- Members allowed to view this conversation
- Everyone
- ‹ Previous First
-
unread33-52 of 72 posts
- Last Next ›
Do not double post use the Edit function.
You have been warned.
Moderation - go to this post
Do not double post use the Edit function.
You have been warned.
New definition then I suppose, Vogon slug.
Dr. Gene Ray, Ph.D. - go to this post
Dr. Gene Ray, Ph.D. - go to this post
12yearold - go to this post
Nice quote job fuck ass.
thnx <3
justin - go to this post
hey bro where's your two steel balls and jackoff machine?
They're copper balls and it's not a jackoff machine, it's a harem of pubescent girls.
I'm currently trying to sort out how I'm going to manage to fertilize them.
Robert Adamant - go to this post
It's just objectively unfair to expect you to read all of the books in this picture, a collection I call "Prism of Death" but when answering the question of morality I have found these to be critical for even beginning to have any meaningful discussion.
When I say death it is in reference to 10+ million words of literature.
You simply aren't using the same language as me.
You haven't gone through the effort and you couldn't have known what effort was necessary to establish yourself as seriously concerned.
I don't think you need to talk to all of the various religious groups and read through all of the ancient texts.
I would say that if we're going to have a discussion on morality it would require that you have at least read through what I call "Prism of Death" at least once.
That's logistically possible but it would require an immense investment from you for something that you have no rational cause to dedicate yourself to.
So long as you're concerned with rationality it will never occur that you and I could discuss morality so long as you are unwilling to fully submit to my wisdom without question.
This might seem like an extreme expectation of you but with every robust and time tested system of morality they all require it as do I.
So which is it, shitbert? Did you arrive at your moral philosophy on your own or did you co-opt it from some source? It seems you're simply afraid to openly discuss your ideas, and hide behind a layer of obfuscation and mystique. This may work on some normgroid but here on these boards we have powerful intellectual wizards ready to cast Eldritch lightning on your balls. It's plainly obvious that your entire ideology you've so carefully crafted over the years is nothing more than an attempt at rationalizing primal fears and impulses. I've already gone over your desperate clinging to life so I will spare everyone that ordeal. Your beasts are a rather clear example of this, however. The idea of primal beast entities that one must not just avoid becoming but be able to recognize and avoid when they manifest in others is obviously a child-like "fear of monsters" or "fear of the dark" which you never grew out of and seek to justify with logic. Once again, your "moral" foundation is nothing but putting a pseudo-intellectual wig on the proverbial emotion and impulse pig. You are an animal, and rather than striving to be human you chose to roll around in the mud like the pig you are. You have no morals. Animals cannot have morals. All you have is emotion and impulse. Admit it, bucko. Quit lying to yourself and everyone else when it is plainly obvious that this is the case.
Dr. Gene Ray, Ph.D. - go to this post
So which is it, shitbert? Did you arrive at your moral philosophy on your own or did you co-opt it from some source? It seems you're simply afraid to openly discuss your ideas, and hide behind a layer of obfuscation and mystique. This may work on some normgroid but here on these boards we have powerful intellectual wizards ready to cast Eldritch lightning on your balls. It's plainly obvious that your entire ideology you've so carefully crafted over the years is nothing more than an attempt at rationalizing primal fears and impulses. I've already gone over your desperate clinging to life so I will spare everyone that ordeal. Your beasts are a rather clear example of this, however. The idea of primal beast entities that one must not just avoid becoming but be able to recognize and avoid when they manifest in others is obviously a child-like "fear of monsters" or "fear of the dark" which you never grew out of and seek to justify with logic. Once again, your "moral" foundation is nothing but putting a pseudo-intellectual wig on the proverbial emotion and impulse pig. You are an animal, and rather than striving to be human you chose to roll around in the mud like the pig you are. You have no morals. Animals cannot have morals. All you have is emotion and impulse. Admit it, bucko. Quit lying to yourself and everyone else when it is plainly obvious that this is the case.
It seems as though your point is that animals are immoral.
You don't have to go much further than that.
Your position is that morality doesn't exist.
Then you describe my moral framework, which, by doing so recognizes it's existence.
It doesn't really even seem like you take issue with my moral framework and spend most of your time doing nothing more describing it and hoping that means something.
Robert Adamant - go to this post
It seems as though your point is that animals are immoral.
You don't have to go much further than that.
Your position is that morality doesn't exist.
