User Controls
Posts by Obbe
-
2018-06-15 at 10:16 PM UTC in How about "other perspectives"?
-
2018-06-15 at 10:12 PM UTC in Later
-
2018-06-15 at 3:43 PM UTC in Mandatory IQ testing for all members
-
2018-06-15 at 12:49 PM UTC in The Retarded Thread: Sploo Needs Attention
-
2018-06-15 at 3:02 AM UTC in Mandatory IQ testing for all membersI did the first one. Got 127.
-
2018-06-13 at 6:16 PM UTC in The Retarded Thread: Sploo Needs Attention
Originally posted by Malice I had a somewhat amusing, although it can also be seen as depressing, dream last night after taking a double dose of ashwagandha, which seems to cause a significant testosterone boost. I was at some place and these 3 college age girls were showing very overt interest in me, which was massively turning me on. I had a huge erection I was unable to hide and there was this feeling which I can't remember the last time I've felt IRL, of actually wanting to have sex with someone in your vicinity and anticipating it. Then I actually started talking, including about my past, and they immediately lost all interest due to how obviously autistic and fucked up I am.
Other than the latter part it was enjoyable, experiencing what it's like to feel that way. I can understand why normal people are so influenced by sex, the effect it has on them.
Next time keep your mouth shut. -
2018-06-13 at 2:37 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Kinks Plants react to physical harm as well
Plants are intelligent:
Originally posted by Obbe The word intelligence derives from the Latin intelegere; to choose between. In situations of choice if the decision made after assessment is beneficial, it is considered to be an intelligent decision. Legg and Hutter (2007) collected some 70 different definitions of intelligence and summarized them as follows. Intelligence: (i) Is a property that an individual has as it interacts with its environment or environments. (ii) Is related to the agents ability to succeed or profit with respect to some goal or objective. (iii) Depends on how able the agent is to adapt to different objectives or environments.
In the same numerical order. (i) Wild plants interact with and respond to their environment via competitive and other biotic and abiotic signals. (ii) The goal or objective is fitness with seed number as a fitness proxy. Those most successful, and thus most fit, provide more offspring. (iii) Fitness depends on the skill with which individuals best adapt to their environment throughout their life cycle (McNamara and Houston, 1996). Those individual plants that can master and adapt to the problems of competition, master other biotic and abiotic stresses with greater plasticity, lower cost, higher probability, or more rapidly, are fitter and on this basis are more intelligent. Finally intelligence is a capacity for problem solving, (the psychologists choice) and profiting from experience another (Jennings, 1923; Gardner, 1983; Sternberg and Detterman, 1986; Sternberg, 1986). All effectively say the same thing.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4845027/
But we still need to eat. -
2018-06-12 at 11:10 PM UTC in Full Spectrum Crouton Blend
Originally posted by RisiR † Ohh, it's dope. Some people compare it to Oxy because it has something stimulating to it but I'd give it's own place.
It has all the Opiod characteristics, though. Not as much Euphoria in my experience, though. It's a fucking great painkiller. Makes you warm and cozy. Everything isn't that bad kinda feeling.
It can really brighten your day if the set isn't completely fucked.
Cool. Can your grow it? Do you buy it online or in a shop? -
2018-06-12 at 10:31 PM UTC in Full Spectrum Crouton Blend
-
2018-06-12 at 10:10 PM UTC in Full Spectrum Crouton BlendWhat's it like?
-
2018-06-12 at 9:52 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Captain Who said anything about proving anything? This is a circular argument.
Lets imagine there is a button labeled "X". Pressing this button will lead to the obliteration of all life on earth in 1 week. Should pressing X be illegal?
Exactly, you cannot prove an argument to be true by basing it in morality. Which is why zanick should have picked something other than morality to base his argument on.
I don't know if pressing the button should be illegal, I suppose it depends on what you want to achieve. If the goal is to survive as long as possible, ending all life on earth should probably be against the law. The button should probably also be destroyed. -
2018-06-12 at 8:09 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Captain Ok, can you explain ur moral system
That's like a cow asking a human to explain his moral system. It's beyond your capacity. I should know, seeing as I am a morally superior being compared to you.
That's why we shouldn't use morality as a basis for an argument. Mortality is not objective. You cannot prove an argument built on sand. There are better, more convincing ways Zanick could have made his argument. Instead of claiming that meat eating is immoral, he could have tried something we can actually measure like the sustainability of the current industry or the impact it has on our health, etc. -
2018-06-12 at 2:07 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Captain ^ Illiteracy
I'm not positing the existence of an objectively morally superior being, nor do I need to: someone who operates within the bounds of my moral system but with less inconsistencies and deviations from it's conclusions would be morally superior to me. They don't even need to buy into my morality. They might even propose their own moral system, which generates conclusions I am more comfortable with, and which are more consistent, in which case if I don't have the capacity to get it or the might to resist it, they could probably judge me as being morally equivalent in their eyes, to a cow in my eyes.
Also, what are these better things to use?
The reason you don't get what I am saying is because I'm just morally superior to you. A better thing to use would be something objective and measurable. For example, we shouldn't put people in jail because we believe they are "bad" and want to punish them. We should put people in jail when they demonstrate that they harm society in an objective way and our best option at the time is to separate them from the general population. -
2018-06-12 at 12:37 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Captain Would saying "no" matter when it's obvious that you cannot read? Why am I even bothering to post this? What does this have to do with anything I've said?
