User Controls
Posts by Obbe
-
2018-12-23 at 6:10 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Lanny On the contrary, our ideas about what is right and wrong… model what is right and wrong
If that were true our ideas about morality would be modelling the reality of morality more accurately as time goes on, like our scientific theories do with the world. But they don't accurately model anything because "right and wrong" don't exist anywhere outside of our imaginations. Whatever moral differences exist between two different people is something that doesn't even matter because the system will do whatever is best for it regardless of their preferences.
Originally posted by Loing Oh cool, a positive claim. Either give a positive argument for total moral anti realism or neck yourself.
No, there is what people do, what people think they should do, and there is a fact to what they should actually do, given that they desire a certain outcome.
If you have a pizza route with a certain number of clients and you "want" to deliver pizzas as efficiently as possible to make the most money, the pizza boy's opinion of the fastest route is completely irrelevant to the factual fastest route.
That is irrespective of whether the enterprise of pizza delivery should necessarily involvemaking the most efficient deliveries or most money as a universal moral imperative.
What is "the system"?
People aren't delivering pizzas because "they should", people deliver pizzas because they want to or because they are compelled to by the system. -
2018-12-23 at 6:27 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Lanny Then you've misunderstood what is meant by terms like "moral obligation".
Aristotle didn't share our framework of physics and didn't share our conclusions about physical systems. That doesn't mean Aristotelian physics is just as valid modern standard model physics.
That's because the world is the way it is, and so as time goes on and we study the world more our scientific theories will model it ever more accurately. But our feelings about what is right and wrong are not modelling anything. Different moral systems are not really comparable. Predator and prey, for example, will always have different interests and will therefore always have different ideas about what is good and what is bad and will therefore always view their own perspective as the better perspective. Whatever moral differences exist between two different people is something that doesn't even matter because the system will do whatever is best for it regardless of their preferences. -
2018-12-23 at 5:40 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Loing And whether people do what they feel like doing is completely irrelevant to whether they are doing what they should be doing, irrespective of their belief in it. That is what is being asserted. I can't believe you are so fucking retarded that this has to be explained this many times.
Everything from this point onwards in this post is strictly irrelevant, but I'm arguing it anyway because you're dumb:
Well no, that's just blatantly false. People make normative judgments completely independent of "the system maaan". Let me press your hand to a hot stove and hold it there while telling you your subjective judgment on the experience is irrelevant.
Jimmy, answer the following question:
How many vertices does a triangle have?
Yes duh, are you stupid? For any moral discussion to reach a conclusion, it will ultimately rely on us coming to terms on certain moral premises to start with.
This is why we can have practical moral discussions, as we do in many current events and political cases cases, because we can start from points of moral agreement (including articles of international law), without agreeing in ultimate moral truths or even our most basic axioms or systems.
So if I offer a trolley problem like postwar Hitler who was captured and given a full judicial trial and found guilty and admitted his own guilt vs 5000 newborn babies, most people will realistically opt to kill Hitler. Why? Because whether or not we all agree on the same ultimate moral authorities, we can still conduct moral discussions and come to moral agreements. We do this all the time. A Muslim and a Christian can both agree that murder is wrong.
Again, I cannot believe I am having this autistic never-took-a-phil-class discussion with someone who claims to have been interested in philosophy for so many years.
You're assuming there is something people should be doing. There isn't. There is only what people do, what people think they should do, and what the system compels people to do.
Originally posted by Lanny That's not common usage, that's not what you'll find in the dictionary, and that's not how the term has been used in this thread. You are wrong on every level it is possible to be wrong about the meaning of a word.
I made no effort to explain that because I don't think that's the case and never said it was, you mentally deficient cunt.
When a physicist says "an electron has less mass than a proton" they are, in some sense, saying "I think that <an electron has less mass than a proto>" and in that same sense when I say things about moral obligations I'm also expressing my opinions, but whether my opinions are correct or not, there is a fact to the matter. I'm sorry that you've been offended by the ever so pretentious claim that there are true and false statements about the world but uhh, that's kinda not my problem?
