Your most controversial opinions

Verbatim · June 10, 2015, 07:01:14 AM

Quote from: Majestic Star Dragon on June 10, 2015, 07:00:11 AM

The fact that ya think that no life is worth living

No, I've never once talked about whether life is worth living. I've only ever talked about whether it's worth imposing, and it's not.

eggsalad · June 10, 2015, 07:02:45 AM

Quote from: Majestic Star Dragon on June 10, 2015, 07:00:11 AM

Just wanna say that Verb realy does assign an extremely disproportionate importance on the negative aspects of life as opposed to the positive. The fact that ya think that no life is worth living because suffering is a part of it is kinda sad to think about.

I actually agree with that notion.
^ more so the above by verb

Deleted · June 10, 2015, 07:03:38 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on June 10, 2015, 06:58:45 AM

Quote from: eggsalad on June 10, 2015, 06:56:00 AM
the one where pigs are fat as fuck and i'm sitting here in an air conditioned room
Well, I'm just saying, clearly it's not planet Earth, or anything called "reality".

Human beings consume FAR more than they produce on average.
And you can mostly blame fucking capitalism for that shit.

Boy. You got me all worked up.

Capitalist culture is the problem, not humanity. Raise people to value each other instead of possesions and im sure things would be better.

Verbatim · June 10, 2015, 07:06:02 AM

Quote from: Majestic Star Dragon on June 10, 2015, 07:03:38 AM

Capitalist culture is the problem, not humanity. Raise people to value each other instead of possesions and im sure things would be better.

I completely agree (with the second sentence, anyway). I mean, there's many caveats with that, but I'll just leave it there, because we don't agree very often.

Pendulate · June 10, 2015, 07:16:10 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on June 10, 2015, 06:42:38 AM

oh, and by the way:

the number of mass shootings that took place in the US last year: over 300.
the number of times a panacea for cancer has been found: 0

just a little fun fact

Well ok, but that doesn't address the utilitarian problem.

Verbatim · June 10, 2015, 07:23:07 AM

Quote from: Pendulate on June 10, 2015, 07:16:10 AM

Well ok, but that doesn't address the utilitarian problem.

you cite the psychological trauma that would incur if the human was stabbed, but you also cite the possibility of the pig suffering trauma as well

are you saying the human is more likely, or are you just contradicting yourself

also, remember that they're gonna die, so
they won't be suffering forever

Pendulate · June 10, 2015, 07:27:07 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on June 10, 2015, 07:23:07 AM

Quote from: Pendulate on June 10, 2015, 07:16:10 AM
Well ok, but that doesn't address the utilitarian problem.
you cite the psychological trauma that would incur if the human was stabbed, but you also cite the possibility of the pig suffering trauma as well

are you saying the human is more likely, or are you just contradicting yourself

also, remember that they're gonna die, so
they won't be suffering forever

I'm saying the human's psychological trauma would be greater than the pig's.

Verbatim · June 10, 2015, 07:27:54 AM

Quote from: Pendulate on June 10, 2015, 07:27:07 AM

I'm saying the human'psyhcological trauma would be greater than the pig's.

on what basis

Pendulate · June 10, 2015, 07:31:47 AM

And if they're guaranteed to die shortly after being stabbed, then I'm still inclined toward the human, because they would have a greater awareness of the situation/what they're going to leave behind.

And the pain of their friends and family are relevant as well, unless you want to remove them from the equation

Verbatim · June 10, 2015, 07:38:17 AM

Quote from: Pendulate on June 10, 2015, 07:31:47 AM

And if they're guaranteed to die shortly after being stabbed, then I'm still inclined toward the human, because they would have a greater awareness of the situation/what they're going to leave behind.

And the pain of their friends and family are relevant as well, unless you want to remove them from the equation

i would apply occam's razor--don't assume this person has any friends or family, or even an awareness of the situation

we know the pig doesn't

Pendulate · June 10, 2015, 07:53:04 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on June 10, 2015, 07:38:17 AM

Quote from: Pendulate on June 10, 2015, 07:31:47 AM
And if they're guaranteed to die shortly after being stabbed, then I'm still inclined toward the human, because they would have a greater awareness of the situation/what they're going to leave behind.

