User Controls
Posts by Common De-mominator
-
2019-04-21 at 8:23 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Obbe It is relevant to the question is the tortoise quick or slow.
The question is simply a single application a generalized solution. This is no different to taking an equation like y=2x+3 and solving for when X=3.Yes, his exact speed is universally translatable. But whether that speed is quick or slow is relative.
The tortoise might answer that he is quick at that speed. The hare might answer that he is slow at that speed. Quick and slow are relative, like good and bad.
You are retarded dude. I have already addressed this.
I'm not going to repeat this again just because your entire plan is to continue to babbling on repeat while ignoring whatever arguments anybody else gives. -
2019-04-21 at 5:59 PM UTC in zizek vs jordan peterson
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny let me ask you again, can they be 'unequal in giving up the same freedom' ?
I mean, what the fuck are you asking at this point? In terms of actual freedoms, no, that's by definition not the case. But you can be unequally affected by giving up the same freedoms. What's the question? -
2019-04-21 at 5:46 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2019-04-21 at 5:42 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Obbe Your concept of good and your concept of bad have grown from all the experiences you have had in life up until now. What you find good or bad is relative and unique to your life. Another person with a different life experience will have different concepts of good and bad. Of course the experiences that led to your concepts objectively happened. In a fantastic world we could probably objectively measure and map exactly what experiences led to your different perspectives.
Who gives a fuck about a fantastic world? Whether or not we know about it, you've simply conceded that there is a moral fact of the matter.None of that changes that what is good or bad for you is not necessarily good or bad for the other person.
What is good or bad for you or for the other person is not necessarily what is morally good. What is morally good can be (and is) ascertained by whatever faculties you and the other person use to determine what is morally good.Of course the speed of the tortoise and the speed of the hare is objective. That doesn't change that the quickness or slowness of the hare or the tortoise is relative to their own experience.
Either of their experiences is determined by their speed, which are objective facts.Relativity is not irrelevant. Relativity is the whole point.
Yeah no shit.The fact that you can make a case that they "should" feel something they do not actually feel doesn't change the way they do feel.
Whether or not they actually actually do feel it is irrelevant, which is the point: there is a moral fact of the matter regardless.0.63 miles per hour might feel extremely quick to the tortoise. Sure, you can make the case that he is actually very slow relative to the hare. You might try to convince him that he should feel slow traveling at that rate. Your case doesn't change the fact that the tortoise experiences his speed as extremely quick.
Nowhere in the discussion is "how the tortoise should feel" relevant. Exactly how slow he is is a perfectly universally translatable concept regardless of how it feels. That's the point. Importantly, it can be communicated with no loss of information to the hare that something else moving at X miles per hour would be the same experience of slowness for him as something going at Y is for the tortoisem. -
2019-04-21 at 4:04 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Obbe What is quick for the tortoise and slow for the hare doesn't change by imposing a framework over their experience.
The very concept of moral good and evil is rooted in the framework, there is no morality in a vacuum. You either understand this and are ready to have a discussion or you don't, and you aren't.
The speed of the tortoise and the hare 8s objective. The speed of the intermediate object is objective. The quickness or fastness relative to either is objective. No part of this example remotely establishes subjectivity.What is good for the lion and bad for the gazelle will always be relative
Whether or not it's relative is irrelevant to whether or not it is objective.and making a case that they have certain moral obligations to each other doesn't change that.
It doesn't need to change that, it relies on the relativity. The fact is that you can make a case they have certain moral obligations to each other regardless of whether or not they feel it... That's the point. -
2019-04-21 at 3:37 PM UTC in The Retarded Thread: Malice Metro Edition
-
2019-04-21 at 3:23 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Obbe I don't see the part where you're supposed to be disagreeing with me.
The part where you can have a moral obligation whether or not you feel it, by the same mechanism by which the hare could recognize that what is slow for him is fast for the tortoise: by taking the common framework of speed. By whatever mechanism the lion identifies moral good, we can make a case for the gazelle and vice versa.
The fact that you are babbling about relativity doesn't change that. -
2019-04-21 at 3:08 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Obbe Who denied that you can measure the speeds of the tortoise and the hare? Measuring their speeds doesn't change that what is quick for the tortoise can be slow for the hare
And you can talk about and account for both in one and the same conception.
