This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Jim
Pages: 1 ... 162163164 165166 ... 438
4891
« on: September 09, 2015, 10:45:21 AM »
A productive society has no value in the universe without a creator.
If we were to achieve immortality, and I was not able to bring back the lives of the ones I care about, I would probably kill myself anyway.
But regardless, my philosophy would be drastically different. The concept of immortality (on this Earth) is frankly terrifying to me, and something I hope we never experience.
Wouldn't you rather have a say when you die?
"A productive society has no value" is an oxymoron, by the way. "Value has no value?" I thought you said you weren't here to shitpost.
Not really. I'd honestly have to think about it, but I don't know if I want to have to make that decision. Yes, you're right, society has no value at all is what I meant to say.
4892
« on: September 09, 2015, 10:39:47 AM »
Why would you give a shit about them? What purpose could you possibly have for caring? After you die, you are physically incapable of caring, what with the whole not existing anymore. Because I have empathy. If I don't like suffering, I can logically conclude that I wouldn't want anyone else to suffer either. This is not only humane--it's conducive to a productive and sustainable society. If no one cared about one another, nothing would ever get done.
They say it's only a matter of time before we achieve immortality. If you never died, and there's still no god, how would this affect your philosophy?
A productive society has no value in the universe without a creator. If we were to achieve immortality, and I was not able to bring back the lives of the ones I care about, I would probably kill myself anyway. But regardless, my philosophy would be drastically different. The concept of immortality (on this Earth) is frankly terrifying to me, and something I hope we never experience.
4893
« on: September 09, 2015, 10:27:56 AM »
Because everything you experience will be gone by the time you die, as though you never experienced it in the first place. That doesn't mean the whole universe dies with me. When I die, I will be survived by 7.2 billion people (and probably a trillion different non-human species) in my wake. I care about them. Their welfare. I couldn't give a fuck about me in the grand scheme.
Why would you give a shit about them? What purpose could you possibly have for caring? After you die, you are physically incapable of caring, what with the whole not existing anymore.
4894
« on: September 09, 2015, 10:23:00 AM »
Guys... Guys. Holy shit.
I think I just got a message from God, guys.
And he said...
If Jim isn't dead in 24 hours, he's gonna blow up the universe.
Oops
4895
« on: September 09, 2015, 10:21:31 AM »
Why does nothing matter if there is no god?
I honestly couldn't give a fuck if there's a god or not. It makes no difference to my day-to-day life. I can be a good, moral person with or without him.
Because everything you experience will be gone by the time you die, as though you never experienced it in the first place. There is really no point, so it makes FAR more sense to kill yourself and embrace your non-existence sooner rather than later. It's like I've said before, if you read a book but after finishing it you forgot everything you read in it, was there any point to even reading it at all?
4896
« on: September 09, 2015, 10:13:22 AM »
If there is no God
If God commanded you to murder and rape, would it be moral?
Absolutely, because he is God and he created existence the way it is. If he SAYS it is moral it absolutely is.
4897
« on: September 09, 2015, 10:12:37 AM »
How can you define it as objectively "wrong?"
How can you not?
This is the point, you need the definition before you can be objective and Verbatim and I's contention is that a definition of morality based on the well-being of conscious creatures is the only sane definition you're going to get. How can you claim vomiting constantly is objectively being ill? What if you come across a person who disagrees with your definition of ill?
It's because vomiting comes under the only sane definition we have of illness.
Okay I think I'm understanding your point by comparing the two then. But then I suppose I can agree with you that health has no objective definition sans divine creator, as it is meaningless just like everything else. So my point being that unless you have something to tether these concepts to ("God"), you can't make any objective claims about them because in the end they are meaningless, just like everything else. There is no reason to adhere to moral concepts, even IF you decide they mean what you say they mean. There is no reason to prolong your life and keep good health if nothing matters.
4898
« on: September 09, 2015, 09:57:10 AM »
Because we have defined health as "not being ill." We have defined morality as "the difference between right and wrong" but fail to define "right and wrong" with any objectivity. Wrong: Any state of disutility imposed on sentient life forms that is not offset by its utility, if any at all.
