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 - ๐บ๐๐๐๐๐
๐ช๐๐๐๐
Pages: 1 ... 150151152 153154 ... 1000
4531
« on: June 06, 2017, 03:12:37 PM »
When you're so edgy that you go full circle into adopting Christian Fundamentalist ideas.
except christian fundamentalists are okay with sex as long as it's for procreation
and they're against sex for pleasure, just like you if you're not a hedonist, you're an edgy retard
4532
« on: June 06, 2017, 03:11:38 PM »
"the human body is worse than mutiliating the human body"
WAAAAAY worse
yeah you're a straight up moron
nothing wrong with sexualization, at all
there's everything wrong with violence
sex is basically the root of all evil, and there is nothing violent about my avatar at all
Wrong - procreation is, not sex. There's nothing wrong with sex whatsoever.
except that sex is inextricably intertwined with the concept of procreation and only exists for the purpose of procreation, so is evil by proxy
not complicated
if you don't hate sex you hate women
If I use a hammer to knock out a home invader, am I using the hammer "wrong"? No, I'm using it for a different purpose than it was intended for. Sex is no different. Who gives a shit if it's biologically for procreation? That's not solely what it's for anymore. Ignoring your literally batshit insane last sentence
4533
« on: June 06, 2017, 03:02:18 PM »
"the human body is worse than mutiliating the human body"
WAAAAAY worse
yeah you're a straight up moron
nothing wrong with sexualization, at all
there's everything wrong with violence
sex is basically the root of all evil, and there is nothing violent about my avatar at all
Wrong - procreation is, not sex. There's nothing wrong with sex whatsoever. Procreation is sex with the goal of imposing life, recreational sex is sex with the goal of a pleasant sensation.
4534
« on: June 06, 2017, 02:55:38 PM »
"the human body is worse than mutiliating the human body"
WAAAAAY worse
yeah you're a straight up moron nothing wrong with sexualization, at all there's everything wrong with violence
4535
« on: June 06, 2017, 02:54:25 PM »
i took a look at a high rez version and it just looks like a badly molded plaster head of trump got dunked in a can of red paint. i don't really think that counts as a realistic depiction of gore.
i'm open to removing it though if you can provide a good argument as to how it is a realistic depiction of a severed head.
the red paint represents blood the plaster head represents a human head this really isnt hard
4536
« on: June 06, 2017, 02:53:22 PM »
fake nudity is worse than fake violence
LOL "the human body is worse than mutiliating the human body" you're worse than every dumbass republican ever
4537
« on: June 06, 2017, 02:29:12 PM »
censorship of things that are objectively bad is fine
what's objectively bad about it
Suffering is bad โ> violence is a form of suffering โ> violence shouldn't exist โ> we should discourage things that shouldn't exist โ> censorship discourages violence by refusing to normalize it or force people to view it
there's a lot of BS here but i'll just stick with the main point
it's not actually trump's head, so no one suffered in the making of the prop nor in the shooting of the photo
Who cares? The suffering comes from the normalization and glorification of violence.
4538
« on: June 06, 2017, 02:25:50 PM »
censorship of things that are objectively bad is fine
what's objectively bad about it
Suffering is bad โ> violence is a form of suffering โ> violence shouldn't exist โ> we should discourage things that shouldn't exist โ> censorship discourages violence by refusing to normalize it or force people to view it
4539
« on: June 06, 2017, 02:14:43 PM »
Decency and ethical behavior always makes me laugh too censorship is neither decent nor ethical
censorship of things that don't matter like language, sure censorship of things that are objectively bad is fine
4540
« on: June 06, 2017, 02:00:41 PM »
Fact of the matter is, gore is terrible and should be censored everywhere it's shown. Gore on the news? Censored, no one wants to see that. Gore in video games? Censored, no one wants to see that. Little kids having gore/violence glorified every Halloween? (aka a terrible "holiday" thay should be abolished) Censored, no one wants to fucking see that.
This isn't hard.
hahaha
Decency and ethical behavior always makes me laugh too psy is a moron for allowing that
Duh?
ok
it's still allowed lol
In that case, give us an option to fucking block avatars.
if you only want to block mine, i think adblock lets you do that, if you're scummy enough to use adblock
Using adblock to block ads is scummy not using it to block a fucked up image I always have to see that shouldn't be allowed anywsy
4541
« on: June 06, 2017, 01:52:55 PM »
psy is a moron for allowing that
Duh?
ok
it's still allowed lol
In that case, give us an option to fucking block avatars.
4542
« on: June 06, 2017, 01:51:42 PM »
Fact of the matter is, gore is terrible and should be censored everywhere it's shown. Gore on the news? Censored, no one wants to see that. Gore in video games? Censored, no one wants to see that. Little kids having gore/violence glorified every Halloween? (aka a terrible "holiday" thay should be abolished) Censored, no one wants to fucking see that.
