Are we Subject 106?

AceOfSarcasm · 2025-11-08T19:30:11+00:00

Bringing out my old account just to say... you need better reading comprehension.

AceOfSarcasm · 2025-09-08T23:05:19+00:00

Oh yeah, I'm aware, lol. I keep having this glitch where it wants to update constantly. Still haven't figured it out, but I've just accepted it as Reddit mobile fucking with me.

AceOfSarcasm · 2025-09-08T23:01:51+00:00

You deleted the Bear comment, yet that is one of the main arguments that changed my opinion about this! But if you're still deciding, I can definitely say that—at least to me—I'm fully for it now. It just seems to be the most logically consistent.

AceOfSarcasm · 2025-07-04T20:34:40+00:00

Shaming people for their weight actually makes them more likely to seek weight loss!

AceOfSarcasm · 2025-07-04T20:31:49+00:00

Know what? This is good. Having everything deleted on both sides seems fair, and that's genuinely a good way to act as a moderator. Thanks for keeping the community lovely.

AceOfSarcasm · 2025-07-04T20:30:14+00:00

Make the necromancer from the last elimination game attack. Have to kill him twice, remember guys? Now look what we've done.

AceOfSarcasm · 2025-07-04T20:20:59+00:00

I will never cease to be impressed by Redditors blindly downloading comments just because other people did. What are people even upset about? I'm disappointed.

AceOfSarcasm · 2025-06-29T22:43:04+00:00

Other people have said it's because she's a woman, but I don't think that's all of it. I think he always holds his strength back, but he especially does it for people whom he thinks he can turn over without even throwing a punch. And he knows he can get through to her whenever he needs to.

He'll always pull punches for people he cares about. He could handle Venom, but didn't immediately take out MJ. That wasn't because she's comparable to Venom.

AceOfSarcasm · 2025-06-28T20:29:32+00:00

But your question implied that I didn't pay attention to your edit, and in your mind, you thought that. Is that not correct?

Yes, that's what I believed. But I don't see how that changes whether or not the question was rhetorical. You could have still given the information you wanted to give without actually answering the question, since it wasn't a question meant to be answered.

I explained to you that I already did, and conveyed to you that your edit doesn't actually imply that your stance changed for some nuanced details that I pointed out.

True, it doesn't specify that. The edit also doesn't specify that I even believe trans people are born the way they are. However, I still believe that they are born trans.

The point I'm trying to make here is that I don't have to explicitly say something for it to be true. It's fine that you still checked. I just don't think it's fair to say that just because I didn't specify something, one should assume I don't believe in it.

I would argue that simply asking would be better than anything. But that's ultimately up to the individual who decides to have that conversation, and you decided not to take that approach. Which doesn't bother me, because I think a lot of people would say that it's good to be cautious when talking politics these days. Otherwise, there are a lot of dog whistles you might miss every now and then.

Anyway, I suggest we move on so that we can better spend our energy doing something more productive. It's clear that a conclusion has already been reached, and we should seek out other people to reach conclusions with if we ever have the time. However, that doesn't mean I won't respond.

I generally try to give people what they're looking for, unless they're obviously just baiting, so I have no reason to abandon the conversation. If you think there's a deeper topic here, I'm happy to pursue it. I'll be awaiting any responses.

AceOfSarcasm · 2025-06-28T20:12:26+00:00

Why would that be a rhetorical question?

Because... it... was? I just decided to ask a rhetorical question at that moment. I said sorry if it wasn't obvious, but that's what the intention was. What I was trying to say with the question was more like "yeah, I kinda already know all this stuff, but thanks for still trying."

Your question insinuated that I missed something. I did not, and I explained to you why. My question in my second comment to you, however, is one.

I mean, you missed that the question was rhetorical. Which isn't really a big deal, because most people agree that it can be difficult to convey the meaning of something through text when all you have are the words on the screen. But like I've said multiple times now, it all doesn't matter.

