User Controls

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. ...
  5. 290
  6. 291
  7. 292
  8. 293
  9. 294
  10. 295
  11. ...
  12. 361
  13. 362
  14. 363
  15. 364

Posts by Zanick

  1. Zanick motherfucker [my p.a. supernal goa]
    Gay clubs are supposed to be great fun (I've never gone to one) but if you hit up an estranged friend to go, they'll probably think you're trying to have sex with other men together.
  2. Zanick motherfucker [my p.a. supernal goa]
    Originally posted by Issue313 The likes of Zanick aren't peaceful. They'll talk about how they'll lie down and die rather than fight one minute, then the next they're straining at the leash to murder Russians cos some jedi told them that Russians were homophobic.

    Nah, I think homophobes should live long lives and then die naturally, having failed to suppress homosexuality.

    Also Zanick please read this and stop misusing words:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_agency

    Maybe when you provide a convincing counterpoint to my suggestion that babies and the mentally retarded lack moral agency, I'll stop believing that animals do.
  3. Zanick motherfucker [my p.a. supernal goa]
    I've developed an unexpected liking for JoeysWorldTour, probably because I've seen it on here somewhere. There are several reasons I enjoy his channel. Sometimes I want to reassure myself that I've chosen the correct path in life, and he does that for me. When I want to assess the practical value of my vegetarianism, I go to his channel to see that I have failed. If I merely want to be disgusted, he suits that purpose. And all of this is made even more significant because he really seems like a nice guy.

    Here's a video of him sampling the chicken strips at Sonic:

  4. Zanick motherfucker [my p.a. supernal goa]
    Originally posted by NARCassist Holy fuck, I'm gay. I'm literally gay. Or at least bisexual

    I'm fucking gay, this isn't me trying to be funny, I just realized I'm a flaming homosexual.

    Holy fuck. I, NARCassist, am officially coming out of the closet and this isn't a troll post.



    .

    I'm not sure if this is a mistake on your part, but I'm saving it.
  5. Zanick motherfucker [my p.a. supernal goa]
    Put down some newspaper.
  6. Zanick motherfucker [my p.a. supernal goa]
    My best friend posts on other forums and he knows I'm on this one, but he doesn't see the point of joining and he won't remember what it's called. A girl I dated a few years ago actually made an account on Zoklet once and posted briefly. Another girl I dated would often read over my shoulder as I posted. She might remember the domain but, god damn, I hope she doesn't.
  7. Zanick motherfucker [my p.a. supernal goa]
    My writing has improved drastically. I already have a high degree of linguistic intelligence, so posting on a forum about anarchy and drugs was an excellent way to develop my written communication skills further. And, I got some really nice RC's back when the market was open on Zoklet.
  8. Zanick motherfucker [my p.a. supernal goa]
    I dated a girl who made a Zoklet account, and a couple of close friends know I use it but would likely never find the domain.
  9. Zanick motherfucker [my p.a. supernal goa]
    Originally posted by infinityshock you havent been paying attention to those buddah-ists over there that are fucking up all kinds of shit recently.

    what do you call an animal that wont defend itself?

    lunch.

    I'm well aware that you subscribe to a hierarchy of beings according to their capability to murder other beings, but you haven't actually produced something to justify it for those of us who aren't convinced.
  10. Zanick motherfucker [my p.a. supernal goa]
    It did sound as though the student was suffering as a result from their affair. If it weren't harming either of them, I wouldn't care so much about the lack of professionalism.
  11. Zanick motherfucker [my p.a. supernal goa]
    Originally posted by Issue313 So would Zanick be prepared to defend his monastery and his country against invaders?

    Even if they were brown?

    No, I would run. I can join a new monastery and move to a new country because I don't think there's anything to be gained by dying in either of them. I generally don't think country or private property is worth dying or killing for. If my life were in danger, I would have to defend myself to the best of my (admittedly limited) abilities.

    Why didn't the monks just run away?

    That's the moral thing to do, right?

    There have been several times in history that Buddhist monks have found cause for violence. In some ways, this was a last resort, either because they could not escape government oppression with their faith intact or could not escape to a safe location. I consider this to be in service to a greater good and indicative of an abandonment of self, which is characteristic of some themes in their belief and therefore it is understandable how some could bring themselves to use lethal force. Other occasions deemed to merit killing on the part of monks have been a product of nationalism, and other occasions still saw them substituted for a normal military response.

    Moral worth =/= agency.

    Do infants and the severely retarded possess moral agency? They often lack the capacity for moral judgments. Or would you lump newborns and idiots in with the animals you eat?
  12. Zanick motherfucker [my p.a. supernal goa]
    I chose Vizier second. I chose Enter first. Really, I just enjoy seeing Duchovny's face. The more people who follow suit, the happier I'll be.
  13. Zanick motherfucker [my p.a. supernal goa]
    Originally posted by Jeremus To answer the OP, both cases are immoral but one is less immoral due too your ability to affect the situation. I have a similar argument for veganism.

    Basically, if you got a Fairphone 2 (or ate a vegan meal) instead of whatever you're using (or meat), I don't think anything would really change (except for maybe Fairphone, which is a small company). At that point, I think you're doing something that it would be better not to do on a moral level, but choosing not to do it is really an inconsequential demonstration of your commitment to your ideology.