This isn't hard.
4543
« on: June 06, 2017, 01:48:54 PM »
You're right, it's less graphic than that. And that one was also graphic content that doesn't belong on a SFW site. it should be the site's banner tbh
either way, psy put me in the clear for my trump shooting himself avatar
so there's no reason i shouldn't be allowed to have this one
it's not even that bad, you big baby
And psy is a moron for allowing that Duh?
4544
« on: June 06, 2017, 01:48:31 PM »
It's not graphic, it's a fake severed head.
Are halloween costumes graphic because they are gory?
Man up already, jesus.
Yes, they are. A depiction of gore is just as bad as real gore.
4545
« on: June 06, 2017, 01:37:59 PM »
it's no more graphic than the one i used of trump shooting himself in the fucking head
if you think this is at all offensive you're basically as dumb as a trump supporter
actually you probably ARE a trump supporter
You're right, it's less graphic than that. And that one was also graphic content that doesn't belong on a SFW site. It's not offensive - it's graphic content. And LMAO, "if you think that a severed head is too gory to spam all over a forum, you're a retarded trump supporter" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_(psychology) ^Get some fucking self-awareness and stop letting a defense mechanism drive your thinking.
4546
« on: June 06, 2017, 01:33:22 PM »
^
this is a SFW site
4547
« on: June 06, 2017, 01:32:29 PM »
you are truly one of a kind
thinking terfs are dumb is actually pretty widespread thinking anyway this is more about nuka saying I am, actually legit confusing - anyone who has read any of my posts would see I'm like the opposite
4548
« on: June 06, 2017, 01:26:22 PM »
what kind of backwards thinking feminist is going to punish men who recognize the superior gender
4549
« on: June 06, 2017, 12:05:44 PM »
yeah i lied too much effort
character accounts are for the unpopular anyway
4550
« on: June 06, 2017, 12:01:09 PM »
brb
4551
« on: June 06, 2017, 11:59:07 AM »
You state your opinion as if it's fact - it's not.
You THINK good and evil are subjective, and they aren't. They're objective. As long as a universe exists that can create suffering-capable life, morality is fixed.
4552
« on: June 06, 2017, 07:55:34 AM »
Yes but morality is not suffering, it's based on the meaning we derive from suffering.
Wrong. Morality is suffering. It doesn't matter if something is around to know that, it still is.
Look at my lion example above. Or if you'd prefer an analogy, think of a tree falling in a forest with no one around to hear it - it still makes a sound.
You have a very strange definition of morality. It doesn't make any logical sense to me, and it certainly doesn't align with what society axiomatically understands morality to be. How can morality just be suffering? Do you suffer by living a moral life? If morality is composed of good and evil, then would you say that good is suffering?
How is morality simply the pain we experience and not the meaning derived from that pain?
We already have a concept to define the pain we experience, which is suffering. Whether or not something is good or evil is an entirely different concept that is interdependent with suffering.
Any actual definition you can find of morality essentially states that it is the principles we use to define and distinguish good and evil. Nothing about the concept, as it is self-evidently defined by society, can be reduced to just the phenomenon of suffering.
And your definition is just as baffling. Suffering is a net bad, whether that be physical suffering or emotional. Any person with a modicum of logic could tell you that. Why on earth would suffering stop being bad just because that person isn't around to say so anymore? It's still bad, a gazelle being eaten alive is still in constant pain. If a schitzophrenic who has no external awareness shoots up a mall because he thinks everyone in the mall are Russian soldiers who are trying to kill him, did he shoot up the mall in self-defense? No, he mass murdered the people there - what he did was still evil, even if he couldn't come close to comprehening that.
4553
« on: June 06, 2017, 07:12:52 AM »
Yes but morality is not suffering, it's based on the meaning we derive from suffering.
Wrong. Morality is suffering. It doesn't matter if something is around to know that, it still is. Look at my lion example above. Or if you'd prefer an analogy, think of a tree falling in a forest with no one around to hear it - it still makes a sound.
4554
« on: June 06, 2017, 01:41:48 AM »
The real reason the is no sych thing as an objectively bad person is because good/bad is non-imperical and therefore unguagable.
Morality is objective as long as suffering exists.
To me this implies that morality is not objective but merely axiomatic. For me to understand it as objective, it would have to be more than just a concept conditioned by the subjective experience of sentient beings.
Ultimately nature does not define morality in any way, and without sentience to conceptualize morality, it doesn't exist.
Concepitalizing something =/= making it exist
Sentient beings can interpret something, sure. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist if it can't be interpreted.
If nothing but a predator and its prey existed, say a lion and a gazelle, it would still be highly immoral for the lion to eat the gazelle. Neither the lion nor gazelle would know it was an immoral act, but it still is.
