User Controls
Thanked Posts by Obbe
-
2018-10-23 at 10:54 AM UTC in How do I claw my way our of the epistemological void I find myself in?A man traveling across a field encountered a tiger. He fled, the tiger after him. Coming to a precipice, he caught hold of the root of a wild vine and swung himself down over the edge. The tiger sniffed at him from above. Trembling, the man looked down to where, far below, another tiger was waiting to eat him. Only the vine sustained him.
Two mice, one white and one black, little by little started to gnaw away the vine. The man saw a luscious strawberry near him. Grasping the vine with one hand, he plucked the strawberry with the other. How sweet it tasted!The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-10-11 at 9:05 PM UTC in The Retarded Thread: Sploo Needs Attention
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-10-04 at 6:32 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by AL-LADdin That's what I'm saying: you fit into the system anyhow.
Who said anything about truth? Stop moving the goalposts. Religious beliefs are real. Just like money.
No such thing
See above. What you believe morally, or truth, are irrelevant for there to be a way you ought to behave. There is only self interest. If you don't want to go to forfeit your right to life for example, you don't murder. It doesn't have to be any more complicated than basic self interest.
Again, you are retarded: what do you think something's "real" value is? If you ask for a million dollars for it and someone pays it, do you think it's not "really" worth $1m? Or is it not "really" valuable because dollars are an illusion?
In which case, are you prepared to give all your money away. I mean, it's an illusion right?
Following your logic, there must be an infinite amount of "systems" we all fit into, like the ooogawooga system. That might not mean anything at all to you, but according to your logic it must exist because someone somewhere imagines it exists.
I haven't moved any goal posts you idiot. I've been talking about truth this entire time. I never claimed moral beliefs don't exist... only that they are imaginary, exactly like religious beliefs. Throughout this entire thread I have been consistent on my claim that a person's morality is their sense of what is right and what is wrong... but what they feel is right or wrong is not objective, it's imagined.
A Christian person has Christian morality. A psychopath has psychopathic morality. Whatever a person believes is right or wrong is their opinion or belief or imagination, not objective, not a truth.
Of course every goal has a way of being achieved that is better or more efficient or whatever than other ways. Of you want to win a race it's probably better to train than to sit around and watch TV. But there are no objective goals. There is nothing we should be doing. There is no way things are supposed to be, there is only how things are and how thing are not.
Value is subjective, like right or wrong. There is no "real" value, just like there is no "real" right or wrong.
Of course I wouldnt give all my money away, just like I wouldn't do things I consider to be wrong. That doesn't mean I believe the things I consider to be wrong are inherently or objectively wrong.
Why are you even arguing with me? Do you actually disagree with anything I am saying?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-10-03 at 9:10 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meatThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-10-03 at 8:54 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by AL-LADdin The problem is everyone else has agreed they will give up murder for the right to not be murdered, and now they have a person who does not respect that agreement in their society, and has breached it. So you don't get that protection: they can do whatever they want to you, because everything up to murdering you is less restrictive of your rights.
Nobody actually agreed to anything, and even if there were to do so they are not actually protected from any harm at all. People can do whatever they want to you, because morals and laws and "social contracts" are completely imaginary.
Originally posted by AL-LADdin Like I said, I don't consider animals to be worthy of full moral consideration under my system: they don't give a fuck about the social contract, they will kill and eat you regardless of your moral position as a matter of convenience.
Some people don't consider other people to be worthy of moral consideration, either. Because morality isn't something they think about or care about. They are able to do this because morality is a concept that only exists in the minds of those who imagine it.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-09-27 at 9:18 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meatHis "moral statements" may be logically consistent within the moral framework he has chosen to adhere to, but they are not statements of truth because they are not statements about how the world really is or how it really isn't. Nobody has any obligation to recognize or accept someone's moral framework or their conclusions.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-09-25 at 8:10 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by RisiR † If nothing matters, Obbe, why don't you life your life like Bill Krozby? Why don't you fuck your mother? Why don't you shit on the street? Why don't you stop being a faggot? What's the point?
Do you think that the lives of the people you plagiarize where pointless?
