User Controls
Posts by Obbe
-
2015-09-25 at 12:10 AM UTC in Morality and Law
why are we even discussing things if everything is deterministic?
Because that's how it is. You might as well be asking why does anything exist. Why is there gravity?
Maybe we don't need to ask what the reason for everything is. Maybe the only reason we look for reasons and purposes is because we just happened to evolve an ability to think that way and question things and talk about stuff with each other.Any counter-argument i could type would not be my doing, but the predestined end result of an infinite number of previous events and causes, so what's the point?
Who cares? What's the point of life? What's the point of these forums? Maybe it doesn't matter what the point is. Maybe it's all relative. Maybe if you can't think of a counter argument, you could consider the possibility that my argument is just better.Read a book on UPB No i will not summarize the points within the book.
Why did you even mention it then? I'm actually familiar with UPB and freedomainradio. I'm already of the opinion that UPB is bullshit. It's useless and not any better or different than our current system. Morality can never be anything other than subjective, and if there are universally preferable behaviors, they are meaningless because they don't change anything. Killers are still going to be killers. Laws are still going to be opinions with guns. So what were you even thinking when you suggest UPB as some sort of alternative? -
2015-09-24 at 7:31 PM UTC in Morality and Law
No. You see, morality is like a luxury only those who think rationally can afford. Its easy to say its easy to say theft is wrong when your belly is full. But can you imagine how difficult it is to dictate what is wrong when the bellies of the entire nation are going on empty? Mayhaps a threat to survival modifies the acceptance of how food is obtained traded and bought but to the moral man it mean that that way must be the right way. One cannot say "people are driven to commit crime, they dont decide to" when the decision to commit crime is unrelated to their hunger level. People actually driven to break moral bounds are those who are truly driven by the situation. Those who decide to commit crime indeed make the decision. Can you really say that that gang banger who shot a three year old because he missed a rival drug dealer with his tek-9 was driven into the situation? No, the situation is the logical conclusion of a larger product composed of all the decisions he previously made, therefore if he made different decisions the crime would have not occurred and a child would not have been killed.
Also "according to science" is not a legitimate viewpoint. According to science we can make determinations based on what we think we can interpret from tests and their results to fit them into a model of the phenomena. According to science is nothing more than faith rebranded and most likely misplaced.
A persons ability to think rationally can sometimes be affected by factors they cannot control. How can you suggest that people are not driven to commit crime without considering the forces that drive them? A theif might not be driven by hunger in his belly, but many are driven by a desire to be viewed as a tough thug nigga rather than a little bitch nigga. Man can do as he desires, but he cannot control his desires. Some people desire to be criminals. You're right, they do decide to commit crimes. But all the desicions any of us ever make are determined by processes out of our control, not my some magical "free will". Yes, the thug who missed his shot and killed the child was driven into that situation. The same way the forces of the universe turned basic matter into the planet that we live on and the evolution of the life that surrounds us. We are like dust blowing in the wind. According to science every decision you make is determined by forces beyond your control.
Sophie, I am still awaiting your explanation for how UPB is at all useful, and why it should be considered any different or better than the current system. -
2015-09-23 at 12:18 AM UTC in Morality and Law
If you really think predators(Animals) have the mental capacity for reason and morality then you're a silly nigga'. Also, UPB is useful in the same way morals are useful, you can't stop psychopaths from murdering people, does that mean we have to abandon morality or ethics for that matter entirely?
Many animals, especially predators, do have an ability to reason and will use it to hunt and assess various situations. The real problem is that they are driven to be predators by forces beyond their control, despite whatever UPB or morals. So are we.
You see, morality is like a luxury only those who have plenty can afford. It is easy to say theft is wrong when your belly is full. Much harder to say that when you are starving. Humans like to imagine that there is this magical thing called free will that separates them from other animals. But according to science, basically every process including mental processes are driven by forces beyond your control. People are driven to commit crime, they don't decide to.
Therefore, I see a subjective morality as being much more useful. I can punish someone for stealing from me, and avoid punishing myself for stealing from someone else if I needed to. So, again I ask, how is UPB useful? And how is it better or different than the current system? -
2015-09-22 at 7:32 PM UTC in Morality and Law
Of course there's universally preferable behavior. It doesn't mean however every one acts according to it. Consider the following.
A thief may want to steal your wallet but he doesn't want everyone to be a thief, because he'd lose his profits that way. Therefore everyone agrees that not stealing is the universally preferable behavior. If you take the universally preferable behaviors you can derive a universal standard of ethics.
How is that any different or better than the current system?