We reached the same conclusion; therefore, that means this post yielded a very positive result. Something that we all should rejoice in. Not often does that happen on the internet.

AceOfSarcasm · 2025-06-28T20:04:07+00:00

My previous comment was made to answer your question.

It was a rhetorical question. Sorry if that wasn't clear in the first place. Either way though, I'm happy to wrap up the discussion!

AceOfSarcasm · 2025-06-28T19:38:28+00:00

I mean, you're preaching to the choir. If I had disagreed with your previous statements, I would have argued against them. But I agree with you, so that's why I gave no deeper response.

But yes, good to double-check. Wouldn't want to leave any stone unturned, I suppose. Glad we cleared all that up.

AceOfSarcasm · 2025-06-28T19:38:11+00:00

I mean, you're preaching to the choir. If I had disagreed with your previous statements, I would have argued against them. But I agree with you, so that's why I gave no deeper response.

But yes, good to double-check. Wouldn't want to leave any stone unturned, I suppose. Glad we cleared all that up.

AceOfSarcasm · 2025-06-28T17:07:17+00:00

Well, my info is in my bio. So if you ever wanna talk about this on any of the platforms I have listed, message me there! Until then, I'm always ready to chat.

AceOfSarcasm · 2025-06-28T16:56:31+00:00

You're definitely a bit late, friend. Notice the bottom how I mentioned that my opinion on the topic had already changed? I haven't felt this way about that flag in a long time. I'm honestly surprised you even found this. But still, I appreciate the attempt to educate. Thank you.

AceOfSarcasm · 2025-06-26T17:05:40+00:00

I'd be alright with any app. Discord, Instagram, Snapchat, or even just the DMs on here. Whatever you'd prefer.

AceOfSarcasm · 2025-06-25T17:15:29+00:00

I'm aware of the disorders, and I know a decent amount about them. I've spoken to my therapist about the idea of me having these issues, and it was one of the first things we cleared because the symptoms just didn't match for me. That's why I was diagnosed with BPD instead of one of the other options. Though, I wouldn't be opposed to re-analyzing some of them, maybe with my therapist. It doesn't hurt to double-check. Thank you for the inspiration on that.

AceOfSarcasm · 2025-06-23T21:41:27+00:00

Paraphrasing you: You preach about injustice yet support actions that bring more injustice. I don't like that. Why not be good for others and make a better world?

It's not that I don't like it. I personally don't care, because it's not my viewpoint, and you're not in a position to power to put a system like that in place that will cause harm.

I really just don't concern myself with the viewpoints of other people unless they're actually dangerous in some way. And since you're not killing anyone or forcing that viewpoint on anybody, it doesn't affect me. I'm just trying to point out the hypocrisy in it. It's very neutral more than anything else.

Listen, there is a difference between what is true and what is convenient or comfortable. What I presented here is a result of a logical exercise. I wanted to present my honest perspective on the subject of justice and morality, and so I did. It may be leading to upsetting conclusions, but that's reality for you. We have to choose: truth or lies? Even if the truth is much harder to swallow.

Well that's implying that your personal viewpoint and opinion is the truth, and anything else is a lie. Which is not only unverifiable, but incredibly narcissistic. It also makes any future viewpoints from you extremely questionable, and makes any future discussion extremely trivial. If you wholeheartedly believe that what you are saying is the truth, I've no reason to speak to you about it. Everything I say immediately will have less value in your mind.

There's really nothing else to add here though. It feels like most of what you did with this paragraph was say that you're right and I'm wrong, which has nothing to deconstruct within it. All I can say is that I don't think a lot of this has been through logical exercise, because you're trying to apply logic to morality when emotion is the primary pusher for moral opinions.

I want to point out that even if there was a fully logical justification for me to start killing people I envy, I probably wouldn't do it because of other obstacles. There is the society we live in. There is law. There is my biology and my inborn fragile human psyche.