That isn't objective.
. . .
How is it not? Disutility is a measurable, non-arbitrary phenomenon.
How can you define it as objectively "wrong?"
Because nothing good or useful--to anyone--comes from it.
And why does that mean it's "wrong?" If there is no God, there is no reason to care about anybody. If you're preaching egoism you can argue that your own well-being is all that matters, but at that point your well-being should be irrelevant as well, but then I am veering off into "you should kill yourself if there is no God" which isn't what we're talking about.
4899
« on: September 09, 2015, 09:47:33 AM »
Because we have defined health as "not being ill." We have defined morality as "the difference between right and wrong" but fail to define "right and wrong" with any objectivity. Wrong: Any state of disutility imposed on sentient life forms that is not offset by its utility, if any at all.
That isn't objective.
. . .
How is it not? Disutility is a measurable, non-arbitrary phenomenon.
How can you define it as objectively "wrong?"
4900
« on: September 09, 2015, 09:36:06 AM »
Because we have defined health as "not being ill." We have defined morality as "the difference between right and wrong" but fail to define "right and wrong" with any objectivity. Wrong: Any state of disutility imposed on sentient life forms that is not offset by its utility, if any at all.
That isn't objective.
4901
« on: September 09, 2015, 09:35:45 AM »
Because we have defined health as "not being ill." We have defined morality as "the difference between right and wrong" but fail to define "right and wrong" with any objectivity.
But that criticism still applies to health. "Not being ill" is reductive to "The difference between wellness and illness"; there is no illness without wellness as a point of reference. We define one by referencing the other, and it's exactly the same case with morality. We define good and evil by using each one as a reference point; in the same way we have a general notion of well-being for "health"--because nobody wants to be not in a state of gratuitous anti-well-being--we should also have a general notion of well-being for morality--for exactly the same reason.
But you have no objective basis for the definition of right and wrong, so can't refer to one as a reference point for the other, because no definition for either of them exists. You can say "I am vomiting frequently so therefore I am not in good health" objectively. You cannot say "I killed this man so I am immoral" objectively. I am still trying to figure out how you can possibly relate the two.
4902
« on: September 08, 2015, 09:13:15 PM »
Why does that definition make any more sense than any other definition of morality?
Ask yourself the same thing about the definition of health. Why does the definition of health make more sense if it has something to do with not being dead and throwing up blood all the time?
Because we have defined health as "not being ill." We have defined morality as "the difference between right and wrong" but fail to define "right and wrong" with any objectivity.
4903
« on: September 08, 2015, 09:06:21 PM »
Whereas with morality the only definition you can give it is "the distinction between right and wrong." You can't define what is wrong and what is right like you can define who is and isn't ill. but it's so fucking easy
- does it cause pain and suffering in the universe?
- is the pain and suffering justified in some fashion?
if you said "no" twice, you have yourself what could be considered "wrong" by sane individuals
But there is no foundation to base your views on. Why should pain ever be considered objectively negative?
4904
« on: September 08, 2015, 09:04:55 PM »
You can't define what is wrong and what is right like you can define who is and isn't ill.
Why not? It's pretty easy. There's no such thing as a basis for morality which makes sense--which is rational--which doesn't have anything to do with the well-being of conscious creatures. If the word evil is to mean anything and still make any sense at all, it has to mean somebody who would push the big red button and plunge everybody into the 'worst possible suffering'.
Why does that definition make any more sense than any other definition of morality?
4905
« on: September 08, 2015, 08:53:31 PM »
HOW CAN MORALITY BE OBJECTIVE IN THE ABSENCE OF A DIVINE CREATOR YOU CHUCKLEFUCKS?
Just replace "morality" with "health". Health is a nebulous concept, with always changing expectations and conclusions, and yet we manage to glean objective facts from it by virtue of "health" having a sane definition.
The well-being of creatures who can experience is the only sane basis we have--or could ever have--when it comes to questions of how we ought to act.
I'm struggling to understand how you can compare health and morality. Health, by definition, essentially means free from illness or injury. So with that said, illness and injury can be observed, so you can apply objectivity to the concept of health by saying "if you are ill, you are not healthy." Whereas with morality the only definition you can give it is "the distinction between right and wrong." You can't define what is wrong and what is right like you can define who is and isn't ill.