[Qoute]or that what is good for the lion can be bad for the gazelle.
Non sequitur.The tortoise is travelling at 0.63 miles per hour - whether or not this is quick or slow is relative.
Illiterate.
I already said it is relative. Being relative doesn't speak at all to being inherently subjective. -
2019-04-21 at 2:45 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Obbe I'm not a genius but I'm not an idiot. Why do you have this grudge against me?
No you're really incredibly stupid.
Originally posted by Obbe what is quick for the tortoise can be slow for the hare.
That fact that you can make this statement in a single sentence supports my claim, not the idiotic notion of relativity you are presenting: you can know the speed of the tortoise and the hare, and the object moving at intermediate speed, and translate from one to the other without any problem. -
2019-04-21 at 2:30 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2019-04-21 at 2:28 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Obbe I don't want to answer your questions. If you have a statement you want to make you should just make it instead of asking me dumb questions.
You don't want to answer the question because you are an idiot and your only game is to substitute retarded sophistry for any intellectual work.
I've already made all the statements I need to make, now all I need to do is demonstrate how your only repartee is demonstrably retarded. -
2019-04-21 at 2 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2019-04-21 at 1:08 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2019-04-21 at 1:06 PM UTC in zizek vs jordan peterson
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny because then you all be equally giving up unsame freedoms.
No the relinquished freedoms are the same.my point is that its redundant to say 'equally giving up the same freedoms' since its not possible to be equal when we give up different freedom or unequal when we give up the same freedom.
your simply complicating complicated stuff that can easily be simplified.
I didn't say that you illiterate chink.
I said "equal in giving up the same freedoms" i.e. they are equal in that respect, not that they are equally giving up the same freedoms, which would indeed be redundant. -
2019-04-21 at 12:17 PM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Obbe Do you believe 5 miles an hour is quick or slow?
You are avoiding the question by responding with an asinine non sequitur. Do you believe a term like "5 miles per hour" is meaningful?What you believe is morally good for the lion is not necessarily what the lion believes is morally good for the lion.
What the lion or I believe is morally good is irrelevant to what is morally good. -
2019-04-21 at 2:54 AM UTC in I am on the doorstep of Buddhahood but I choose not to enter
-
2019-04-21 at 2:45 AM UTC in I am on the doorstep of Buddhahood but I choose not to enterAMA
-
2019-04-21 at 2:27 AM UTC in Its a good thing Jesus ain't alive to see any of this.I always wonder about what night happen if various religions were true. Perhaps if time were an endless cycle like as in Buddhism, and reincarnation were true, and the only true escape was attaining nibbhana.
I do this both as an amusing mental exercise and also as an empathic one: I lived a long time as if Islam were true, and it affected my perspective very specifically.
Christianity is an interesting one.
What would Christ think if he walked upon these times?
He would see great distress. He would see a world with resurgent hate. He would see a planet engrossed in materialism, plagued by greed. But above all, he would be disappointed by how much we could be. He would be disappointed in how we have we have disappointed ourselves, how far below our own standards and potential as humans we live.
But Christ the Redeemer, he would see in us the beauty we are capable of. The genuine compassion we can feel into one another, because the spirit of love is still within us. The world gets ever brighter with these sparks of divinity, and Christ would see hope. Christ would see that in all the ugliness of the world love, ever present, still prevails. God damn us, and Christ would see redemption. He would tell us to act to our highest ideals, to act as if we lives in the world we wished to live in, and not be brought to ignorance by the transgressions of others.
Christ would weep and then he would smile. He would see in us the flame of compassion and know that he need not intervene, for we are capable of the highest good, and try as we might to convince ourselves otherwise, it always prevails, even after our darkest moments. -
2019-04-21 at 12:08 AM UTC in We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
Originally posted by Obbe What is quick for the tortoise can be slow for the hare.
Do you believe a metric such as "5 miles per hour" makes sense for someone moving at the speed of either a tortoise or a hare?Morality is like that. What is good for the lion can be bad for the gazelle.
What benefits the lion is not necessary what is morally good for the lion, and vice versa. -
2019-04-20 at 9:24 PM UTC in zizek vs jordan peterson
