User Controls
Posts by Lanny
-
2016-04-26 at 4:31 AM UTC in cucking the cops againYou know if you could do you drugs in a quasi private place like a civilized human being you might not have so much trouble with the police. Also almost getting arrested for something can hardly be considered cucking.
-
2016-04-25 at 5:15 AM UTC in Heterosexuality is a Universally Preferable BehaviourSo do you or don't you?
-
2016-04-25 at 4:09 AM UTC in Heterosexuality is a Universally Preferable BehaviourIf you object to homosexuality on the grounds that it doesn't stand to produce offspring then I'm not clear on why you endorse heterosexuality without chance of conception, they seem to be functionally equivalent.
-
2016-04-25 at 3:39 AM UTC in Heterosexuality is a Universally Preferable BehaviourWould you make the same criticism for heterosexuality where there is no chance of conception?
-
2016-04-25 at 3:21 AM UTC in Heterosexuality is a Universally Preferable Behaviour
Mating: the action of animals coming together to breed; copulation.
What is called homosex cannot be called mating as it cannot produce offspring. This is where I am critisizing your naturalism. You can take two things, in this case two actions, and equate them even though their inherent outcome is different. Sex between a man and a woman is copulation, mating, real sex with the potential of real offspring. Gay "sex" between a man and a man or woman and woman is nothing more than glorified masturbation. Refute that.
Masturbation is fine? -
2016-04-25 at 1:42 AM UTC in This is probably why parents get all stressed outI'm not quite sure what you mean. Can you elaborate?
-
2016-04-25 at 1:25 AM UTC in Heterosexuality is a Universally Preferable Behaviour
To be quite frank I remember the is/ought problem vaugely from my freshmen philosophy class but perhaps my understanding has faded more than I care to admit. If you would be so kind as to post your resources I can trim up my arguments to fit the necessary criteria.
The SEP article is always a good starting point, it may be a bit dense, the wikipedia article on the subject gives less nuanced but still valid coverage.What you seem to be saying is that I need an argument that defeats all arguments against it which seems to me rather impossible and certainly impractical. Could not someone come to me and argue against me with a simple no? Where is the line of validity drawn?
So your typical phil 101 answer here is arguments are successful (that is, they give us a reason to believe in the truthfulness of their conclusions) only when their form is valid and their premises are true. Thus if another argument can be successfully made that denies either of those things then the argument being disputed is unsuccessful: you must either restructure your initial argument, admit its conclusion was false, or demonstrate the argument against was similarly flawed. So in presenting an argument you're not obligated to refuse objects like "just no", or "I disagree because" but if you want a philosophically good reason to believe in the conclusion of your argument you should be prepared to refute any argument that denies the truthfulness of your argument's premises, or which demonstrates its from is invalid.
To reify: I've taken a rough sketch of your argument to be "every species ought to provide for its survival, humans are a species of life, thus humans ought to provide for their survival" but I deny your first premise on the grounds that it comes from nowhere. You might say "oh but everything (mostly) always tries to survive" and OK, generally true, but that's an "is" claim, a statement about how the world is, not how it ought to be and thus not a defense of your first premise as described above. If that's not your argument then now's the time to make that clear.(I ask that question very seriously as I am still confused to your first point regarding totalitarianism and utility in the sex time and feel that there must be some distinction between factors that are indeed relate able to the point and extraneous thoughts.
Well that was partly a joke. I'm saying if you want to play the game of taking preferable behavior to be morally right behaviour while maintaining human-centrism then you need to explain why the preferences of lower animals don't matter, which leads to kinds of preference and preference maximization which sounds a lot like preference utilitarianism. I'll make the broad statement that utilitarians generally are statists, rarely libertarians, never insofar as I'm aware opposed to homosexuality.And to say that only a naturalist would use "rebukes such as "lefties such as yourself cannot handle biology"" seems to me to be nonsense. Arguing the scientific basis of any thing seems rather appropriate in a philosophical discussion on that scientific phenomenon (here we are discussing biological m8ing but the idea could be extended to pretty much any other area of scientific inquest)/
What we're discussing is the ethical permissibility of certain sorts of m8ing, no? Again, is/outght, you can say any amount of things about the realities of our biological realities, but none of it can build up to a claim about how the world ought to be.So inform me, o great nigger faggot. Inform me of my philosophical errors and I shall attempt to fix my arguments to appease these incorrectivities. You see, while I may seem to be trolling, I am actually learning. I may seem to be fallacious (and perhaps I am) but simply dismissing my phallacy does not rectify it or give me the why of the thing. I ask of you, greatest spaciest of negros, to guide me so that I may hold steadfast in my argument and so that I may gain logical consistency.
