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 - eggsalad
Pages: 1 ... 101112 1314 ... 84
331
« on: April 21, 2016, 01:09:21 PM »
Champion Gundyr has got to be one of the most difficult bosses to solo.
seriously I can't really identify what the fuck makes him so hard. He doesn't even transform
332
« on: April 21, 2016, 01:07:37 PM »
>2001+18-3+7-7
>still caring about this non-issue
>still making consent-based arguments while openly permitting other things that violate consent
>my penis still looks better than yours
>my penis is cleaner than yours
>my penis is less likely to get an infection than yours
>wormdicks get mad
your dick is cleaner because it never goes anywhere lmao
333
« on: April 21, 2016, 10:40:32 AM »
For some reason I half expected Trump to have that stance, maybe it's his business background.
334
« on: April 20, 2016, 08:57:17 PM »
The Estoc is so great lmao. If someone starts charging up a heavy attack just start poking them.
The response to everything with the estoc is r1
335
« on: April 20, 2016, 12:49:18 PM »
>Survived 103 duels most duels involved two survivors
336
« on: April 19, 2016, 10:40:48 PM »
Some more juicy pvp for you.
the r1 spam
337
« on: April 19, 2016, 06:11:02 PM »
if you havent solod every boss youre a SCRUB
338
« on: April 19, 2016, 06:09:15 PM »
If I can't beat Sulyvahn on this attempt, anyone wanna help me?
level range?
339
« on: April 19, 2016, 11:40:45 AM »
Pain discourages movement that would make injuries worse.
Yeah, so... any movement.
You should be able to shut it off. Or lessen it. Or something. It shouldn't be this prolonged, obnoxiously terrible feeling.
Evolution can only do so much. Break your leg and die because you were bed ridden for weeks and starved doesn't matter if you already had offspring.
340
« on: April 19, 2016, 11:38:47 AM »
It's impossible to refute anything you say because whenever someone does you just say "nuh uh its an axiom".
I guess I'm done if the only frame you're willing to play in is your own. Have fun in your bubble I guess.
yeah but the point is to explain why your axiom is better than my axiom
you and i both have a relatively similar moral compass
what you're having trouble with is understanding that our moral compass does not have to be objective by this universal, god-given, all-encompassing perspective
it only has to be objective under the parameters of the human condition, because we are the only things that can even ponder such things
why would we look at morality from any other angle other than our own?
Because the premise of nihilism is that morality is an artificial construct? Er, maybe not "artificial" per say. It's not manufactured, but it is not an innate property of the universe. Yeah, nihilism is pretty awful for life. If I want to feel good then nihilism isn't very good at achieving that. The purpose of nihilism is being able to recognize that the desire to feel good and not feel bad aren't inherent to reality.
341
« on: April 19, 2016, 11:26:12 AM »
You could have basically just asked if we agree with innocent until proven guilty and the discussion wouldn't have changed at all.
Except that's not what I'm asking. Innocent until proven guilty stems from the mindset that a free guilty man isn't as bad as an imprisoned innocent man.
On a broader spectrum, and this is a hypothetical, but literally freeing 100,000 murderers is less immoral than willingly putting on innocent man in prison.
Um no, you have the process in reverse. The actual value between letting many crimes take place again rather than imprisoning one person obviously weighs against the one person. But a just and equitable justice system is paramount to a stable and good society, and an equitable and just system requires presumption of innocence.
342
« on: April 19, 2016, 11:22:32 AM »
It's impossible to refute anything you say because whenever someone does you just say "nuh uh its an axiom".
I guess I'm done if the only frame you're willing to play in is your own. Have fun in your bubble I guess.
343
« on: April 19, 2016, 11:02:57 AM »
In an objectively nihilistic universe, rape wouldn't even be possible.
Because rape (as we understand it) matters, and if nothing matters, then rape can't exist. Rape is sexual acts done on a partner who does not consent. That description exists independent of whether or not it is bad or good, yeah it's bad, but that's not what rape means. You don't even understand the definition of rape properly, how can I expect you to be able to know the nature of your own little emotional fits you call reasons. If rape didn't matter, you wouldn't have tried to use it as some kind of smear tactic against me, you petty cunt.
That's how little you know about objectivity.
It's almost as if I'm free to have a personal assessment of morality and worth that is independent of my ability to recognize nihilism. But you wouldn't know that, since you demonstrate a complete inability to distinguish subjectivity and personal belief from objectivity and empiricism. edit: just realized the problem with saying empiricism in this conversation. not going to edit it out though because that'd be unfair nihilism kinda lends itself to revoking the authority of the senses, so I shot my own foot there. I more or less the distinction between reasoned observation and your emphasis on emotion. You say you're not focusing on emotion because pain is so visceral. But pain and suffering are pretty intertwined, and I'm sure your argument ultimately includes suffering.
