User Controls
Posts by Sophie
-
2016-07-25 at 10:21 AM UTC in Best security for my laptop
Some infosec people say to hack a chinese windows xp box that you found with shodan or censys.io. Don't know how good an idea that is, they might be honey pots.
Really it depends how paranoid you want to be. And after all an IP address is not a person, but nobody wants to put that to the test of course.
A jump box is never a bad idea. Whether you hack it or acquire a VPS with false identification and/or cryptocurrency. Say you have an anonymous VPS hosted in Russia or whatever. What you do is install your favorite distro in a VM in a hidden veracrypt volume on your local box and connect to your VPS through TOR and SSH, install your tools/apps/whatever on your VPS and do everything remotely. It's efficient as well since all you'll be doing is sending commands through TOR to your terminal on your VPS, which will carry the load both resource and bandwidth wise and is especially important if you're running high bandwidth tools like scrapers, fuzzers or something like sqlmap for instance. -
2016-07-25 at 8:38 AM UTC in Moving on with my life...Fare thee well imposter §m£ÂgØL. And may the lulz forever guide your path.
-
2016-07-25 at 6:36 AM UTC in YAY! Amusement parks...Beautiful slavic facial features, big and adorable eyes, innocence, blonde hair, delicious flat chest, tiny but not too young. She is the quintessential loli of my dreams.
-
2016-07-25 at 6:23 AM UTC in The retarded thread: Fuck, §m£ÂgØL made one first edition
Well there's the classic positive/negative rights issues here when we start talking about "maximizing utility".
But without digging into the metaethical issue, we still would seem to need some reason that animals and certain children, both lacking agency, would fall into different moral categories.
Yeah we have established as much.Why can't it?
Because it is unfair to me as an individual.It's simply tantamount to saying selfishness is wrong, which doesn't seem so unreasonable.
Is selfishness still wrong if it promotes the maximum amount of utility?From each according to their ability, to each according to their need and all that. I suspect the reason it seems like an unacceptable conclusion is your belief in the efficacy of market systems:
It's a belief based on facts.there is this idea that when we incur duties in accordance with our capacity, and assuming duties are undesirable (which seems reasonable) this motivates purely self-interested agents against participation, competency.
That's an excellent argument against having a command economy with a welfare state based on utility.To a utilitarian such a question is secondary, that may be the case and if it is we ought to commit ourselves to freeing each person so as to maximize their utility. A typical libertarian argument follows the lines of "imposing burden in proportion to value/excellency/talent/whathaveyou is wrong because there's this market thing and it dictates action so it's going to lead to bad outcomes" which is a reasonable argument in form. If we can substantiate it then a utilitarian would be committed to those conclusions. The issue is libertarians aren't usually committed to the utilitarian premise that makes that argument, if we were to find ourselves in a world (no matter how alien, inconceivable it may seem to some) where command economies were successful, more so than capitalist markets, then such argument would needs commit us to the former system while libertarians would typically hold to notions of liberty in such cases.
I'm not a utilitarian so yes, even if it were proven beyond a doubt that command economies are the ,most efficient and provide the most utility. Then that still does not justify the incursion upon any liberties.If the question is more generally "why should we accept the principle of utility" then it becomes murkier, as all arguments do when one strays into the murky realms of meta-ethics. There are a number or arguments for why the principle of utility is justified, my favorite, but perhaps not the strongest on strictly rational grounds, is motivational. If we are not nihilists then we must accept, by definition, that there are some normative truths that guide our actions and among non-nihilists almost everyone accepts rationality governs such truths. The argument is not pitched at people who don't accept any moral truths or who don't think moral truths are subject to rational exploration. So then one is asked to look at their own action: we certainly work in our own perceived self-interest, we do this instinctively, we accept this is justified. If there is any valid line of reason that justifies us in acting in our own interest, then by merit of it being valid reason, it ought to be deterministic. That is to say, if acting in my own self-interest is rationally justified for me then unless I have some substantive moral difference with respect to other humans the same argument must also apply to them. If defending our own interests was justified in the first place then it must be justified in the case of others, if that's not the case then it becomes both true and untrue that some things ought to work in their self-interest. I can not affirm my own justification in seeking utility without affirming the validity of all morally considerable beings interests. The obvious objection is that I wasn't justified in pursuing my own interests in the first place, or that ethics are relative and thus agent-perspective contradiction is a non-issue but again, if you think that then the argument wasn't aimed at you in the first place.