Whoa there baby, buy a girl a drink first will ya -
2016-04-25 at 1:18 AM UTC in This is probably why parents get all stressed outSoo... you're saying you'd have sex with your kid or...
-
2016-04-25 at 1:16 AM UTC in The retarded thread: Fuck, §m£ÂgØL made one first edition
I honestly don't understand how living that life is worth it.
It's really not! I get by on empty hedonism, and a complex of self loathing and superiority with a hope that the better angels of my nature will win out and I'll manage to choose a life as a middling academic being underpaid and overworked and largely ignored but doing something that I find a meaningful as opposed to making excessively more money than I deserve while garnering the approval of my parents and peers. -
2016-04-25 at 12:35 AM UTC in 1984 is the linkin park of books
You "literally" don't know what "literally" means. I asked for his address. I just can't be arsed to make a paypal account for some fuck nut thats been bitching for 5 dollars for over a month. I have a christmas card and an envelope and stamps and 5 bucks here at my place. The funny/sad thing is I probably have more money than most people on this site, people on this site like captain faggot, lanny, are obsessed with people being "objectively poor"… and telling me they could have provided money towards my Bill Krozby dogs stand when I don't need or want their money.
Ahahahahah holy shit, you could pull the old "you know know what literally means" line in like half of the posts on this site, and it would have been just as stupid there as it usually is, but here TLN actually used it in the literally correct way making your inability of figure out english usage heroically bad. Trash to the core. -
2016-04-25 at 12:34 AM UTC in This is probably why parents get all stressed outOk, so just to be clear this is an incestuous pedophilia thread right?
Because I came here expecting a "broken young adult" thread
but I'm I thinking it's more of the former than the latter -
2016-04-25 at 12:23 AM UTC in The retarded thread: Fuck, §m£ÂgØL made one first edition
Receiving it 3 months early doesn't matter to you?
Not particularly, I'm busy enough right now that if an oculus landed on my doorstep today it'd be days before I even got to try it. I have other things to do in the mean time, questionable tactics to move me up in some queue cost more than I stand to gain.Think about all the (cumulative utility) lost, being among the first to receive it.
You have this way of posting when you're trying to convince someone to do something. Whenever you use parentheses I imagine like a little devil or evil cupid or some shit popping on on my shoulder being like "hehe, cumulative utility". Like if we were talking in person I could only imagine you issuing such lines with shoulder hunched followed by an evil chortle. It's cute. I like it.When have you been one for patience and delayed gratification?
Since ever? My whole schtick is that I too fully embody the middle class ideal of delayed gratification that I'll perpetually be waiting/working for something better until I die. I was made for waiting. -
2016-04-24 at 4:21 PM UTC in The retarded thread: Fuck, §m£ÂgØL made one first edition
Lanny. when is your estimated delivery date for the Oculus? I just saw this and there's a method to receive it much faster, I'd get on it ASAP before they might fix it: https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comm...n_bestbuy_and/
In fact, it may already be too late.
Early july. Have to say, they did manage to make a shit show of this preorder thing. Oh well, don't want to dick around with bestbuy and I'm not in any particular rush. -
2016-04-24 at 4:16 PM UTC in NIGGAS how've you been!?
Suck my cock, asshole!
f u c c b o i
u
c
c
b
o
i
go get molested again fuccboi -
2016-04-24 at 4:15 PM UTC in 1984 is the linkin park of books
Stay poor, desperate, diseased, and brain damaged faggot -
2016-04-24 at 6:24 AM UTC in Heterosexuality is a Universally Preferable Behaviour
Now let us cut the grass here and be honest. You cannot discount an argument with the silly and convoluted assumption that everyone is on your exact level enough to completely comprehend 8 words addressing each issue. Do you think Hume just said "Nahhh bruh, i been thining this over and you got a classic is/ought goin on nigga". Not once, he most certianly would have demonstrated the is and the ought of the thing and refrained from being a cheeky cunt.