Then you describe my moral framework, which, by doing so recognizes it's existence.
It doesn't really even seem like you take issue with my moral framework and spend most of your time doing nothing more describing it and hoping that means something.
My point is not that animals are immortal but rather that animals lack morality. They are morally neutral. You, being an animal, don't have morality. I take issue with you pretending as though your animal instincts and impulses are somehow morality.
Moreover, never once did I say morality doesn't exist. I will put forth the fact that morality is exclusively for sapient human beings. It's evident that you do not fall into this category. You are a beast, you are even by your own retarded half baked ideology a sub-human entity who should not be held in any higher regard than one might hold an amoeba.
Ah, animals are amoral. Doesn't really require me to change my statement but the clarification is nice.
Dr. Gene Ray, Ph.D. - go to this post
My point is not that animals are immortal but rather that animals lack morality. They are morally neutral. You, being an animal, don't have morality. I take issue with you pretending as though your animal instincts and impulses are somehow morality.
Moreover, never once did I say morality doesn't exist. I will put forth the fact that morality is exclusively for sapient human beings. It's evident that you do not fall into this category. You are a beast, you are even by your own retarded half baked ideology a sub-human entity who should not be held in any higher regard than one might hold an amoeba.
If morality is for sapient human beings and not for animals then what are humans if not animals?
Robert Adamant - go to this post
If morality is for sapient human beings and not for animals then what are humans if not animals?
You're arguing that humans are animals? Do you really wish to open that can of worms upon yourself?
sure. i'm fairly sure that humans are animals.
Robert Adamant - go to this post
sure. i'm fairly sure that humans are animals.
And what leads you to this laughable conclusion?
Dr. Gene Ray, Ph.D. - go to this post
And what leads you to this laughable conclusion?
Because humans share characteristics of animals.
Hopefully we aren't having a discussion on ontology now because that hardly seems relevant.
Robert Adamant - go to this post
Because humans share characteristics of animals.
Humans also share characteristics of urine and feces. That doesn't make humans urine and feces.
Dr. Gene Ray, Ph.D. - go to this post
Humans also share characteristics of urine and feces. That doesn't make humans urine and feces.
ok looks like we do have to go into ontology.
It depends upon what level of precision you care about.
If you say fish live in water that will generally be true but inaccurate for the things that live in the water which would not be called fish for other reasons.
That's the matter of precision, if you try to be too precise or vague with the terminology you risk considering everything a fish or nothing a fish.
When humans are classified as animals it is done because humans share ancestry with other things that are called animals.
This gets complicated when you consider things like mycelium which are not often considered animals but share close enough ancestry with humans that defining the category by ancestry mycelium would have to be considered animals.
With the question of morality and how that differentiates humans from animals the ways morality is expressed such as through law enforcement and warfare is shared with other animals making morality something that could create a subcategory of animals but not at the exclusion of everything except for humans.
Any other questions that require more effort to respond to than to pose in your dishonorable effort to assume you'll be correct if only you could just exhaust me?
On the matter of humans and feces both being considered in the same category there are categories in which humans and feces would both exist.
You admit as much in recognizing humans and feces share characteristics but feces fails to be categorized as a mammal, a subcategory of animals humans exist within, being that it doesn't have mammary glands.
Your entire basis for this argument rests upon acceptance of your arbitrary classification scheme. I will not accept this, and will require a valid argument that isn't simply "humans are animals because I say so." You can't really argue against this because you won't even accept commonly agreed upon conventions within the English language that actually do serve a purpose (facilitating communication).
fuck, now we have to get into normative ethics. I hate this.
Yes I use this classification scheme not because it is any more true than any other classification scheme but that it is the system I arbitrarily decide to use.
This is the case with all communication and all definitions.
Something that appears objective like mathematics rests upon many axioms that are arbitrary but we use mathematics because it's easiest to tempt people to believe it.
You take pride in being disabused of all temptation so realistically something like biology would be difficult for you to submit to.
I only pervert the english language to make specific points.
Were i to do it accidentally like you there would be less information.
The aesthetic principal of understanding the rules so that you can break them creatively rather than neglecting the rules because you're lazy.
- ‹ Previous First
-
unread33-52 of 72 posts
- Last Next ›
Copyright ยฉ MMXXV Esoteric Chat. Some rights reserved. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. ยง 230: All posts on this site are the sole responsibility of their posters.
4,758 posts - 1,411 conversations - 0 members online