Meh, the argument may not be pitched at people who do not accept moral truths but they still have moral agency therefore they are subject to the consequence of not doing what is morally right or is that what you were saying? Also i don't understand how determinism has anything to do with it. But i will say that i do not subscribe to such a notion either. Having read the entire piece i quoted last i can say that i do understand where you are coming from and that i applaud your commitment to rationality in this regard. -
2016-07-25 at 3:53 AM UTC in Somebody is impersonating me (§m£ÂgØL)
It's "simmer down, sparky" you fuck!
Yeah but sparky doesn't rhyme with molester. -
2016-07-25 at 3:17 AM UTC in YAY! Amusement parks...Fugg, how will i search for sets without a name. Also, it does seem like a non-nude model. Which is a real shame that is. Mannnnnnn she is perfect though.
-
2016-07-25 at 3:14 AM UTC in Somebody is impersonating me (§m£ÂgØL)
Simmer down, Chester.
When i actually feel strongly about something my post will not consist of a one liner, just a heads up. -
2016-07-25 at 2:46 AM UTC in The retarded thread: Fuck, §m£ÂgØL made one first edition
Ah, "normative" here is a technical term. It doesn't refer to consensus or anything, the point was that you can mean "the fact X is wrong" in two ways, you can be saying X is not the case (like if I said "2+2=5 is wrong") or you can be saying X is the case but it ought not to be (as in "it is wrong to steal"), the latter is normative and what I was trying to say is that I meant it the ethical rather than descriptive sense.
o i cI mean I don't hold the position but I feel like I've seen people argue rape is justified, sometimes in limited cases and sometimes in general. It seems kinda dumb but it does seem to be a valid position (as in well formed, as opposed to true) at least at first blush.
This sounds like: You sound right but not for the right reason, yet the right reason eludes me as of this moment.It does! There are a number of interesting problems around pre-agents (young children without moral agency, fetuses).
I've held a pro-abortion viewpoint for all my life but just a year ago or so I got into an argument about, like, delayed gratification, how we're justified in forgoing immediate reward for greater rewards later (e.g. pursuing education at any level generally represented as short-term decrease in quality of life (less play, more work, usually debt) but is justified by long term rewards (deeper understanding of the world, higher pay/quality of life, greater ability to participate in society)), but in the ethical sense so like maybe I'll allow a trivial evil today to reap a greater moral good later. Anyway, if you accept making such trades is valid (and I do) then you run into this problem where you've said future moral goods are of roughly equal value to present moral goods. So in the case of considering abortion, you can't simply say "mother's right to her body trumps everything", you have to ask what disutility a mother suffers from child rearing against the net utility of the child. And I can't help but imagine cases of affluent mothers with a strong support network to whom the present utility of raising a child, even if it amounts to 18 years of servitude, might be lesser than the net utility that child is likely to experience. I think the lives of many people are worthwhile, net positives, and thus there seem to be cases where I'm committed to saying abortion is immoral, specifically when the expected pleasure of existing a child will experience is greater than the expected burden to their caretakers.
Anyway, that seems a bit rambly, it likely doesn't have much bearing on you since you don't buy into the utilitarian premise, but the point is that there are a lot of interesting/unintuitive issues around non-adult humans.
Well, i'm glad i'm not a moral philosopher as a day job.I'd say there is no inherent relationship between moral considerability and moral agency. Maximization of utility (pleasure) is our only moral duty, we have this duty because we're moral agents but there are many things capable of pleasure that are not moral agents, thus there are morally considerable things (e.g. farm animals) which are not agents (killing is commonplace in nature and it would be absurd to call a cat morally culpable for killing a bird). I take it as trivially evident that lower animals are capable of suffering, but there are articulate arguments to be made there if you disagree, although I think their range of suffering/pleasure is likely less than our own (a cow is unlikely to ever experience existential dread nor the joy of an amazing work of art). As such we have a moral duty to animals, I really love a fatty ass hamburger at like 3am but even that sublime moment of meaty ecstasy I don't think is comparable years of suffering, intense physical pain, a cow needs to endure for my fast food, so fast food is impermissible. There are other cases like honey, milk, and possibly eggs where it's conceivable that you could produce an animal product without causing greater suffering to animals than humans would derive from the thing but as you look into it it's generally economically difficult to do so.
