject of animal welfare but suddenly pull normative claims out of your pocket when we start talking about humans unless you articulate why humans belong to a special class where such claims apply and why animals are not part of that class.
Humans are afforded special privileges because we have moral agency. Animals do not. As such they're not afforded it's protections. And you can't argue it would therefore be morally OK to kill my cat, because my cat is my property, and don't get me started on property rights. -
2016-07-24 at 3:37 AM UTCSophie, you have a cat? Wtf? Cats are evil, don't you know? Dogs are the superior companion. (I make exceptions for tigers, Siberian tigers in particular.)
-
2016-07-24 at 5:08 AM UTC
-
2016-07-24 at 5:22 AM UTCHahaha, god bless you §m£ÂgØL impersonator.
-
2016-07-24 at 9:07 AM UTCOh damn, 10/10
-
2016-07-24 at 12:45 PM UTC
Translation: He's a total fag. Fuck the bees and the cows and the fish, they exist to make my tea sweet, give me a cold glass of milk in the morning a nice steak at dinner or sushi should i desire it. How is this fair? It isn't but life sucks and then you die. The cosmic die cast me to be a human, too bad lesser animals. Except for cats, cause i get value other than nutrition from them. They are lucky like that.
That wasn't what my focus. I just thought it would be badass to have that over your grave, particularly during his era, culture generally having become less conservative/restrictive and more secular (honor thy father and mother), put less emphasize on family/clanship, nepotism, etc. and the allowed circumstances of parents to kill their children. Unfortunately he didn't get his wish. Having being a popular poet and intellectual, one of the greatest of his era, it would have been wonderful to have had people visit his grave and ponder the meaning of it, anti-natalism having been so far from common knowledge, with lack of access to education and the printing press.
It would have been anti-natalist glory.
Although I am considering adjusting my diet to a modification of veganism. One start is to replace my omega 3 sources (salmon, sardines) with mussels (clams). Bivalve veganism (For the love of god Lanny, if you haven't figured it our by now, stay away from nearly all vegan/vegetarian sources for information about this except the very few hardline rationalist ones.).
The original article that started the debate: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/f...he_oyster.html
Good overview: https://sentientist.org/2013/05/20/t...s-and-mussels/
https://sentientist.org/2013/06/15/oystersmusselspt2/
Nice amount of omega-3: http://www.seafoodhealthfacts.org/se...-and-shellfish
If there was consumer available artificial beef; well, hell, why stick to that, the tastiest red meat; I would eat it. Unfortunately I'm almost certain they'll fuck it if they can by messing with the nutritional profile. I hope this proves too difficult or raises the cost too much. God, I swear, if the government mandates it...It's things like this that give me an urge for a black and gold jihad.
Beef liver is another worry, and the market isn't large enough, making it unlikely until the tech develops and cost drops until pretty much everything is replaced. It's just astoundingly nutritious. It would be one hell of a challenge to ethically harvest enough for a shelf-life and freeze dry it.
What made me think of this was someone in r/natalism mentioning something along the lines that by purchasing animal products you lead in part to their reproduction, often without consent via artificial insemination in mass operations. I already don't care much about food and if you recall my diet, the replacement wouldn't be much of a burden at all.
Oh, I nearly forgot about insects! Although this would require research, I'm wary of the composition, and possibly bulk dried import. It could be a replacement for beef. -
2016-07-24 at 1:31 PM UTCVeganism, lol. Get fucked, boy.
-
2016-07-24 at 3:06 PM UTCSomebody is impersonating me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not a jedi, I am a straight Goyim!
http://niggasin.space/member/15-§m£ÂgØL
http://niggasin.space/member/1809-goiium -
2016-07-24 at 3:23 PM UTC
That wasn't what my focus. I just thought it would be badass to have that over your grave, particularly during his era, culture generally having become less conservative/restrictive and more secular (honor thy father and mother), put less emphasize on family/clanship, nepotism, etc. and the allowed circumstances of parents to kill their children.
