User Controls
Posts by Obbe
-
2015-10-12 at 7:24 AM UTC in Can there be nothing/non-existence alongside existence?If nothing existed right now you couldn't ask yourself that question and this little exchange could not have happened.
-
2015-10-01 at 7:19 PM UTC in Morality and LawSophie, even though you're probably ignoring this thread and won't read this, imagine how this thread looked to everyone else.
Imagine if I posted the OP and someone replied saying that laws should be based on the bible. Imagine I asked them to explain their position and they just posted a link to the bible. Imagine I called the bible bullshit, and this person asked me to explain how the bible is bullshit.
That's exactly what you did in this thread. LOL -
2015-09-29 at 3:39 PM UTC in Morality and LawHas Sophie had a chance to "adjust" his position yet? Ready to explain how basing laws on UPB would be better or different than the current system?
-
2015-09-27 at 5 PM UTC in The Universe and You
.
-
2015-09-27 at 2:45 PM UTC in What sort of mental retardation causes white people to think they're black?
-
2015-09-26 at 11:18 PM UTC in The Universe and You
Not only are we in the universe, the universe is in us. I don't know of any deeper spiritual feeling than what that brings upon me.
- Neil deGrasse Tyson -
2015-09-26 at 10:48 PM UTC in Morality and Law
Thread summary:
I asked the forum if laws that enforce moral beliefs serve any significant purpose in modern times.
Sophie claims we should base laws on universally preferable behavior (UPB).
I ask Sophie to explain how that would be any better or different than the current system.
Sophie refuses to explain his position, instead posts a link to the UPB pdf.
I call UPB bullshit.
Sophie the UPB fanboy thinks I have an obligation to explain why it's bullshit.
I refuse to explain why it's bullshit until Sophie explains his own position.
Another member posts an article about why UPB is bullshit.
I cave and also post an article on why UPB is bullshit.
Sophie abandons thread.
LOL
-
2015-09-26 at 5:05 AM UTC in Morality and LawSophie and littlenigglet are just members of the Stefan Molyneux fan club. Most people who aren't in the fan club don't buy into the bullshit.
Here's an article explaining why that is: http://www.fdrliberated.com/stefan-m...-story-part-1/Stefan Molyneux wrote a book. It was supposed to be his crowning achievement, THE definitive answer to “what is moral behavior?†The world’s first top-to-bottom system of philosophy, something philosophers have been unable to even attempt for the last 6,000 years. More important, it was suppose to establish Molyneux in the pantheon of thinkers he had studied in college. A position he might have established years earlier, if academia had not blindly rejected him. But all didn’t go according to plan. In fact, of all Molyneux enterprises, it might be said that UPB has had the*least*impact. Today, with his followers typically*unable to explain what UPB*is*(lol like Sophie earlier in this thread) even Molyneux is not able to respond in writing to inquiries on the subject. Recently, when someone asked for clarification on his forum, he gave the curt reply, “I have never seen a UPB discussion work out well on a Board, the concepts are too slippery for this format, and everyone always just ends up frustrated. I invite the OP to call into the Sunday show, 4pm EST, to ask these questions directly…†So what happened? How did the book that was intended to be the most clarifying writing on ethics in thousands of years become the book Molyneux himself can no longer write about with any clarity? This is the story.
-
2015-09-25 at 9:49 PM UTC in Morality and LawTS;DR
-
2015-09-25 at 7:23 PM UTC in Morality and Law
No faggot. Burden of proof is on you. Soph gave his reasons and posted more worthwhile philosophy in this thread than I have ever seen come from you. So how about you stop being such a little bitch and stop your bullshit about how "you have no obligation to make an actual argument against UPB" because you dont even know what UPB is. You refuse to look into the matter and because of that you have no idea what the theory actually consists of. So if you want to have a serious conversation its time for you to Open Your Mind and have an actual conversation that doesnt consist of "lol I belif dertermined. Lol moral relativism. Lol I have no obligation to study what I consider bullshit even though I dont understand it. Lol criminals dont make the decision to commit crime because there are factors out of their control in life".
People like you are what is destroying the cultivation of philosophical conversation because you dont know how to actually think philosophically. You only know how to support your current viewpoint.
You're the gayest little nigger faggot I've seen on these forums so far. Sophies "reasons" were nothing substantial, just his claim that UPB is better than the current system and his refusal to explain why he believes that. I have looked into UPB, and it is useless. If you don't agree with that then explain your position. If you don't want to do that why are you here? Get back to talking about how horrible your life turned out and how drunk you were last night. -
2015-09-25 at 3:51 PM UTC in Morality and Law
Strong language for a calm person bro.
Except you haven't provided an argument against UPB just: Something something moral relativism, personal opinions, something something doesn't work so it's meaningless. Furthermore if you call a rational proof , which is logically consistent bullshit. Well, then i don't know what to say. Open Your Mind bro <3
Strong language or not, you believing that Stefans bullshit is somehow better than the current system doesn't make me angry.
I have no obligation to make an actual arguement against UPB, seeing as you still haven't given us your position. You have refused to explain how UPB is better or different than the current system. You have refused to explain how it is useful. Therefore, I can only assume that you don't have an explanation. I am already familiar with UBP and it's simply useless bullshit. You've even admitted that it doesn't change anything, so it doesn't make sense why you would suggest that it is better than the current system in the first place. Unless you can explain why I'm wrong, you haven't given us any reason to take your position seriously.
Open your mind Sophie - Stefan is just talking bullshit. -
2015-09-25 at 2:49 PM UTC in Morality and Law
Lol you mad bro?
Why would I be? If anything, you should be mad that you swallowed Stefans UPB bullshit. -
2015-09-25 at 12:49 PM UTC in Morality and Law
WTF IS UPB?
It's bullshit created by a bullshiter to trick people like sophie into thinking it's something revolutionary. His entire argument  for why it is better or different than our current system is that it doesn't rely on force, which is retarded because it must.  If someone was out there killing people,  you would still throw him in jail.  Telling him his behavior isn't universally preferred isn't going to stop him.  It's useless bullshit. -
2015-09-25 at 1:35 AM UTC in leaked GUIDES sold on the deep web for sale CHEAPIt's a robot.
-
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?