4906
« on: September 08, 2015, 08:45:50 PM »
I hate that Varg is a meme now because Black Metal is serious music for serious adults like myself.
4907
« on: September 08, 2015, 08:41:51 PM »
I was gunna make a thread asking you mongoloids to explain how morality can possibly be objective in the absence of a divine creator, but now that Zen posted this I'll just ask it here.
HOW CAN MORALITY BE OBJECTIVE IN THE ABSENCE OF A DIVINE CREATOR YOU CHUCKLEFUCKS?
No shitposting I honestly wanna hear what you say and I will respond with no shitposting of any sort.
4908
« on: September 08, 2015, 06:39:22 PM »
Isn't Sally supposed to wanna bone Jack?
Why does a father have his daughter dressed up as Sally?
4909
« on: September 08, 2015, 11:26:53 AM »
Is it shitty video game music or good video game music
4910
« on: September 07, 2015, 05:49:58 PM »
Thrash or Heavy.
Why would you post a song that is neither Thrash nor Heavy Metal?
Slipknot IS heavy/thrash.
I hope this is a joke
Yeah, it's not a joke. They're actually multiple genres. Let me guess, you only listened to like, one of their songs.
Every single song was Nu Metal, except the second, which was some gay ass cheesy emo twink ballad shit.
IT's Nu Metal. Not at all Thrash, and CERTAINLY not Heavy Metal
"Slipknot is an American heavy metal band from Des Moines, Iowa"
Slipknot is not Nu Metal entirely. Some of their earlier songs are (because they rose to popularity when Nu Metal was big), but most of it is a mixed bag of various different genres.
Also, "Snuff" is a power ballad.
And how the hell is "Pulse of the Maggots" Nu Metal?
Here's one that certainly isn't Nu Metal;
Heavy Metal the genre, not the generic Wiki moniker used to umbrella all metal. When I say Heavy Metal I am implying Judas Priest and similar bands
That certainly is a Nu Metal track btw. Everything you have shown me has been Nu Metal
Doesn't sound like any Nu Metal I've listened to.
This is a Nu Metal song - the hip hop and funk influence is evident;
(also Limp Bizkit fucking sucks, just wanna say that)
You could say that Slipknot were originally a Nu Metal band (even though, again, their S/T was a mixed bag of genres), but in interviews over the years and with the bands sound change, the band has been caught labeling themselves as "Metal Metal."
I'm just gonna quit while I'm ahead because nothing I say will influence your elitist /mu/tant opinion.
Limp Bizkit relies a lot more on the Hip Hop influence, yes, but it's still prevalent in Slipknot's music. Bottom line is Slipknot is not Thrash is all I'm saying. That's confusing to people in this thread if they think Slipknot is in the same genre as
Slipknot does take influence from thrash, though, even if you don't wanna say any of their songs are explictly in the thrash genre.
What I just don't understand is how people call Slipknot Nu-Metal. No other Nu-Metal band that I know sounds like Slipknot. Korn, Limp Bizkit, Linkin Park, Deftones.... none of them sound much like Slipknot, yet they all have similar characteristics. Well, except for maybe Korn. Some of their older songs shared similarities with Korn.
They take influence from Sabbath too, that doesn't mean they sound anything like Black Sabbath. The Nu Metal is prevalent. You hear it in the vocals primarily, but also in their choice of grooves. Again, they trend towards the Metal side more than a band like Limp Bizkit, but they still fit within the walls of the genre.
4911
« on: September 07, 2015, 05:29:05 PM »
Thrash or Heavy.
Why would you post a song that is neither Thrash nor Heavy Metal?
Slipknot IS heavy/thrash.
I hope this is a joke
Yeah, it's not a joke. They're actually multiple genres. Let me guess, you only listened to like, one of their songs.
Every single song was Nu Metal, except the second, which was some gay ass cheesy emo twink ballad shit.