Kill children? And i thought i was messed up.Although I am considering adjusting my diet to a modification of veganism. One start is to replace my omega 3 sources (salmon, sardines) with mussels (clams). Bivalve veganism (For the love of god Lanny, if you haven't figured it our by now, stay away from nearly all vegan/vegetarian sources for information about this except the very few hardline rationalist ones.).
Why?black and gold jihad
Lewl, that sounds like an oxymoron. Let's avoid sounding like black bloc by calling for anarchist revolution NAO!
-
2016-07-24 at 4:21 PM UTCDoes anyone else hate fags? I don't mean gay people, I mean faggy fags like this:
I wanna get me some trucks, and some chains, and have me a good old fashioned fag drag. -
2016-07-24 at 4:26 PM UTC
Does anyone else hate fags? I don't mean gay people, I mean faggy fags like this:
I wanna get me some trucks, and some chains, and have me a good old fashioned fag drag.
#FreeMilo -
2016-07-24 at 6:46 PM UTC
No. However, if i value steak, it is in my interest to keep the race of cows alive, if i like honey, i should make sure bees are around to make it. It's a symbiotic relation.
It's only symbiosis if you think additional animal lives spent in preparation for being made into food is a good thing from the perspective of the subjugated species. I don't think that's the case, I think it would be better not to exist at all than to be a cow or chicken in a large scale farming operation in 21st century america. I think these sorts of animals are a special case, an antinatalist would accept that statement holds true for any sort of animal and thus approve of veganism on an ethical level.Well it is unfortunate children are the object of desire for pedophiles, but this is simply a fact. Facts aren't inherently right or wrong.
Why can't facts be right or wrong? What is the difference between saying "It's wrong to rape children" and "the fact that children are raped is wrong (in a normative sense)"? In any case the point I was getting at is that the same logic that would justify participating in animal suffering because "sucks to be a non-human animal but them's the breaks" can be used to justify participation in rape of children unless you can articulate why humans are a special class to which different rules apply.I suppose they do but it doesn't make it right to rape them.
Totally, I agree, so likewise the mere fact that we have an interest in consuming animal products does not justify doing so. Some other condition has to be satisfied.Humans are afforded special privileges because we have moral agency. Animals do not. As such they're not afforded it's protections. And you can't argue it would therefore be morally OK to kill my cat, because my cat is my property, and don't get me started on property rights.
OK, so now we're on the right track. So I have two questions here:
1. Why is moral agency necessary for moral considerability? To deontologists the distinction may not be clear: moral agency is the property that allows a thing to be accountable for its actions, moral considerability is the independent property that simply means we have some duty to a thing. For utilitarians it's generally assumed animal suffering is commensurable: any species that can experience pleasure and suffering, even if to different degrees, are morally considerable up to the extent they can do so (so if, for example, a sort of animal as such a rudimentary nervous system that we can find no evidence they are capable of pleasure or suffering then it stops being morally considerable, the suffering of lower animals might be less considerable than human suffering). A case for examination by duty theorists: children are capable of, at minimum, manslaughter. It would probably be trivial to find cases of parents or strangers killed by the actions of, say, infants. In such case we don't hold the children responsible, we say things like "they didn't know any better" or "they couldn't have done differently". So we don't assign moral agency to children under a certain age, and yet we do seem to assign them moral considerability, surely you don't think a child absent moral agency may be killed on a whim, of it they can't be, it's merely by their status as property of their parents.
2. Why are humans the only animals that have moral agency? What property is unique in us to bring it about? If name some human property like "self referential intelligence" or something (and assuming this property truly is unique to humans) then the obvious followup is why is moral agency contingent on that property as opposed to some other. -
2016-07-24 at 7:36 PM UTC
It's only symbiosis if you think additional animal lives spent in preparation for being made into food is a good thing from the perspective of the subjugated species. I don't think that's the case, I think it would be better not to exist at all than to be a cow or chicken in a large scale farming operation in 21st century america. I think these sorts of animals are a special case, an antinatalist would accept that statement holds true for any sort of animal and thus approve of veganism on an ethical level.