Do you understand the is/ought problem? It's a hurdle any moral theory has to jump to be potentially valid and I'm saying "apex predator" fails it, we have lucid refutations of it going as far back as the republic. If you're not familiar with the problem, or arguments around why "might make right" fails to resolve it I can point you to resources and discuss them if you like.To say that two differences are the same is preposterous.
I'm saying there's the same thing though. Specifically I'm saying an argument against a given point, and an argument you have to defeat to make that point valid are the same thing.Sploo has tried his hand at p = np and failed quite miserably. His IQ being several standard deviations higher than your own I am taken to believe if he cannot solve it you certainly have no chance. Please prove how exactly one argument is every argument against every perspective. I would be delighted if you could provide something rigorous. Your deciet shows yet again in the fact that you must equate two things (a statment and its proof) unjustly and without foundation. As an analytical philosopher you certianly enjoy pointing out the flaws but you certianly cannot explain them away either and therefore must resort to making vastly unreliable claims.
Wait, so this is a troll? Come on man, don't waste our time here. Go out and do something fun, don't waste your time here making arguments you don't actually believe.You also claim I must be a naturalist simply because I used the term natural and unnatural. It is precisely because I find homosexuality unnatural that excludes me from being a naturalist. It is precisely because I elevate the male female bond that I can not be a naturalist. The Naturalist would only see pleasure in the sexual act and allow the homosexual and the heterosexual to be equated without looking far enough ahead to note that there is indeed a sizeable difference in the outcome of each attraction and their subsequent actions.
Sure using the terms natural and unnatural don't make you a naturalist, but rebukes such as "lefties such as yourself cannot handle biology" certainly suggest that's the case. -
2016-04-24 at 5:08 AM UTC in Heterosexuality is a Universally Preferable Behaviour
Your naturalism is amusing. As much as they cannot differentiate between that which is for nourishment and that which is waste they refuse to take any argument that Man is superior to all other beings. God gave us this earth, friend. He gave us every gott dayum thang on it, the dirt, the sea, the grass and their beasts. And he gave all that to us as much as he gave us to that. You may think I am trolling but there is everything to support this theory. Discounting silly arguments of our reality state (OH but ur in a sImUlAtIoN maid bi alienz! or other more well counstructed yet fundamentally flawed arguments) there is nothing to prove that we are not the apex predator. In our time here we have molded the land to our liking. We have taken what we needed and paid the prices nessecary for survival. Among all that we are where we are and there is no reasonable evidence our place is threatened.
Classical is/ought problem. Learn2HumeNow I will tell you why you subverted any real argument against my points but rather tell me what arguments I need to defeat for my argument to work.
Uhh, m8, those are the same thing.This is something I have seen you do and it is a particularly hooked nosed deceit you are pulling. In terms of biological imperative my argument holds. But lefties such as yourself cannot handle biology and must resort to intellectual masturbation to make a point. It is no doubt that you have proceeded upon or at least have attempted to proceed upon the aforementioned biological imperative (perhaps not even realizing it a means of production). Are you to tell me this natural drive is unnatural and that its unnatural deviations are genuine, or at least moreso than the natural drive?
Who's the laughable naturalist now?Now address my argument as it is rather than resorting to some fallacy about totalitarianism and elevated preference.
I don't think you know what "fallacy" means. -
2016-04-24 at 4:21 AM UTC in Heterosexuality is a Universally Preferable BehaviourSo I guess the immediate issue is in defining preference-holding agents. It seems like most animals are capable of preferring some set of things to another and by and large increasing human populations harms the ability of most animals to satisfy their preferences. So you need some argument for higher and lower preference but that's going to drag you dangerously close to utilitarianism which is a well known trap set by marxists to justify totalitarianism. I'd argue there fundamentally is no such thing as a truly libertarian utilitarian. You could of course try some rationalist argument, but go ahead and pick one and I'll show you how it defeats the premises that universally preferable means morally obligatory. And I mean that's just in dealing with the argument itself, there's this whole world of whacky politics and cultish lifestyle restrictions Molyneux and co draw from it that's not justified at all.
-
2016-04-24 at 4:03 AM UTC in If Muslamics were serious about harming the jedi.S.A[greentext]>implying r9k isn't an islamic recruitment board[/greentext]
[greentext]>implying pol isn't a ADL/JIDF false flag[/greentext]
-
2016-04-24 at 3:59 AM UTC in Heterosexuality is a Universally Preferable BehaviourI want to respond to this enough that I'm fairly confident it's a troll and thus I shouldn't. So I won't.