344
« on: April 19, 2016, 10:38:12 AM »
the quote is just really misleading
this isn't some Barabbas bullshit
it's about the fact assumption of innocence is required for an equitable justice system
345
« on: April 19, 2016, 09:50:35 AM »
What if I told you objectivity doesn't matter? I'd say you don't know what it means lmao What objectively matters to the universe has no bearing on what objectively matters to life on earth. ayyy Objectivity deals with parameters. I don't know what objectivity means? No, you don't.
k
346
« on: April 19, 2016, 09:45:00 AM »
Because life is the only thing that matters. Without us, the universe really does have no meaning. How do you think this holds up when we look at life through a deterministic lens or just generally any perspective without free-will? Ones where the distinction between alive and inanimate are drawn fairly arbitrarily. Wrong. It feels like fucking shit, actually.
Do you know how awesome it would be if nothing mattered? So much weight would be off of my shoulders.
I'd really like it to be true, but it's not.
tbh all i hear is a theist saying they'd rape and murder without god being present
347
« on: April 19, 2016, 09:34:34 AM »
in a universe without meaning, you have to create your own
and the one you create should benefit everyone in the world--not just yourself
because everyone is playing the same game as you are
you don't have to, it just feels better to.
348
« on: April 19, 2016, 09:33:54 AM »
You have to establish a goal or purpose before you can say they are better. "Better" implies it works towards something more effectively. Obviously in this case the goal is to minimize pain and maximize pleasure. Well hmm if you just pretend that that's a given then this whole things seems so obvious doesn't it? why yes, it does
Well the point is for you to posit why that those are the criteria of what makes "better" in ways that exist independent of the fact that things that feel pain avoid it. Because that's the very nature of pain, it's a response pattern that naturally developed in life because avoiding damage propagates genes well. Nothing about these observations produce the need to prevent pain. apart from the fact that it tends to make things more difficult for us?
pain makes us less productive, it hinders progress, and it deters us from performing necessary tasks, depending on the form and severity of the pain
it lowers your quality of life--and if your quality of life is low, you will be less likely to contribute anything of value to your society
these effects are not absolute and they do vary, but generally speaking, everyone's lives would be better if they never had to deal with pain
and if you're one of them "pain is a learning tool" types, anti-natalism is the solution to that one--it is better to be unborn than be alive in a world full of pain, suffering, and stupid nihilists
You're assuming that what matters to life matters objectively.
349
« on: April 19, 2016, 12:36:36 AM »
it's not just that pain is "bad"--it's that no pain, or pleasure, are better sensations You have to establish a goal or purpose before you can say they are better. "Better" implies it works towards something more effectively. Obviously in this case the goal is to minimize pain and maximize pleasure. Well hmm if you just pretend that that's a given then this whole things seems so obvious doesn't it? Well the point is for you to posit why that those are the criteria of what makes "better" in ways that exist independent of the fact that things that feel pain avoid it. Because that's the very nature of pain, it's a response pattern that naturally developed in life because avoiding damage propagates genes well. Nothing about these observations produce the need to prevent pain. if you establish the existence of sensations that are demonstrably better or worse than each other, then we have an imperative to seek out the better sensations--because they are better Duh. The discussion is about how and why you make those established criteria.
350
« on: April 19, 2016, 12:19:40 AM »
WHY SHOULD PEOPLE WANT TO PREVENT BAD THINGS
this is """""""philosophy"""""""
No. It's why should preventing things be imperative. And it's not about what people want. The fact you've just said this illustrates why it's impossible to talk about this with you, you don't understand the difference. At this point having to explain these concepts to you in order for you to even be able to begin you holy crusade against nihilism, I'd have an easier time explaining parallax to flat-earthers. Or object permanence to a cat.
351
« on: April 19, 2016, 12:18:49 AM »
Are you going to refute this logic any time soon, or are you just going to keep repeating it for no reason?
You don't understand the difference between subjective and objective. I can't refute you.
352
« on: April 19, 2016, 12:10:18 AM »
Pain is bad. Refute that, concede defeat, or shut the fuck up.
At this point I'm convinced you don't take the word objective seriously because you don't know what it means. If you ever want to actually refute nihilism, you're going to have to take the word seriously, because it's literally a necessary component to dismantling the idea. I conceded that pain is something all living things avoid and asked you to provide why that fact means we need to prevent it. You didn't, you haven't. Please do. Yes it is. Jam a fork in your eye and tell me how it feels, and then compare that to eating a cupcake. "Pain is objectively bad and it is imperative to avoid it because you don't want to experience it!" Key word, want. Your failure to recognize the premise of your own argument is making me suffer so much I need to calm myself by remembering you and your batshit are as significant as actual bat shit in the end. I'm not talking about emotions AT fucking all, stupid-ass. I'm talking about the sensation of pain. Fuck emotion.
Emotional suffering and etc. are all characteristically similar, and I don't really see the difference as far as your argument is concerned. They are natural conditions living things develop that things desire to avoid.
353
« on: April 19, 2016, 12:00:53 AM »
It will increase the likelihood of trans-gendered people being attacked/harassed in restrooms.
I mean
If they cann pass, they'd most likely get away with using their preferred pooping room just like before.