I don't hold an antinatalist position.Why can't facts be right or wrong? What is the difference between saying "It's wrong to rape children" and "the fact that children are raped is wrong (in a normative sense)"?
In a normative sense? Nigga, facts are facts, they don't depend on consensus or what is considered to be normal. The sun is the closest star to earth; fact. It has no moral/ethical value, it's an objective fact based on observation and measurement. I don't mean to say someone's understanding of something cannot be right or wrong. All i am saying is facts have no moral/ethical value. Also, you can only say rape is bad; fact. If you're not a moral relativist.In any case the point I was getting at is that the same logic that would justify participating in animal suffering because "sucks to be a non-human animal but them's the breaks" can be used to justify participation in rape of children unless you can articulate why humans are a special class to which different rules apply.
I know.Totally, I agree, so likewise the mere fact that we have an interest in consuming animal products does not justify doing so. Some other condition has to be satisfied.
We are agreed.OK, so now we're on the right track. So I have two questions here:
1. Why is moral agency necessary for moral considerability? To deontologists the distinction may not be clear: moral agency is the property that allows a thing to be accountable for its actions, moral considerability is the independent property that simply means we have some duty to a thing. For utilitarians it's generally assumed animal suffering is commensurable: any species that can experience pleasure and suffering, even if to different degrees, are morally considerable up to the extent they can do so (so if, for example, a sort of animal as such a rudimentary nervous system that we can find no evidence they are capable of pleasure or suffering then it stops being morally considerable, the suffering of lower animals might be less considerable than human suffering). A case for examination by duty theorists: children are capable of, at minimum, manslaughter. It would probably be trivial to find cases of parents or strangers killed by the actions of, say, infants. In such case we don't hold the children responsible, we say things like "they didn't know any better" or "they couldn't have done differently". So we don't assign moral agency to children under a certain age, and yet we do seem to assign them moral considerability, surely you don't think a child absent moral agency may be killed on a whim, of it they can't be, it's merely by their status as property of their parents.
Your powers of moral philosophy are formidable. I'm not sure i can answer all your questions.1. Why is moral agency necessary for moral considerability?
I want to say because it is just, but i realize i have to explain why it is just and how it is just then. And what is justice if not a human moral construct? The more i think about it the more it feels like an epistemological question.For utilitarians it's generally assumed animal suffering is commensurable: any species that can experience pleasure and suffering, even if to different degrees, are morally considerable up to the extent they can do so (so if, for example, a sort of animal as such a rudimentary nervous system that we can find no evidence they are capable of pleasure or suffering then it stops being morally considerable, the suffering of lower animals might be less considerable than human suffering
But humans and animals are not commensurable to any degree because animals lack moral agency and therefore moral considerability.So we don't assign moral agency to children under a certain age, and yet we do seem to assign them moral considerability, surely you don't think a child absent moral agency may be killed on a whim, of it they can't be, it's merely by their status as property of their parents.
No a child without moral agency cannot be killed on a whim, and it feels wrong to say it' s just because they' re the property of their parents. It raises a lot of questions about the nature of parent-child relationships.2. Why are humans the only animals that have moral agency? What property is unique in us to bring it about? If name some human property like "self referential intelligence" or something (and assuming this property truly is unique to humans) then the obvious followup is why is moral agency contingent on that property as opposed to some other.
I like that; humans have moral agency due to self referential intelligence but as you pointed out now i must explain why moral agency is contingent on that property. The short answer is i don't fucking know and there appear to be some inconsistencies in my theory of morality/ethics.
You win this time Lan, but you will never beat my political philosophy. NEVER! Anyway, i know it wasn't a competition, thank you for pointing out the holes in my thinking but i am curious about your thoughts. How would you answer the questions you posed to me, if you'll humor me and play the devil's advocate as it were. -
2016-07-24 at 7:49 PM UTCMasaka!? Thinking is hard, my head hurts.