I live my life the only way I can. Free will doesn't exist. None of this matters.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-09-20 at 10:41 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by mmQ I'd convince them by brainwashing them into believing that we're morally obligated to not eat meat, and then ask them to explain why they feel that way after my brainwashing is complete.
Nobody is morally obligated to do anything. If "moral truths" are just "ought statements", and if "ought statements" have no "truth value" because they are just statements about how someone thinks the world should be rather than statements about how the world is or is not, then "ought statements" and "moral truths" are just peoples opinions and preferences and nobody has any obligation to adopt someone else's opinions or preferences.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-09-20 at 10:26 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Lanny On the contrary, it says something about how the world ought to be. That's saying something about the world. "The way it ought to be" seems like a perfectly valid property of a thing.
Right it's saying how the world "ought to be" but that's not saying anything about how the world actually is or is not. Which is why I'm asking you to explain why you consider ought statements to be "truths". Truth is how the world is or how it is not. How the world "ought to be" has nothing to do with truth, only fantasy and imagination. I'm asking you to explain why you believe ought statements are "truths" and how you would convince someone to believe you.
Originally posted by Lanny It seems like a structural property of the statement. If you have a proposition about a thing "X" and some logical structure like "If Y then X is true" then it seems like X has a truth value on its own.
It doesn't. The structure of your sentence demonstrates this... "If Y then X is true". X depends on Y. If Y is unknown, or isn't even mentioned, X must be unknown. If there is no Y then X has no truth value.
Originally posted by Lanny Indeed, we can reason backwards from that and say "If X is not true, then Y is not true", and this statement is resolved by discovering the actual value of X.
You're determing the condition of one by the condition of the other.
Originally posted by Lanny I'm not saying the statements "If you want to win the race you should train" and "you should train" are the same. I'm saying the statements "If <all the facts about the world> then you should train" seems to have the same meaning as "You should train".
Do you believe a statement like "If <all the facts about the world> then you should train" has a truth value?
Yes but I do not beileve that has the same meaning as "you should train".
I do not believe "you ought not eat meat" is the same as "you ought not eat meat because of <insert reason>".
I do not believe "ought statements" have a truth value because they are not statements about how the world is or is not, they are statements about how someone thinks the world should be.
I have been asking you all day to to explain how you would convince someone to believe otherwise, and you are not even trying to do so.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-09-20 at 2:29 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Lanny Well the point is not that my moral conclusions are truths. I think they are, but my point is structural: when I say "it's wrong to eat meat" that statement has a truth value in the same way statements like "the earth is flat" has a truth value. You might think that truth value us "false", but to think I'm making a claim about peoples opinions is to mistake what I mean.
My point is that I don't think your moral conclusions are truths. I don't believe statements like "it's wrong to eat meat" have a truth value in the same way as statements like "the earth is flat". You believe these statements have a truth value in that same way, and I am asking you how you would convince someone who doesn't believe that.
Originally posted by Lanny A moral truth is a true "ought" statement e.g. "we ought to not eat meat". It's a claim about how the world should be, as distinct from how someone might want the world to be, or how the world is.
That doesn't seem to make sense. How can someone claim the world should be a certain way without a person desiring the world to be that way? What is the distinction?
Also who came up with the idea to call "ought statements" truths? Truth is supposed to be what is, not what someone thinks it should be. What is the difference between an "ought statement" and a persons preference or opinion?
Originally posted by Lanny Well I think you might not take the same position as we typically think of moral relativists as taking. Most of the positions that we'd traditionally call "relativist" would actually agree with the idea of moral truth, they'd just say the truth value of a moral proposition is contingent on (but not synonymous with) the individual or culture or whatever frame of reference is chosen for moral values to be relative to. From what you've said I think your position might be "morals are merely opinions", that is there is no difference between a statement like "I would for animals not to be eaten" and "animals should not be eaten". If this is your idea of ethics then I'd say you should adopt the definition I've offered because yours says nothing more than stating your opinion. Mine allows you to express a category of propositions you wouldn't seem to have a term for otherwise, and it's useful to be able to describe that sort of proposition, even if you think none of those propositions are true, since people refer to them rather often. E.g. in threads about moral obligations.
