bump because i'm watching anime again

currently revisiting some 1995 shows i didn't finish while trying to catch up with 2018 shit

also i'm still proud of that pre-astro boy era 3x3 i made and would like to draw more attention to it

watermelon yeah

isn't it weird how watermelon-flavored candy doesn't actually taste anything like watermelon

there's no need to get ultra sun or ultra moon if you already have sun or moon, honestly—the new additions weren't nearly enough to justify their existence, imo

the ace attorney series is very anime, but given the subject matter, you might actually find some appeal in it

you have five very solid zelda games to choose from: MM3D, OoT3D, ALBW, Phantom Hourglass, and Spirit Tracks (ordered from best to worst, in my opinion—i'd play OoT before MM if you haven't already, though)

between new leaf and wild world, you have some animal crossing games to choose from if you're interested—if you haven't played one before, the appeal of these games will not be immediately apparent, as it's basically a life simulator and neighborhood management simulator with cutesy animals, which makes it sound like utter shit, but it's actually a pretty uniquely comfortable and soothing experience that no other game i know of offers

mario kart DS or 7, of course—7 is probably better, but DS has a much better roster because it lets you play as ROB the robot

the original new super mario bros for DS (aka the last 2D mario game with a soul) is solid

kirby super star ultra is the only kirby game you'll ever need to play if you ever wanted to try one

don't bother getting mario maker because you can't upload levels in the DS version, it fucking sucks

some people will probably recommend fire emblem or bravely default or some weeby-type RPG shit—don't bother with any of that, but you can maybe try chrono trigger if you want to try a classic

GTA chinatown wars was a thing that happened, never played it myself but i think it's supposed to be good

smash 4 if you want to scratch that itch before ultimate comes out, portable smash is pretty sweet

metroid: samus returns is not an ideal starting point if you've never played a metroid game before, but it wouldn't be a bad choice if you have (it's a remake of metroid 2 for the original game boy, for the record)

kid icarus uprising and luigi's mansion: dark moon are games i don't think you'd be interested in, but they're worth mentioning

ok

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