User Controls
Posts by Obbe
-
2019-05-02 at 6:11 PM UTC in Society may collapse by 2040
-
2019-05-02 at 5:28 PM UTC in Society may collapse by 2040https://socialnewsdaily.com/71947/society-collapse-2040/
“The results show that based on plausible climate trends, and a total failure to change course, the global food supply system would face catastrophic losses, and an unprecedented epidemic of food riots.” Jones continues, “In this scenario, global society essentially collapses as food production falls permanently short of consumption.” -
2019-05-02 at 4:30 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2019-05-02 at 1:50 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2019-05-02 at 1:36 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Common De-mominator Nobody said anything is inherently good or bad either.
Oh, good.
Originally posted by Common De-mominator Just that moral obligations exist. My specific claim is that moral obligations are a necessary consequence of logical consistency in addition to your nature as an agent in the world.
Since when are agents logically consistent? -
2019-05-02 at 2:32 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Common De-mominator What part of my characterization do you disagree with?
I only disagree with the idea that anything is inherently good or bad and that we have an obligation to do something about it.
Originally posted by Common De-mominator But Obbe's claim was that good and bad is of the same nature
And I'm not even sure what you mean by that. -
2019-05-02 at 2:25 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2019-05-01 at 10:24 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Common De-mominator Why don't you explain what you meant so I can unambiguously get an accurate picture of your views
Why dont you just read what I actually wrote? You seem determined to be contrarian and call me retarded no matter what my views are. Out of the goodness of my heart I will repeat the claim once more: goodness and badness are relative. What do I mean by this? I mean something can be good from one perspective and bad from another. Like eating meat can be good from one perspective or bad from another... but without some relativity, eating meat is just eating meat. The goodness or badness of it comes from perspective, it comes from relation. It is not inherently good or bad. Nothing is. -
2019-05-01 at 8:03 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2019-05-01 at 7:13 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by HTS But you could just as easily look at it as there existing a sliding scale of objective goodness and badness, and goodness is analogous to 0.63 miles per hour and badness is analogous to -0.63 miles per hour. Things can be "gooder" or "badder", and those are relative terms, but good and bad needn't be.
(That said, I basically agree that good/bad are relative, but it's not like that's objectively true or anything.)
Y'know, I never thought of it that way before. Thanks HTS... you've lifted the veil off my eyes. -
2019-04-30 at 12:30 AM UTC in Literally Nothing Matters
Originally posted by gadzooks Millions of our ancestors are dead and gone.
We all strive to get to the cheese at the end of our own rat races, but, like Lily Tomlin once said "even if you win the rat race, you're still a rat".
Physical pleasures are transient and ultimately meaningless.
We might like to pretend that there are ways in which we can create lasting value, like by creating art, or contributing scientific knowledge to our libraries, or even by reproducing.
But it's all self-serving anyhow.
There's no such thing as a legacy.
Why the fuck does anyone do anything? Are we just a bunch of automata striving to create our own legacy?
To what end, though? Does any of that shit matter once the very biological matter we consist of decomposes?
Why carry on this farce? Like, for real, why do the rest of you do it?
I feel like a fool for carrying on without being able to answer what should really be an incredibly simple question.
"Why?"
I simply do not know how to answer that.
Tiger got to hunt,
Bird got to fly;
Man got to sit and wonder, "Why, why, why?"
Tiger got to sleep,
Bird got to land;
Man got to tell himself he understand.
It's in our nature to look for patterns and seek meaning. This is basically the cause of all religious and spiritual myths. But meaning isn't something the world has, meaning is something man gives to the world. God said, "Let Us make living creatures out of mud, so the mud can see what We have done." And God created every living creature that now moveth, and one was man. Mud as man alone could speak. God leaned close as mud as man sat up, looked around, and spoke. Man blinked. "What is the purpose of all this?" he asked politely.
"Everything must have a purpose?" asked God.
"Certainly," said man.
"Then I leave it to you to think of one for all this," said God.
Instead of looking for the purpose and meaning in all of this, make your own purpose, make your own meaning.
Because there really is nothing else, and it's just a way of distracting yourself from the absurd reality you are a part of. But as strange and mysterious as it is eventually you will get tired of wondering. You will get tired of doing very much at all. It will become very exhausting trying to maintain yourself, being yourself. You will start to lose your self little by little until it becomes very easy to let it all slip away and let yourself be swept away by the current and you will crumble apart and finally you will have returned back to the dust, so it goes. -
2019-04-25 at 10:54 PM UTC in Smoking vs vaping cannabisVaping is better but if you're a lazy stoner you're probably going to be smoking.
-
2019-04-25 at 12:08 PM UTC in Freeplay CM3That looks neat. Maybe you can get a shell 3d printed. What would you do with it?
-
2019-04-24 at 5:57 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Common De-mominator The standard by which that's determined in either case is not relative.
This entire time I've been saying that the goodness/badness or quickness/slowness of something is relative, but that there are objective values we can measure and use to "make a case", and obviously those objective values are not objectively good/bad/quick/slow. -
2019-04-24 at 5:36 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
For example with cock, if you don't want a cock in the ass then a cock in the ass is bad and vice versa
There's a word for that: relative. -
2019-04-24 at 4:40 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meatYou agree that somethings speed is not objectively quick or slow, you agree that quickness or slowness is relative. There may be some value which is objective (speed), but that value is neither objectively quick nor slow. By the same logic someone's goodness or badness is also relative, while there may be some value (?) which is objective, but that value is neither objectively good nor bad.
-
2019-04-24 at 4:11 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2019-04-24 at 2:16 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Common De-mominator How fast something is moving is relative to the frame of reference but it's a real value that is invariably and uniquely translatable to all reference frames. What is good is analogous to that: there is no such thing as absolute 5mph but there is a fact of the matter regarding the speed of an object that is perfectly translatable, and it's based on the axioms by which we define speed in the first place.
Someone's goodness or badness is relative to their frame of reference, but their real value is something objective and transferable to all frames of reference. Speed is analogous to this: what is quick or slow is relative, but there is a real and objective value we refer to as speed which is transferable to other frames of reference. However this objective speed is not objectively quick or slow, similarly the person's objective value is not objectively good or bad. -
2019-04-24 at 12:15 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meatWhat's good is relative as demonstrated in a variety of examples already. You already know morality is relative, as what's good for the buttpirate can be bad for the normie but there is nothing absolutely good or bad about whatever those two are considering to be good or bad. If you are not arguing that there is an absolute goodness then you're not disagreeing with me.
-
2019-04-24 at 1:48 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Common De-mominator I do know that's false
It literally isn't. But go ahead and change my mind, explain how what's good for the lion is also what's good for the gazelle.what is beneficial for the lion is not what's necessarily what is morally good.
"What's good" is relative, not absolute. If there is no lion to think something is good, that something isn't good or bad... it's just something.You quite literally based this entire retarded argument on asserting his point incorrectly and not understanding what would follow from it. I'm telling you exactly what happens when you actually apply it.
This argument started when I said "morality is relative" and you decided you had to change my mind. I have no idea what Harris' point is now, and I had no idea what Harris point was when I said morality is relative.
Morality is relative not absolute. There is no "absolute good" because that would make exactly as much sense as "absolute quick".