And the pain of their friends and family are relevant as well, unless you want to remove them from the equation
i would apply occam's razor--don't assume this person has any friends or family, or even an awareness of the situation

we know the pig doesn't

But you cited the potential damage a human could cause as support for your view. So I don't think it's fair to forbid the factors I mentioned. They are just as relevant.

If you remove all the differences between the human and the pig, it defeats the purpose of the question.

Verbatim · June 10, 2015, 08:04:03 AM

Quote from: Pendulate on June 10, 2015, 07:53:04 AM

But you cited the potential damage a human could cause as support for your view. So I don't think it's fair to forbid the factors I mentioned. They are just as relevant.

citing the potential of something is fine--you're just conceding the possibility
that's not quite the same thing as an assumption

my argument is that the average human being is more of a detriment to society than not, which is why i find the distinction, if there is one, so imperceptible

in other words, by letting the human live, you're taking a risk
a small one, but one nonetheless

Quote

If you remove all the differences between the human and the pig, it defeats the purpose of the question.

the purpose of the question is, indeed, to demonstrate that there is no distinction
that's my rhetoric

you got me to think a little bit more about it, i'll grant you, but i'm still not wholly convinced

Verbatim · June 10, 2015, 08:17:12 AM

what you can honestly say is that the possibility of this individual having family/friends that would be affected by such an incident, along with the other potential factors you cited, all outweigh any detrimental possibilities you could think of--if you honestly believe that

and then you'd have an argument

Pendulate · June 10, 2015, 08:45:38 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on June 10, 2015, 08:04:03 AM

citing the potential of something is fine--you're just conceding the possibility
that's not quite the same thing as an assumption

Okay, then I still think the potential of the human to suffer more than the pig, through greater comprehension of his situation, is relevant.

Quote

my argument is that the average human being is more of a detriment to society than not, which is why i find the distinction, if there is one, so imperceptible

Perhaps, but the average human being does also have the potential to do more good than the average pig. And if you spare their life they'll owe you a pretty big debt. (Okay so that's not a completely serious argument)

But the crux being that the potential suffering of the human is greater. That's the immediate utilitarian problem.

Maybe that human then goes on to become a serial killer, but the probability of that is so low that it wouldn't have any place in a mathematical system of ethics.

Maybe the average human does cause more harm than good, which could then be theoretically verified in that system, but I don't think we could ever verify it ourselves. It would just be one of those objective values that we'll never be able to precisely calculate.

gats · June 10, 2015, 08:46:59 AM

don't think i have any

Pendulate · June 10, 2015, 08:51:33 AM

Also Verb, you have to remember that however shitty humanity is, when it comes to making things better we're the only game in town.

Without beings capable of comprehending ethics, nothing ethical could ever be done.

More Than Mortal · June 10, 2015, 09:59:55 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on June 10, 2015, 05:56:28 AM

Just to make it clear, if you're defining feminism as "wanting women's rights" then I am absolutely a feminist; I'm a massive fan of Camile Paglia too.

I just don't "identify" with contemporary feminism, insofar as it can be called a movement, because I) the contemporary movement has a lot of toxic elements and II) feminism is no longer needed in an active sense.

SgtMag1 · June 10, 2015, 11:07:23 PM

Invasion of Iraq was justified

SgtMag1 · June 10, 2015, 11:09:05 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on June 09, 2015, 05:02:30 PM

- Noam Chomsky is a fucking idiot.
- Terrorists should be treated as enemy combatants and subject to the death penalty.
- Government collection of metadata is justified, and doesn't constitute spying.
- Snowden is a traitor, who deserves a hefty sentence.
- Iran is a terrorist state, and America embarrassed themselves during the nuclear negotiations.
- The Iraq War was justified, and will prove beneficial for Iraq in the long-term.
- Obama's foreign policy has been an absolute joke.
- The anti-war and civil liberties lobbies are becoming excessively hysterical.
- A unipolar world where America is at the top is better than a bipolar world.