Opinions about morality cannot be true, only consistent with the moral framework they emerge from. If I don't share your moral framework I won't share your moral conclusions. The mass of that proton on the other hand is something that is consistently demonstrateable whether I acknowledge it or not. If I feel something is right or wrong, and you feel the opposite, that doesn't tell us anything about reality, that only tells us about how each of us feel about something. -
2018-12-22 at 7:16 PM UTC in In the Bible, what is "God"
-
2018-12-22 at 4:05 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING III: The Quest for 911 Truth That's unclear - what does should mean?
You should brush your teeth. It benefits you.
How can anyone say I should do something that doesn't benefit me?
We goyim are getting real fucking tired of being told what we "should" do.
The system will compel you to feel that you should do whatever the system needs you to be doing. Whether that is consuming more of this or less of that, building these or destroying those, it's all based on what the system needs and whatever individuals think is right or wrong is irrelevant unless the system starts to use them as little propaganda machines.
Brushing your teeth is good for your health but is it morally right? Does that question even matter? Does it even make sense? Guess it depends on how you feel about the things that live on your teeth. -
2018-12-22 at 3:47 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Lanny I do believe that, but the point there, and that I've made to obbe several times in this thread and which we still seem to be talking past each other on is about what is meant when I or OP or most people in this thread mean when they say "moral obligation".
When you say "We have a moral obligation" you mean "I think we should do this," but in a really pretentious and entitled way. -
2018-12-22 at 3:41 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Loing You are more guilty of conflating the two than anyone else in the thread.
What you think is completely irrelevant to the moral reality of meat consumption. Whether or not people are too stupid to make the right moral decision is an irrelevant response. Maybe you are having troubles with athletic abilities?
Do you have a moral obligation to not kill children and burn their corpses over rubber tires in your backyard?
You are literally babbling, completely incapable of addressing any point with a relevant answer, and possibly borderline brain damaged. Nothing stated here is relevant whatsoever to the question of moral obligation .
What you think about "moral reality" is completely irrelevant to reality. People are going to do whatever they feel like doing. The system will pressure people into feeling that somethings are right and some things are wrong based on what is best for it. There is no "right" decision, only responses based on what people feel is right or wrong. People who make different choices than you have a different moral code. Imagine you see a runaway trolleymoving toward five tied-up people lying on the tracks. You are standing next to a lever that controls a switch. If you pull the lever, the trolley will be redirected onto a side track and the five people on the main track will be saved. However, there is a single person lying on the side track. You have two options: Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track. Or pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.
Which is the moral choice depends entirely on how you feel about the outcome it will lead to. There is no "moral reality" there is only how you feel about your decision and how the system will respond to your decision. -
2018-12-22 at 3:38 AM UTC in Where do we go when we die?What even is "you"? Are you your body? No, you can lose parts of your body and still be you. Theoretically we could replace all your parts with synthetic versions and you would still be you. Are you your thoughts and personality? People can suffer brain injuries or even naturally develop mental conditions and changes in personality and thought process? All these things are a part of a pattern which your identify with, but how much of that gestalt is permanent or unchanging? If there is something fundamental that everything is made of, some energy or particle or vibration, well, that's what your really are, that's where you came from and that's where you will go. Like sand on a beach, and the "you" you identify with, your ego, that's more like a pattern that formed on the sand. The pattern grows and changes and disappears but the sand remains and the patterns keep coming.
-
2018-12-21 at 11:56 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-12-21 at 11:22 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Lanny Then you misunderstand what is meant by "moral obligation" in the title of the thread.
I don't think I did, it really is just personal preference. Maybe you misunderstand what moral obligations really are?
Originally posted by Loing Okay, and I'm presuming you wouldn't think it's acceptable for people to kill or destroy other people's homes for recreation.