If they can't pass, they probably were getting trouble for using their preferred pooping room already.
The difference is if a business is free to decide whether or not people in gray areas fit or not, which can carry sex offense charges. A lot of people are going to never pass perfectly, giving businesses the freedom to decide the margin between sex offender or not isn't just.
354
« on: April 18, 2016, 11:53:33 PM »
i only use the word "objectively" to prod at people's sides
if you enter a conversation not taking the difference between subjective and objective seriously, you never entered the conversation.
355
« on: April 18, 2016, 11:51:49 PM »
I don't have the "authority." I have the knowledge. You don't know shit, Cletus. I mean, I'm really not going to let someone who has never had cancer, who has never lost a limb, and who has never suffered through anything, really, tell me that suffering doesn't matter. Please come back to me in twenty years and see if you don't grow out of this childish philosophy. And it IS childish. Most people grow out of nihilism by age 6. A truly emotionally moving speech. I can't speak for nihilism because I haven't experienced pain and suffering. Almost as if personal experience and wew factor are the driving forces against the idea, rather than any presentable reason outside "wahhhhhhhhhhhhhh". You've yet to substantiate anything. Anytime anyone ever asks you to substantiate something, you prattle around a bit until you inevitably have to resort to your foolproof argument, pain is bad because that's the nature of pain. Blatant cop-outs abused to preserve the fact that you can't produce anything other than "I'm right because you're wrong". Yes. It's called a tautology. It is tautological that pain is bad, and anything that is bad must not exist. Above. It's as tautological as "the shortest distance between two points is a straight line." Except for the fact that this is demonstrable, while the statement, "suffering is objectively bad" is not. Only "suffering is something beings capable of experiencing it avoid" is something you can say. But just because suffering tautologically means that the thing experiencing it is going to dislike and avoid it, does in no way entail that preventing suffering is imperative. You have to establish goals and purposes for that to be so. And you haven't given any at all other than circular bullshit. LOL HOLY SHIT HE THINKS PAIN IS AN EMOTION
We've been using anguish and emotional suffering pretty much interchangeably here.
356
« on: April 18, 2016, 11:35:42 PM »
You might as well question math. Why does 2+2=4? Why doesn't it equal 6?
You're more akin to saying that because 2 + 2 = 4, 4 is a better number than 2.
If "4" represents the number of orgasms I have per week, then yes, 4 is a better number than 2. Objectively.
Depends if we establish that your orgasms are a great thing. If these number represented a factor in your chances for STD's, then no, 4 would be bad, because surprisingly the significance of something easily shifts with your perspective, almost as if there is no objective way to assess something other than 2 plus 2 equals 4.
357
« on: April 18, 2016, 11:32:47 PM »
There's nothing else I can extrapolate it from, beyond my own experiences and observations. Then where does your authority to declare that there is an objective truth (required to contradict nihilism) come from? What does that even mean?
"I feel pain right now, but that might not be true."
I meant that you were trying to justify the notion that pain is objectively bad because it doesn't feel good to you or others. Yes. State your issue with this logic. There isn't logic you fuckwit. "Pain is bad because it doesn't feel good!". Why does that matter? "Because it doesn't feel good!!!" Establish why someone not feeling good matters, without resorting to "b-because it feels bad and my emotions tell me to avoid it!" There is no emotion in my arguments whatsoever. Your premise is that pain makes you (and others) feel bad therefor its objectively bad.
358
« on: April 18, 2016, 11:22:03 PM »
You might as well question math. Why does 2+2=4? Why doesn't it equal 6?
You're more akin to saying that because 2 + 2 = 4, 4 is a better number than 2.
359
« on: April 18, 2016, 10:58:41 PM »
i posit that suffering does matter, because it's a very real and a very intense sensation that we are capable of preventing and even replacing in favor of a more pleasant sensation Nothing about the first half of this links to the second half. Why does pain and suffering causing quick and intense neural response mean that it is objectively awful? Unless, gasp, you are extrapolating that because of your experience with it, it is always something to be avoided. Surely you should realize by now that just because something feels some way, does not make it true, or even reasonably arguable. Why does what a living thing feels matter? Why is it imperative to prevent this? Because pain is bad? You're approaching the tail end of your own argument here. given that system, where good sensations are good and bad sensations are bad and preventable, it follows that we, to the best of our ability, ought to diminish bad sensations well fortunately this is just a hypothetical system made for the purpose of reducing pain and increasing suffering. unfortunately that's not the point of this conversation. the problem is your premise has no reason to exist outside your emotions towards suffering. does this refute the central point of nihilism? no--nothing can, which is what makes the philosopy so pervasive and insidious--but what you asked for what a contradiction, and there you have it
Well I mean if you're admitting that you can only conjure up non-sequitars to combat nihilism, maybe it's time to recognize that you oppose nihilism because you're scared of it.
360
« on: April 18, 2016, 10:44:13 PM »
may i see one
i mean if theyre so many and easy to find
Pages: 1 ... 101112 1314 ... 84
|
Show Posts