When something is entirely a concept then yes, conceptualizing it is what brings it into existence.
It would seem that you define morality as the absence of harming or perhaps the absence of the conditioning of suffering. However that is not how I define it at all. Morality is not defined within nature. Reality does not present us with meaning to any phenomena that we encounter and experience, meaning arises as the result of our interpretation of these phenomena.
Morality for me is the path that leads to the minimization of suffering, not necessarily the actual absence of suffering or its roots. This definition is the result of my interpretation of suffering and what conditions it, and it would not exist without my conceptualizing it.
I simply disagree. Suffering is an INHERENT evil, and from that basic maxim we derive an objective morality.
I get that you disagree, it's just perplexing that you see morality as inherent and more than just a concept when no meaning could ever be derived from suffering without the subjective interpretation of sentient beings.
Because who cares whether meaning is derived or not? Suffering is still there. Whether or not we know its bad is irrelevant.
4555
« on: June 05, 2017, 10:25:13 PM »
The real reason the is no sych thing as an objectively bad person is because good/bad is non-imperical and therefore unguagable.
Wrong. Morality is objective as long as suffering exists. We draw all morality from the simple maxim that suffering is bad.
We know pain that we may recognize happiness.
And that's fucked up. Humans need suffering to be able to recognize happiness, sure - and that's the fucking problem. It shouldn't be that way, humans should be able to live in a state of constant bliss, without any pain or war or strife, and we should be able to live that way without needing suffering to recognize it. Anything short of that, and nonexistence is the preferable alternative.
4556
« on: June 05, 2017, 10:21:43 PM »
The real reason the is no sych thing as an objectively bad person is because good/bad is non-imperical and therefore unguagable.
Morality is objective as long as suffering exists.
To me this implies that morality is not objective but merely axiomatic. For me to understand it as objective, it would have to be more than just a concept conditioned by the subjective experience of sentient beings.
Ultimately nature does not define morality in any way, and without sentience to conceptualize morality, it doesn't exist.
Concepitalizing something =/= making it exist
Sentient beings can interpret something, sure. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist if it can't be interpreted.
If nothing but a predator and its prey existed, say a lion and a gazelle, it would still be highly immoral for the lion to eat the gazelle. Neither the lion nor gazelle would know it was an immoral act, but it still is.
When something is entirely a concept then yes, conceptualizing it is what brings it into existence.
It would seem that you define morality as the absence of harming or perhaps the absence of the conditioning of suffering. However that is not how I define it at all. Morality is not defined within nature. Reality does not present us with meaning to any phenomena that we encounter and experience, meaning arises as the result of our interpretation of these phenomena.
Morality for me is the path that leads to the minimization of suffering, not necessarily the actual absence of suffering or its roots. This definition is the result of my interpretation of suffering and what conditions it, and it would not exist without my conceptualizing it.
I simply disagree. Suffering is an INHERENT evil, and from that basic maxim we derive an objective morality.
4557
« on: June 05, 2017, 09:24:06 PM »
The real reason the is no sych thing as an objectively bad person is because good/bad is non-imperical and therefore unguagable.
Morality is objective as long as suffering exists.
To me this implies that morality is not objective but merely axiomatic. For me to understand it as objective, it would have to be more than just a concept conditioned by the subjective experience of sentient beings.
Ultimately nature does not define morality in any way, and without sentience to conceptualize morality, it doesn't exist.
Concepitalizing something =/= making it exist Sentient beings can interpret something, sure. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist if it can't be interpreted. If nothing but a predator and its prey existed, say a lion and a gazelle, it would still be highly immoral for the lion to eat the gazelle. Neither the lion nor gazelle would know it was an immoral act, but it still is.
4558
« on: June 05, 2017, 09:10:22 PM »
The real reason the is no sych thing as an objectively bad person is because good/bad is non-imperical and therefore unguagable.
Wrong. Morality is objective as long as suffering exists. We draw all morality from the simple maxim that suffering is bad.
4559
« on: June 05, 2017, 09:08:39 PM »
Nine times out of ten it is
What's the one out of ten
Nature gives us receptors in our mouth that allow us to get pleasure (tasting), and plants that taste good when put in those receptors. Another example, nature gives us receptors in our brain tbat allow us to get pleasure (feeling) and plants that feel good when put in those receptors.
4560
« on: June 05, 2017, 09:00:07 PM »
You would be right if "natural" had any value whatsoever. What's natural or unnatural doesn't fucking matter - what causes suffering or doesn't does.
"If nature had any value whatsoever." That just sounds so fucked up lol.
Nature has no value, at all. Explain to me how it does. Nature, and existence itself, is usually immoral. Nine times out of ten it is, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that.
Pages: 1 ... 150151152 153154 ... 1000
|
Show Posts