Did you lose an argument in class or something

if someone were to shoot you in the head (in a perfectly legal self-defense situation, for example), i wonder how hard it would be to actually take you out, if the situation called for it

i think it would actually be pretty difficult, given how your brain just sort of rattles around in your head like a grain of sand, so it might be kinda hard to know precisely where to aim at any given moment

or maybe it wouldn't matter and the shock would just overcome you, since you don't have a great constitution

idk, just a fun little hypothetical, i would never actually do that to you (unless you were a threat to my life in some way)

Quote from: Verbatim on October 01, 2018, 01:37:10 AM

if free will exists and is something to be valued, then there's an innate contradiction with how you derive morality—if it's about the reduction of suffering, then you're infringing upon the free will of those who would love nothing more than to cause people suffering, for whatever reasons they may have for it

?

what good is free will if there's only one type of behavior worth encouraging anyway

I'd say it's subjective because it isn't quantified by reality. The universe doesn't have laws on what is good or bad. Those concepts don't even exist beyond our ability as sentient beings to conceptualize them.

"these concepts don't exist beyond the fact that they exist"

what am i even supposed to do with statements like this

how isn't it quantified by reality—the whole fucking reason we feel any negative sensations whatsoever is to deter us from doing stupid or evil shit, and one of the most basic ways to quantify this is through pain

someone giving you a cupcake is going to be quantifiably better than giving you syphilis—because syphilis is (to any rational person) an intrinsically negative and totally undesirable condition—not because we said so, but because reality said so

i would LOVE to enjoy syphilis, because i enjoy enjoying things—the reason i don't is because it's intrinsically unenjoyable, as practically dictated by reality—it's not an opinion

the way i see it, it's literally no different than math—they're both useful systems that correspond with elements of reality very well, and if you dispute the validity of one on the basis that it doesn't exist beyond human perception, then you must dispute the other for the same exact reason if you want to be logically consistent

you claim that math is different because it's measurable, and because you believe in object permanence—but as i've shown with my relatively crude example, you can measure pleasure and suffering, and just because we don't have a moral equivalent of yardsticks, thermometers, compasses, or clocks at our disposal doesn't mean that we can't use common sense (and most moral questions we get asked on a day-to-day basis are common sense) to determine the moral value of these scenarios

because most of the time, it's not terribly important how bad the suffering is—we don't need exactitude

we can look at a starving child and say "yeah, this is suffering, this is a bad thing" and nobody in their right mind would disagree, just like nobody in their right mind would dispute that a meter is approximately 3 feet long

Morality is inexorably connected to concepts that do not exist beyond our conception of them. The only way I could see morality as objective is if it was defined by the absolute most effective way to eliminate suffering instead of the nature of good and evil.

these definitions are not mutually exclusive

the nature of good = wanting to find, in your words, "the absolute most effective way to eliminate suffering"
the nature of evil = not wanting to find that, or wanting to find the most effective way to perpetuate suffering

i would say if you agree with one definition, you basically must agree with the other

You can change opinions by arguing, grass is still green whether or not you agree with it.

there are some objective subjects that are far more complex than whether grass is green—politics, philosophy, science

there's a right answer to things like immigration, or climate change, or what economic system we should be using

nobody can know for certain what the answers are, but we all have our own ideas—some better than others—but only one of those ideas can be right, because if the wrong opinion overpowers the right opinion, people are going to die (or money is going to get wasted)

Because that's how subjectivity works. There's no point in debating objective facts.

yeah, because everyone agrees on what is objectively true in the world

Quote from: Verbatim on September 28, 2018, 05:38:31 PM

milk is actually pretty fucking revolting

Milk or the idea of drinking milk

yes

If you voted for Trump, you don't even have the fucking brain power to think your way out of a paper bag. You're a fucking retard. You're a dumb bitch. I'm sorry, okay? You just are.

And if you EVER fuck with me—if you ever put me into some sort of self-defense situation, and I have to legally defend myself (because I'm not gonna initiate violence against you)—but if you come at me, like in an alleyway, and you try to do anything, I'm gonna fuck you up SO badly. I will put you in the fucking ground in a fucking box. I'll take extra time. I'll take EXTRA TIME, okay? And it won't be a quick self-defense situation, either. I'll be nailing you. I'll be punching you in the back. I'll be punching you in the back of the neck. I'll be boxing your eyes in. I'll break both of your orbital bones. I'm gonna destroy you, PHYSICALLY, so badly, that the people who come to clean you up, they're gonna be PUKING when they see what I did to you. All right? Because I want them to know how I feel about stupid fucking Trump supporters like you. So I'm gonna fuck you up so bad, that you make them puke when they see your bruised, mangled body.

IF you ever did anything to me to warrant that, legally.

Now I would never, EVER initiate violence against you, but that's what would happen.

Imagine having to maintain a monthly fee to have you saves backed up.

Yearly if you're smart, since it's only $20. Or have a family plan set up like me. I'm only paying $6.80 a year.

I've always wanted to speedrun something, because I definitely have the patience for it, but I still haven't found the right speedgame for me. Castlevania 1 has been on my mind, but I still haven't even beat it normally yet, let alone in 11 minutes. Zelda 1 is on the table as well, but I would have to practice some weird techniques and glitches for it to work. You can currently beat that shit in less than 30 minutes, so if I were to do that, sub-30 would be my goal before I'd start trying for competitive times.

It has to be a big game with prestige like that, though, and one that I can beat in less than 30 minutes. It might be easier to get the world record for something more obscure, but no one's gonna give a fuck if you have the WR for City Connection on NES or some shit. Then again, maybe it should be a game that would never get ruined by me playing it over and over again, which is also something I'm a little afraid of.

SMB1 is the most important game ever made, which is why I even posted this in the first place; it's the holy grail; it may not be the most popular speedgame right now, but it's the one with the most value imo. I would never, ever think to try doing runs for it, though. That goes for most Mario games other than maybe Odyssey, but only because that game is still popular to do runs for right now, and it would be awesome to be the first player to beat it in under an hour (which has finally been shown to be theoretically possible by combining all the best splits from all the top runners).