I don't believe discussions about "moral obligations" are anything more than people arguing for their opinions. But I still would like you to explain how you would convince someone who doesn't believe your "moral truths" are anything more than your personal preferences.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-09-17 at 9:51 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meatNobody has any obligation to eat or to not eat meat. Morality is not objective. None of this really matters.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-09-13 at 8:08 AM UTC in Google is literally a political organization. Not a company.
Originally posted by mmQ what's that called on the political spectrum? im starting to lean toward whatever you justsaid. I've been thinking for the last 30 years or so that people matter, that everyone matters, t5hat lives efverywhere are important, we neeed to be vigilant in looking for answers to CARE for EVERYONE, but now, watching more videos, seeing more comments, reading more articles, it seems nothing matters. nobody cares about anything. everything is a facade. The LEFTISTS AND RIGHTISS are just people that want to believe in a thing, no different than believing in a sports team.
No matter what you want, it wont' happen right? I WANT TO BE A DIE HARD LEFTY, in terms of wanting the best for the WORLD, but the more I look at it, and the more YOU GUIYS put it, thats dumb huh. WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE soon, relatively, and its a good point. who fucking caresa about anyone? lol . we're all gonna fucking die quickly. hahah. HELP NOBODY.
Help people if you want to help. It doesn't matter.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-09-13 at 7:41 AM UTC in Google is literally a political organization. Not a company.Doesn't matter what you do. Live how you want to and be happy, but you can't escape. You are just a small part of a system much bigger than you, larger than you can comprehend, a system that is working towards a goal that doesn't even matter to us kinda like how our goals don't really matter to an ant colony and vice versa. Within 100 years you will be dead, none of this matters so do whatever you want. It won't matter.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-09-13 at 10:33 AM UTC in do you ever wonder why people cant stop doing things they hate
Originally posted by mmQ If it's not a WHO, than what do you think IT is? And why?
I just said what I think it is. It's the actualization of various probabilities... It's the universe doing it's thing. When you throw ink on a wall why does one splatter look different than another splatter? I don't know why and even if I did I couldn't tell you why that's something you would have to discover on your own.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-09-11 at 4:41 AM UTC in Night ShiftThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-05-29 at 10:08 PM UTC in Society has gone fucking nuts.Postal has been around for a lot longer.
Society isn't going nuts. Society is what makes people go nuts.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-05-29 at 10:23 PM UTC in Society has gone fucking nuts.
Originally posted by NARCassist but people are society
.
People are people. Society is a system dreamed up by people. A system which will continue to narrow the sphere of human freedom.
Freedom means being in control of the life and death issues of one’s existence; food, clothing, shelter and defense against whatever threats there may be in one’s environment. Freedom means having power; not the power to control other people but the power to control the circumstances of one’s own life. One does not have freedom if anyone else (especially a large organization) has power over one, no matter how benevolently, tolerantly and permissively that power may be exercised.
It is said that we live in a free society because we have a certain number of constitutionally guaranteed rights. But these are not as important as they seem. The degree of personal freedom that exists in a society is determined more by the economic and technological structure of the society than by its laws or its form of government.
Constitutional rights are useful up to a point, but they do not serve to guarantee much more than what might be called the bourgeois conception of freedom. According to the bourgeois conception, a “free” man is essentially an element of a social machine and has only a certain set of prescribed and delimited freedoms; freedoms that are designed to serve the needs of the social machine more than those of the individual. Thus the bourgeois’s “free” man has economic freedom because that promotes growth and progress; he has freedom of the press because public criticism restrains misbehavior by political leaders; he has a right to a fair trial because imprisonment at the whim of the powerful would be bad for the system.
It should not be assumed that a person has enough freedom just because he says he has enough. Freedom is restricted in part by psychological controls of which people are unconscious, and moreover many people’s ideas of what constitutes freedom are governed more by social convention than by their real needs. For example, it’s likely that many leftists of the oversocialized type would say that most people, including themselves, are socialized too little rather than too much, yet the oversocialized leftist pays a heavy psychological price for his high level of socialization.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2018-06-29 at 12:24 AM UTC in The Retarded Thread: Sploo Needs AttentionThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-06-24 at 11:53 PM UTC in The Retarded Thread: Sploo Needs AttentionThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-06-24 at 9:56 PM UTC in The Retarded Thread: Sploo Needs Attention
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