    I don't know how familiar you are with Islamic theology but there are roughly related concepts called "savaab" and "gunaah". It's basically like some unit of currency that's a store of virtue/reward and sin/punishment, although these ideas are not well defined (ultimately it goes to the Egyptian idea that your sins will be weighed against your virtues). I view my morality in somewhat similar terms, like "points", and I think small direct virtues, such as giving money to Righty (my local homeless veteran who had his left limbs blown off in Korea), will more than clear my conscience.

    There's an argument I've often heard levied against Christian morality which I believe may also apply here: if your charity is intended to clear your conscience and improve your chances of salvation, you're not doing charity, you're paying for a service. What's more is that you don't know the full value of all your sins or in what manner they will be weighed against your virtues; in this sense, it can even be said that you're gambling with your soul. How is charity still virtuous if performed with self-serving intentions?
  14. Zanick motherfucker [my p.a. supernal goa]
    Originally posted by Jeremus Seems good. Please elaborate on this view when you come back (like why you hold that view)

    It's kind of a nuanced position, I admit. Referring to one example of my belief in practice, I would cite the martial training of Buddhist monks in the Zen tradition. They won't kill animals or eat them, but they are prepared to defend their lives against invaders and predators alike. You could say that my ethics would take radical nonviolence as axiomatic.

    If I were to frame it in terms of the categorical imperative, I would say that to harm another being is intolerable unless it is determined to harm you and you cannot escape confrontation. I hope that clarifies things. He may have died a virgin, but Kant was a damn innovative moral theorist.

    Originally posted by Issue313 ?
    Moral agency is the ability to make moral decisions.

    Creatures dumber than humans will be too dumb to understand your moral system, and creatures smarter than humans will be too smart to fall for it.

    Some philosophers hold the position that we must extend the status of moral agency to animals. The deontological argument given by Tom Regan is one prominent example. His is essentially a modification of Kantian ethics, wherein he not only redirects the meaning of the phrase from requiring the capacity for moral decisionmaking to ultimately include any being, human or nonhuman, which is what he terms the subject-of-a-life; and he also provides a fairly substantial criticism of Singer's utilitarianism in the same publication. In summary, his view is that, if it lives and can be said to have an interest in living, it should be regarded as possessing inherent, unquantifiable value.

    Originally posted by Speedy Parker Morals are an individual choice not a group decision.

    That's one view on what constitutes morality, but you should know there are dozens of others and yours isn't very popular among them. Furthermore, I don't think you have a literate understanding of ethical justification, which is why I suggest you stop replying to my posts in this thread - it's a waste of your time, and, more importantly, mine. I don't require everyone I talk with about philosophy to have a formal education in the discipline, but in your case, I don't think you've actually read a book since you were in grade school.
  15. Zanick motherfucker [my p.a. supernal goa]
    Originally posted by Jeremus I was stoned as fuck in the back of the car at the time, but I just found a couple stickers I brought back and now I remember some stuff. I went to one called Lightshade and another called Turtle Care. Both were excellent, very professional and high quality shit plus they were very helpful. As you might know, I'm a bit of a drug noob; I was thoroughly straight edge until the winter of 2016 or so.

    I wouldn't worry about being new to drugs too much, you've already picked up some important knowledge. And, as for getting too stoned - that goes away, with tolerance. I spent years wondering why one hit would knock me on my ass and make me the pussy of all my friends, but lately, I've been smoking daily with much better results. Some people are just very sensitive, but it normalizes significantly with regular consumption. That may or may not be something you're willing to consider: you know by now that you're a lightweight (which is really not a bad thing to be, financially speaking), but what you may not know is that, with training and patience in your drug use, you will almost never be caught on your ass by cannabis.
  16. Zanick motherfucker [my p.a. supernal goa]
    I lack your self-control.
  17. Zanick motherfucker [my p.a. supernal goa]
    Originally posted by Jeremus Zanick, I want to cut past a lot of these issues and ask you: what's your position on self defence in general?

    I think it's acceptable - not desirable - and that there are ways to find equitable solutions for both parties even if one is primarily concerned with killing the other. In the event that it really can't be helped (i.e. you're not on a safari with your hunting rifle when you happen to be charged by a hyena you were seeking), then it should be done as humanely as can be managed with priority given to your own safety. I hope that clarifies my position. I may not log on for a couple of hours, but please let me know if I've left anything unanswered.
  18. Zanick motherfucker [my p.a. supernal goa]
    My life is leaps and bounds better than it was in 2016. I can't imagine how things could improving for me any more than they already have.
  19. Zanick motherfucker [my p.a. supernal goa]
    TL;DR: Karen was a major hottie who found this forum through her work maybe a week ago, I fell in love and Lanny mercilessly banned her just to watch me suffer.
  20. Zanick motherfucker [my p.a. supernal goa]
    Originally posted by RisiR † No, I wouldn't but that's a taste thing not a moral one.

    If you're opposed to eating humans in general and in favor of eating animals, I think we can make a moral case out of it.
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. ...
  5. 290
  6. 291
  7. 292
  8. 293
  9. 294
  10. 295
  11. ...
  12. 361
  13. 362
  14. 363
  15. 364
Jump to Top