Also, consider this. All predetors consume other animals. But nobody wants to be eaten. According to your logic, not eating other animals is the universally preferred behavior. But you can't make a predator stop being a predator. So how is "universally preferred behavior" useful? -
2015-09-22 at 4:55 PM UTC in Morality and Law
Because ethics aren't subjective when based on the principle of universally preferable behavior.
I would have to agree more with mmQ on that.
Universally preferable behavior sounds something like God given morality. -
2015-09-22 at 4:12 PM UTC in Morality and Law
Laws are opinions with a gun, morality should not be relative i.e. subjective. Therefore a framework of ethics should be employed to derive morality from.
Why? How would that make your morality not relative? -
2015-09-19 at 10:18 PM UTC in Morality and LawDo laws that enforce moral beliefs serve any significant purpose in modern times? Please explain your opinion.
-
2015-09-19 at 9:56 PM UTC in Freedom or Security
Good, because leftists are generally terrible people. I make a grudging exception for Lanny.
Lanny remindes me of tthis:
-
2015-09-19 at 9:38 PM UTC in Freedom or Security
well, a lot of leftists tend to think that they know more than the average person, and it is a very leftist thing to have a username exhorting the reader to 'open their mind', as if you were absolutely sure that their minds were closed before, and assuming that you have either the authority to command them to open their minds, or that your mind is much more open than theirs, or other such leftist chicanery.
you can see where I may have been mistaken in my assumptions
I just thought it was hilarious when I picked it, for obvious reasons. It also reminds me to be more open minded.
But I don't think of myself as "leftist". -
2015-09-19 at 9:14 PM UTC in Freedom or Security
just a snap judgement I made from your username, and the post above referencing being paranoid about burglary
a lot of anti-gun people like to accuse gun owners of being overly paranoid, and I just thought I caught a whiff of that stench.
He claimed to be as free as he wants to be. I challenged that by suggesting he isn't as free as he wants to be because he worries about burglary.
How do you judge my username? -
2015-09-19 at 8:23 PM UTC in Freedom or Security
Let me take a wild guess here and say that 'open your mind' is extremely anti-gun
AActually I'm pro gun/2nd amendment. Why you assume that? -
2015-09-19 at 1:52 PM UTC in Ideas for homebrew wines?I've been drinking some homemade crabapple liquor. It's delicious.
-
2015-09-19 at 1:28 PM UTC in Freedom or Security
I'm as free as I want to be, your just scared to be free like me.
Now for security I have a shotgun and a home security system.
After my house got robbed a few years ago I went for the full monty,alarm,video,all networked into my phone.My job is just 1.3 miles down the street.I can be home in no time.
nobody is as free as they want to be.
WWouldn't you feel more free if you weren't paranoid about burglary? -
2015-09-18 at 10:36 PM UTC in Freedom or SecuritySome would say true freedom and security are just ideas, and while we try to convince ourselves otherwise, you can never actually be truly free or truly safe.
-
2015-09-18 at 4:48 PM UTC in New fonts
The spirit of Totse will live on; whether you acknowledge it or not is entirely irrelevant.
It lives on in the people who were a part of it and apply what they learned there to their lives.
It doesn't live on in this place though. Besides the theme. This place is not so much about information and knowledge as it is about circle jerking. -
2015-09-17 at 3:57 PM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?I watched Interstellar the other day. Pretty cool shot.
-
2015-09-17 at 3:18 PM UTC in This isnt how is was supposed to beThis is exactly how it is supposed to be. If it was supposed to be a different way it would have been different. But it isn't because this is the only way it could have ever been. You were always meant to be a dumb failure who ruined his life.
-
2015-09-17 at 3:20 AM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?Well apparently time is affected by black holes:
Gravitational time dilation is a form of time dilation, an actual difference of elapsed time between two events as measured byobservers situated at varying distances from a gravitating mass. The stronger thegravitational potential (the closer the clock is to the source of gravitation), the slower time passes.
This has been demonstrated by noting thatatomic clocks at differing altitudes (and thus different gravitational potential) will eventually show different times.
Are you saying time and light must have mass to be affected by black holes? Maybe not.
-
2015-09-16 at 11:52 PM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?
Bingo, that is the only thing which is real. All else is an illusion.
I don't think I can agree with you. First, I would have to ask you what does it mean to be real? What does it mean to exist?
What is an observer with nothing to observe? Do you believe an inside can exist without an outside?
I don't understand how I could possibly exist without some sort of universe or reality to exist in.
-
2015-09-16 at 11:26 PM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?
Yes, all that we know is dependent on consciousness or sentience.
Then, by "that logic", everything you know is subjective. It doesn't mean that nothing exists. At the very least your consciousness/sentience exists.
