User Controls
Posts by Obbe
-
2018-03-29 at 11:27 AM UTC in The Retardest Thread: Fashionably Late Edition.
-
2018-03-29 at 2 AM UTC in The Retardest Thread: Fashionably Late Edition.
-
2018-03-28 at 10:50 PM UTC in The Retardest Thread: Fashionably Late Edition.
-
2018-03-28 at 10:24 PM UTC in The Retardest Thread: Fashionably Late Edition.
-
2018-03-28 at 11:26 AM UTC in The Retardest Thread: Fashionably Late Edition.
-
2018-03-27 at 10:15 PM UTC in living in a fake thingI don't know.
-
2018-03-27 at 10:10 PM UTC in living in a fake thingTrue wisdom is invaluable.
-
2018-03-27 at 9:54 PM UTC in living in a fake thingDid I say I was real?
-
2018-03-27 at 9:49 PM UTC in living in a fake thingYou're a fake shaman.
-
2018-03-27 at 9:12 PM UTC in living in a fake thing
-
2018-03-27 at 4:48 PM UTC in living in a fake thingLast time I tried tell you this I'm pretty sure you called me stupid. You fake ass motherfucker.
-
2018-03-26 at 6:20 PM UTC in How to efficiently overthrow government?Read the Unabombers manifesto:
INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY AND ITS FUTURE
Introduction
1. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in “advanced” countries.
2. The industrial-technological system may survive or it may break down. If it survives, it MAY eventually achieve a low level of physical and psychological suffering, but only after passing through a long and very painful period of adjustment and only at the cost of permanently reducing human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine. Furthermore, if the system survives, the consequences will be inevitable: There is no way of reforming or modifying the system so as to prevent it from depriving people of dignity and autonomy.
3. If the system breaks down the consequences will still be very painful. But the bigger the system grows the more disastrous the results of its breakdown will be, so if it is to break down it had best break down sooner rather than later.
4. We therefore advocate a revolution against the industrial system. This revolution may or may not make use of violence; it may be sudden or it may be a relatively gradual process spanning a few decades. We can’t predict any of that. But we do outline in a very general way the measures that those who hate the industrial system should take in order to prepare the way for a revolution against that form of society. This is not to be a POLITICAL revolution. Its object will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis of the present society.
5. In this article we give attention to only some of the negative developments that have grown out of the industrial-technological system. Other such developments we mention only briefly or ignore altogether. This does not mean that we regard these other developments as unimportant. For practical reasons we have to confine our discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention or in which we have something new to say. For example, since there are well-developed environmental and wilderness movements, we have written very little about environmental degradation or the destruction of wild nature, even though we consider these to be highly important. -
2018-03-26 at 3:36 PM UTC in Calming down.You don't have to sit in the lotus position to learn how to quiet your mind.
-
2018-03-26 at 11:56 AM UTC in So long, Captain Faggot! Shouldn't have fucked with me! :)Could you post your chat logs with the PI removed?
-
2018-03-26 at 11:52 AM UTC in Would You Subjugate to Islamic Law?
-
2018-03-23 at 10:46 PM UTC in Caloric deficit, always cold, what can I do?Wear a snug undershirt and long johns with a looser long sleeved shirt and pants over them.
-
2018-03-23 at 10:13 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Zanick Erm, I wish I'd waited a minute before hitting "submit" now. As I said in the above post, ants demonstrate self-preservation and they have a social hierarchy, both of which are pretty good indicators that they care about their own lives and their communities. I can't personally verify whether they feel pain, but I don't really need to in order to decide that they probably don't want to be killed, and as I've stated, an animal's interest in its own life is one reasonable way to assign moral agency.
It could be argued that plants also have an interest in their own continued existence, or that creatures like ants are thoughtless automatons who don't have any interests at all and simply driven by their own biological processes. Either way I don't really think it matters, what we consider to be a "moral act" or which organisms to have "moral agency" appears to be relative.
Originally posted by Zanick If you inferred from his argument from ecology the position that we should reduce the human population and preserve animal agriculture as-is, I don't think I can provide anything to convince you of my own.
I don't like the way animals are treated in industrial farms and I do think that should change. I don't think there is anything wrong with eating meat, and I do think there are too many humans on this planet. If there is nothing you can provide to convince me that I have a moral obligation to stop eating meat I conclude that no such obligation exists and that morality is relative. -
2018-03-23 at 7:10 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Zanick Plants aren't trying to defend themselves from caterpillars, as far as I know. Is there a more precise way of articulating that which would tell me about the plant and the mechanism to which you're referring?
I don't think grass screams for help, because it has no conception of the fact that asking other blades to help it would be futile. Intelligent organisms usually don't develop useless methods of communication.
The only drive plants appear to have is to use natural resources in the production of energy so that they can reproduce. I don't recognize them as moral agents because the facts tell me that they aren't in pain, nor do they care whether I eat them.
Couldn't you say that about ants too? Why are they moral agents?
Originally posted by Zanick As for morality, I thought you accepted Jeremus' argument for ecology? That's a reasonable avenue to animal rights, so long as the activists remain pragmatic. I don't see how my forcing you to empathize with creatures you don't already care for would improve this position.
Well I stated that I think it's the best argument put forth thus far but it hasn't convinced me that eating meat is wrong or that I have any moral obligation to do anything. As I said to Falcon, imo the problem isn't eating meat it's that there are too many humans. -
2018-03-23 at 6:23 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-03-23 at 6:18 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by 杀死所有的白魔鬼 Plants don't experience agony according to everything we know. No reason to believe they do beyond conjecture
Sure and I don't even care if Zanick wants to not talk about plants. That would be fine. But he even said that most scientists don't think ants feel pain, so why does he choose to define them as moral agents but not plants? Probably because he just wants to, because his morals are subjective and relative, and therefore none of us have a moral obligation to not eat meat.