You would say no because how would you know my morals are superior? It would be impossible. Morality isn't objective, there is no such thing as a "morally superior" being. Therefore we shouldn't use morality as the basis for any argument when there are better, real, measurable things we could use instead. -
2018-06-12 at 12:03 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Captain I have no cure for your illiteracy.
"Better" is a normative statement. What part of this are you not understanding? You are simply proposing an alternative moral criteria.
Literally already answered this. I have no cure for your illiteracy.
Literally already addressed this in full. I have no cure for your illiteracy.
Morality is personal and relative and therefore shouldn't be used to make objective statements about the world
It isn't, you retard. I have already addressed this. The point of morality is specifically to make non-objective ought statements. All moral claims are normative claims. This isn't a barrier to the usefulness or validity of morality.
"Best" is a normative idea. What you are proposing is an alternative criteria for what is better or worse behaviour, AKA an alternative moral system.
Ok, say action X from the meat industry will raise the global CO2 levels annually by 5 parts per million but will lower the cost of meat production by 0.05% globally relative to the growth of surrounding industries.
Should action X be legal?
If I told you I was a morally superior being and you should simply accept what I am telling you because it is better for you, would you accept that? -
2018-06-12 at 11:40 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Captain 1. You've completely and utterly missed the meaning of "philosophical ought."
2. Nothing about this statement establishes your premises or how they are used to arrive at your conclusions. Why is morality irrelevant because it is not objective? Seems like a nonsequitur to me. What is it "irrelevant" to? What is this nebulous point you are trying to get at that morality doesn't address?
3. Your opinion is self contradictory and internally inconsistent. You are making a moral argument for why morality is useless. I will demonstrate this in the course of this discussion. Bonus points if you can point out the moral statement in the above quote.
What would determine whether or not banana theft would be illegal?
That in itself is a moral framework. If your moral framework is that you have no moral framework and do whatever you want, that is a moral framework.
Whatever basis you ought or ought not do something on is essentially your morality.
Why are those important? An organism might begin to live with more or less of a resemblance to "healthy", however you define it. You are making a moral judgement one a trend towards either of those two modalities.
The frustrating thing about discussing philosophy with you is, you don't even properly understand the basic terms you are using, how to lay out your premises and draw a conclusion, and so on.
I've never met someone so wilfully ignorant of a subject they claim to have an interest in since Malice found "psychology".
Morality is irrelevant to any scenario you would naturally want to start making moral judgements about because there are better, real systems that exist in the objective world we could use instead.
Do you believe you have any obligation to adopt Zanick's moral framework? Why do you pick and choose what is and is not moral to you? Morality is personal and relative, and therefore shouldn't be used to make objective statements about the world or to determine what is best for everyone as a group.
I believe things that have a measurable effect on the real world like the need or sustainability of the current industry are more important than imaginary things like how moral that industry may be. -
2018-06-11 at 7:29 PM UTC in Fallout 4 with survival mods [tldr]Do you still do missions §m£ÂgØL or do you just wander?
-
2018-06-11 at 5:35 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Captain The basic difference between philosophy and science is (like I said), that science is a study of what "is" and philosophy is a study of "what ought to be". You enhancement the facts of science through the interpretation of philosophy. If you cannot recognize this distinctiom, you do not recognize the entire field of philosophy.
Morality not being objective doesn't mean you cannot hold anyone morally responsible.
Unless you want to invoke Divine Command or some kind of metaphysical moral truth that has the same truth value as a scientific fact, the essential nature of morality is just consistency: how can you say you are allowed to do X, but someone else isn't?
Let's say you swipe a banana from a classmate. Imagine your justification is "there is no right and wrong, I wanted the banana and I swiped it". In saying so, you either need to tell me why that only works for you (so someone else stronger than you cannot steal the banana), or admit that it works for everyone, and just accept that it wouldn't be wrong if someone stronger than you swiped it. There is no greater objective truth to banana ownership, it is by design a subjective assessment of the what freedoms you are willing to forfeit the right to exercise, in exchange for safety from having them exercised on you.
In my moral system for example, I don't have a defence for why an advanced, morally superior alien race couldn't just farm the human race like we farm cows. I can accept that based on the pragmatic reality that that's probably not going to happen.
Whether or not your actions are predetermined doesn't really factor into it either; you can process "ought" from "is" while being a complete automaton based on any initial moral framework, as long as you commit to it's conclusions. If not, you are immoral according to that framework. The framework doesn't need to be objectively true, it just needs to be consistent, generalisable and generate conclusions you are comfortable with.
Morality is irrelevant and unnecessary, people "ought not" be held morally responsible for their actions because morality is not objective and there are better things than morality we can use to determine what is the best course of action in any scenario where morality could be used. To use your example I would say it doesn't matter if banana theft is considered moral or immoral, what is important is whether or not banana theft should be illegal and if it is illegal what the consequences should be.
As I was saying to zanick, nobody really has any obligation to adopt some moral framework. A better way to begin his argument would be to use something else besides morality, something objective like the consequences of the meat industry on our health and ecosystem. -
2018-06-11 at 12:01 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Captain It's not an argument, I'm not going to object to a basic fact.
If morality is not an objective reality why argue over what is and isn't moral? If people cannot be held morally responsible shouldn't the concept of morality be abandoned and replaced with something that actually makes a difference? -
2018-06-11 at 12:56 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