Maximisation of liberty without infringing on someone's 'freedom not to be hurt' is our moral duty, as you know in my thinking liberty does not extend to animals insofar as they're property. Utilitarian ethics feel dirty and incomplete as well, because if what i personally do to maximize my own utility even if i do so without directly hurting anyone i am still morally in the wrong if i negatively affect net utility.
And that can't be right. Also why do we need to maximize pleasure of all things? And are we not the most able to maximize our own pleasure if we are the most free in doing so? -
2016-07-25 at 2:17 AM UTC in YAY! Amusement parks...
I highly doubt the actual pic is lewd …probably just in a very small bikini or something…
What's her name then. -
2016-07-25 at 2:15 AM UTC in Is it ok to kill someone if you eat their meat for sustinence?
That forum has a guy named "femsnuffer" who takes pictures that users send in and turns them into cannibalistic scenes.
We gotta get him to do one of Bill Krozby or Sploo.
As for the loli, I found it on Google images, I think there was a set. Google "search by image" on that pic I posted might work.
What's her name? -
2016-07-24 at 10:29 PM UTC in Is it ok to kill someone if you eat their meat for sustinence?
We should raid that forum though.
With my little pony? I think they'd get a kick out of CP. So we should post SJW pro-faggot cuck stuff that will be sure to infuriate them. Talk about CP, remember the girl you posted in AFJ's thread, she is 11/10 beautiful omg, if you have a set or know where to get one please deliver. I'll even trade you something for it. Off site of course. -
2016-07-24 at 10:19 PM UTC in Is it ok to kill someone if you eat their meat for sustinence?
What about for sexual thrill between consenting adults?.
http://forum.dolcettgirls.com
That's enough internet for me today.
Not that disturbing, i ate a ham sandwich while looking at this. He should have prepared the leg, more meat on it. -
2016-07-24 at 10:13 PM UTC in YAY! Amusement parks...
l-lewd
Do you have a set? -
2016-07-24 at 9:37 PM UTC in Is it ok to kill someone if you eat their meat for sustinence?Ask Lanny.
-
2016-07-24 at 9:30 PM UTC in Favorite pentesting distro?Basically kinda, sorta followup on this bread http://niggasin.space/forum/technoph...elite-for-mint
Point being i switched to backbox, i've tried PentestBox for windows, which was basically linux in an app, i tried kali which meh, i don't particularly like debian and kali has way too much tools and is the new skid OS. I tried to 'compile' my own pentesting box out of a Mint distro but that was dissapointing. So now i am on BackBox which so far i am enjoying very much and i do like Ubuntu, as pentesting and general OS. i left a partition clean for when i wanna do a dual boot, with whatever OS i fancy next, or maybe Windows 7(blergh) for vidya and graphics design solely... If i do end up putting a micrococks product back on my rig. -
2016-07-24 at 9:17 PM UTC in Somebody is impersonating me (§m£ÂgØL)
Yeah, you're one to talk. Hanging off zok's ballsack 24/7, at least until you all finally got a really good ass reaming, that is.
Do you even dictionary? Also, still pretending you shut down Zoklet huh? -
2016-07-24 at 9:11 PM UTC in YAY! Amusement parks...I was about to suggest pics, then i considered your response to Mr. Happy, then i thought. Sure but, i'm not taking a loli to an amusement park.
-
2016-07-24 at 9:04 PM UTC in The retarded thread: Fuck, §m£ÂgØL made one first edition
Becoming a vegan because you genuinely have a passionate hatred of life and whose final goal is to end it as we know it (and replace it with AI), being able to back it up with sound and extensive reasoning (You haven't seen anywhere near the limits of how much I could aspie rant.), is kind of amusing.
Sophie: So Mal Mal, y u wanna b vegan?
Mal: For the lulz.meat is the most delicious and nutritious tasting food to me.
Agreed. -
2016-07-24 at 8:57 PM UTC in So a while ago a girl went missing in my area.Yamiko-chan kawaii desu yo (n_n")
-
2016-07-24 at 8:40 PM UTC in So a while ago a girl went missing in my area.
LMFAO!!! …stealing this…