IT's Nu Metal. Not at all Thrash, and CERTAINLY not Heavy Metal
"Slipknot is an American heavy metal band from Des Moines, Iowa"
Slipknot is not Nu Metal entirely. Some of their earlier songs are (because they rose to popularity when Nu Metal was big), but most of it is a mixed bag of various different genres.
Also, "Snuff" is a power ballad.
And how the hell is "Pulse of the Maggots" Nu Metal?
Here's one that certainly isn't Nu Metal;
Heavy Metal the genre, not the generic Wiki moniker used to umbrella all metal. When I say Heavy Metal I am implying Judas Priest and similar bands
That certainly is a Nu Metal track btw. Everything you have shown me has been Nu Metal
Doesn't sound like any Nu Metal I've listened to.
This is a Nu Metal song - the hip hop and funk influence is evident;
(also Limp Bizkit fucking sucks, just wanna say that)
You could say that Slipknot were originally a Nu Metal band (even though, again, their S/T was a mixed bag of genres), but in interviews over the years and with the bands sound change, the band has been caught labeling themselves as "Metal Metal."
I'm just gonna quit while I'm ahead because nothing I say will influence your elitist /mu/tant opinion.
Limp Bizkit relies a lot more on the Hip Hop influence, yes, but it's still prevalent in Slipknot's music. Bottom line is Slipknot is not Thrash is all I'm saying. That's confusing to people in this thread if they think Slipknot is in the same genre as
4912
« on: September 07, 2015, 05:20:01 PM »
Thrash or Heavy.
Why would you post a song that is neither Thrash nor Heavy Metal?
Slipknot IS heavy/thrash.
I hope this is a joke
Yeah, it's not a joke. They're actually multiple genres. Let me guess, you only listened to like, one of their songs.
Every single song was Nu Metal, except the second, which was some gay ass cheesy emo twink ballad shit.
IT's Nu Metal. Not at all Thrash, and CERTAINLY not Heavy Metal
"Slipknot is an American heavy metal band from Des Moines, Iowa"
Slipknot is not Nu Metal entirely. Some of their earlier songs are (because they rose to popularity when Nu Metal was big), but most of it is a mixed bag of various different genres.
Also, "Snuff" is a power ballad.
And how the hell is "Pulse of the Maggots" Nu Metal?
Here's one that certainly isn't Nu Metal;
Heavy Metal the genre, not the generic Wiki moniker used to umbrella all metal. When I say Heavy Metal I am implying Judas Priest and similar bands That certainly is a Nu Metal track btw. Everything you have shown me has been Nu Metal
4913
« on: September 07, 2015, 04:16:56 PM »
I used to be gung-ho thrash and grindcore but then I went down the experimental rabbit hole. Now idk really. Been on nintendocore lately.
You ever heard Gridlink?
4914
« on: September 07, 2015, 04:07:27 PM »
Thrash or Heavy.
Why would you post a song that is neither Thrash nor Heavy Metal?
Slipknot IS heavy/thrash.
I hope this is a joke
Yeah, it's not a joke. They're actually multiple genres. Let me guess, you only listened to like, one of their songs.
Every single song was Nu Metal, except the second, which was some gay ass cheesy emo twink ballad shit. IT's Nu Metal. Not at all Thrash, and CERTAINLY not Heavy Metal
4915
« on: September 06, 2015, 11:43:23 PM »
BCEGHIMNOPQRUVWXZ
oh
4916
« on: September 06, 2015, 10:37:05 PM »
Soda
4917
« on: September 06, 2015, 10:20:49 PM »
Sometimes dark enough to consume all mass, and other times with a bit of cream and sugar.
You indecisive fucks are the worst COMMIT TO SOMETHING, BITCH
4918
« on: September 06, 2015, 10:15:07 PM »
With so much sugar it might as well be syrup.
Ew
4919
« on: September 06, 2015, 10:14:16 PM »
DRINKIN BLACK COFFEE BLACK COFFEE BLACK COFFEE STARE AT THE WALL
4920
« on: September 06, 2015, 06:16:56 PM »
My ringer is the MGS codec thing because I am maximum autistic pleb
Pages: 1 ... 162163164 165166 ... 438
|
Show Posts