Yes

June 11, 2015, 12:03:27 AM

Personal rights are more important than the well-being of a society.
Aspartame is a poison and anyone who supports it is either brainwashed or delusional.
Monsanto is the world's biggest threat right now.

Elai · June 18, 2015, 04:09:28 AM

-Bringing life into this world is wrong (anti-natalism is an infalliable philisophical position)
-Veganism is morally superior to the alternative(s) (consumption of sentient beings is only morally OK if the being felt no pain during the process, IE. Muscles or clams, as they have no pain receptors)
-contemporary feminsm isn't needed
-feminsm=/=equal rights of both sexes (rights of women, no mention of men)
-genders are social constructs and do not truly exist
-all sentient life from the present and future should be eradicated
-capitalism doesnt work

I think that's all I got for now.

DisturbedMind883 · June 18, 2015, 10:13:23 AM

- capitalism is pretty much evil and doesn't work
- the actions of a select few people stop the world from being a fair place to live
- there is no way to prove anything
- we should design our own apocalypse and start all over again in a way where we wouldn't fuck up
- western civilization is the most barbaric and the source of most of the worlds problems

i think thats it

Alternative Facts · June 18, 2015, 10:52:13 AM

Quote from: Snake on June 18, 2015, 04:09:28 AM

-Bringing life into this world is wrong (anti-natalism is an infalliable philisophical position)
-Veganism is morally superior to the alternative(s) (consumption of sentient beings is only morally OK if the being felt no pain during the process, IE. Muscles or clams, as they have no pain receptors)
-contemporary feminsm isn't needed
-feminsm=/=equal rights of both sexes (rights of women, no mention of men)
-genders are social constructs and do not truly exist
-all sentient life from the present and future should be eradicated
-capitalism doesnt work

I think that's all I got for now.

You and Verb would make a delightfully depressing couple.

challengerX · June 18, 2015, 11:59:36 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

DAS B00T x2 · June 18, 2015, 12:41:07 PM

I don't think I posted in this one...

Unrestricted capitalist markets are the single best way to reach the endgame post-scarcity economy that mankind strives for.
People with terrible hereditary diseases should be encouraged to not reproduce.
Possession of child porn should be decriminalized.
Religious doctrine and morals should have no basis for legal procedures.
Mandatory sentencing is bad and people should feel bad for enacting such legislation.
Euthanasia should be a thing, but with as many (if not more) hoops to jump through as getting legit HRT has.

More Than Mortal · June 18, 2015, 02:08:25 PM

Quote from: DisturbedMind883 on June 18, 2015, 10:13:23 AM

- capitalism is pretty much evil and doesn't work
- there is no way to prove anything
- we should design our own apocalypse and start all over again in a way where we wouldn't fuck up
- western civilization is the most barbaric and the source of most of the worlds problems

All of these are laughable.

Elai · June 18, 2015, 04:57:06 PM

Quote from: ICEE on June 18, 2015, 10:52:13 AM

Quote from: Snake on June 18, 2015, 04:09:28 AM
-Bringing life into this world is wrong (anti-natalism is an infalliable philisophical position)
-Veganism is morally superior to the alternative(s) (consumption of sentient beings is only morally OK if the being felt no pain during the process, IE. Muscles or clams, as they have no pain receptors)
-contemporary feminsm isn't needed
-feminsm=/=equal rights of both sexes (rights of women, no mention of men)
-genders are social constructs and do not truly exist
-all sentient life from the present and future should be eradicated
-capitalism doesnt work

I think that's all I got for now.

You and Verb would make a delightfully depressing couple.

Thanks.

Release · June 21, 2015, 11:02:14 PM

I used to have a lot back in the day

I can only think of one now

Ego is an illusory construct. I disagree with Kant on a lot of things, but his ideas sort of hint to the concept that the visible material world is uncertain, since the pre existing structures that translate outside images are the only thing we can be certain of that exist. From this line of thinking it can be derived that ego is a collection of various things you attribute to yourself but don't describe you really, not even as an aggregate. Ego is a man made construct that exists to make things more convenient. We're really functions experiencing self awareness incessantly.

challengerX · June 22, 2015, 03:24:45 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.