We put overwhelmingly more calories into the generation of meat than necessary for the production of vegetables, and vegetables are cheaper and easier to produce. Cattle accounts for over 90% of the world's carbon emissions. We could have complete and total food abundance by simply switching to vegan diets and totally eliminate most of global climate change overnight.
We are literally destroying homes, right now, by eating meat. Rising sea levels are literally forcing Sri Lankan people to leave their homes from their beautiful island and come to the mainland, which is receding too.
Yes, you have a moral obligation to stop eating meat.
As a bonus, we don't need to operate pain mills, where we just generate suffering and pain and fear in innocent animals, born sinless but destined for a life of pain and a brutal end. Never to roam a real field and graze real grass, fed corn and raised in a pen with two inches of leg room since it comes stumbling out it's calf, born ambling and ironically optimistic for the great world it has just arrived in. What a sad, sudden break with reality he will meat. We can end that.
I think people are going to eat each other, kill each other and destroy each other regardless of whether or not you or I think it is right or wrong or what our preferences are. The system makes these things illegal because these things are bad for the system, disrupt cohesion. Whether you or I believe these behaviors are right or wrong is irrelevant to what the system does.
A solution to all of that impending doom you mentioned is something the system is going to be seeking if it doesn't want to collapse. Nobody has any real obligation to do anything at all, though some people feel like they do. The system will utilize propaganda to compel you to feel a certain way, the system will attempt to influence your beliefs but that's all they are. Beliefs, feelings, opinions and preferences. You really can do whatever you want to do, but try to destroy the system you face the consequences. Everyone is doing what matters to them, and the system is doing what matters to it. Maybe everything will collapse and turn back into dust one day. -
2018-12-21 at 10 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Loing Do you think cannibals should be allowed to kill and eat members of our society because it is their dietary preference?
No, I don't.
Originally posted by Lanny No one ever said you did, the claim has been that the moral obligation is not to eat meat. This has nothing to do with opinions or preferences.
I think morals are just opinions or preferences. A vegetarian might feel morally obligated to not eat meat, but someone who eats meat does not. -
2018-12-21 at 11:51 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meatNobody has a moral obligation to adopt someone else's dietary opinions or preferences.
-
2018-12-21 at 2:27 AM UTC in Do u feel better about raping a manipulative, cold-hearted bitch...
-
2018-12-21 at 2:25 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-12-18 at 11:45 PM UTC in Do u feel better about raping a manipulative, cold-hearted bitch...
-
2018-12-18 at 12:17 AM UTC in Santa Claus should be gender neutral
Originally posted by GGG Women need a strong female role model.
If that's true (why do women need a strong female role model?), why do you suggest a gender neutral role model instead of a strong female one?
Also, why would you take away a male role model from boys? Do they not need role models?
Originally posted by GGG Santa is a dude.
Santa is imaginary.
Originally posted by GGG Little girls have NOBODY to look up to during the holidays.
Why not Santa? -
2018-12-17 at 4:12 PM UTC in Modern video games are nothing but a scamI feel the same way. My irl gamer friends I've known since childhood have all already bought Fallout 76 and Red Dead 2 and while I do want to play these games I don't at the same time and haven't had the motivation to actually buy them. They market their games in such a way that you end up chasing the dream, trying to play that perfect game the way you wish it was when in reality they just sell you overpriced garbage. I'll probably get red dead after Christmas but I doubt I'll play the online part very much. Lately I've been more focused of portable retro game consoles like the Odroid Go. I've been working on another one, planning on making another thread for it when I have the time. This one has ScummVM on it, so I can play Space Quest IV at work.
Although that thief simulator game is looking good. -
2018-12-16 at 10:58 PM UTC in The meaning of life is to give life meaning.Tiger got to hunt.
Bird got to fly.
Man got to sit and wonder why, why, why?
Tiger got to rest.
Bird got to land.
Man got to tell himself he understand. -
2018-12-13 at 12:42 PM UTC in What keeps YOU from getting on that bus?
-
2018-12-13 at 12:01 PM UTC in What keeps YOU from getting on that bus?