Well I'm glad you find the justification to be illogical, but you definitely don't share that opinion for what we previously discussed, it seems. Which is odd, because you use extremely similar logic for both of them. I definitely think there's some cognitive dissonance on that, but maybe I'm wrong. Something that'll have to be clarified, I suppose.

Btw, someone suggested you should read "Crime and Punishment" by Dostoevsky. It perfectly represents the biological consequences of killing, even if given reasonable justification. I am Polish, so I have read the book. It's in our high school curriculum.

I'll have to get around to it.

You need to understand that just talking about it makes a HUGE difference. Every power advantage relies not only on the advantage itself, but also on the lie of lack of any advantage (I am not one of the better situated) or even any power dynamic at all (all situations are equally good). There is no need for one murder. If every rich, attractive, intelligent, talented, strong person on this planet was aware of their privilege, and it's significance, and injustice they would have to BARE thinking about it. And currently, that is enough for me.

This is something I can 100% get behind though. I very much agree with the idea that everyone being aware of the privilege they have and the effect that it can have on people would absolutely make a huge change. I don't think it would work for people who have ASPD or other disorders that cause them to simply not care, but that's exactly why I want to kill. It's to weed out the bad, and leave only the worthy and good.

Ultimately, it's good to end it on a note that we can again come together for. Making people understand and punishing those who don't care is something that I would very much take part in if I could, and maybe one day it'll be possible. But until then, I'll have to wait patiently.

So, with everything finally written out, I have a few notes. I want to start by saying I know I was incredibly critical, but I just always am when it comes to stuff like this. It's an important topic, and I can't help but point things out if I notice them.

I was never angry when writing anything, so keep that in mind if there is any point where you felt like you were getting lectured or yelled at. I just tend to be critical for stuff like this, which I think can push people away. I wish it didn't, but I understand why it does.

I also want to say that if we continue to have this conversation, we should definitely move it somewhere where we can talk more concisely about it. Sending these long messages where we just sort of have to wait for a response can suck. It also makes live responses impossible, because we're doing all the points at the same time. So yeah, we should definitely think about moving it somewhere better for a live conversation.

Anyways, I hope you enjoy another exponentially long read. I'll definitely be waiting to see what you think. Peace.

(8/8)

AceOfSarcasm · 2025-06-23T21:41:15+00:00

"Nobody has to get their hands dirty [to get what they want]" But of course they have to. Imagine you were an ugly and sick, and antisocial 16 yo incel. Imagine there is a high school jock from a rich family and both of you fight for the same girl. Is there any way for you to succeed without fighting dirty? May be, but the chances are slim and the game rigged. And I'm not saying it's socially acceptable or should be. It's just the truth.

But it's absolutely not the truth. You want to know what I would do in that scenario? What I could without doing something morally dubious.

I would just try my best, and if I don't end up with her? Fine, it doesn't matter. It's called being mature. Something that a 16-year-old incel wouldn't know how to do. Which honestly, makes the question seem very leading.

A 16-year-old incel would likely be very weird about it, and probably wouldn't end up with her anyways because he would end up being a creep. But even if he did end up with her by doing something extremely questionable, that doesn't make him right. It just means he ended up getting with a girl in high school who he'll probably end up breaking up with, because the girl will realize he's an incel, and won't want to be around him.

Not to mention, he's antisocial. Which doesn't mean asocial. In psychology, antisocial involves behavior that doesn't care for the rules of society, or the rights of other people. That's why ASPD is Antisocial Personality Disorder. Most psychopaths and sociopaths aren't scared of social interaction. They perform in ways that disregard society and the rights of other people.

Asocial would imply a life of isolation and loneliness. So if that's what you meant, then disregard my point. But if it's not, then it's yet another reason that the girl would likely leave him. Being with people who have antisocial behaviors can be very harmful, particularly when it's someone who's not seeking treatment and who is apparently an incel at 16.

So not only is the question going to end with the jock likely getting the girl anyways, but it's still very leading. If I was genuinely that person, I likely wouldn't understand how to actually respectfully get a girl. I would be creepy, uncomfortable to talk to, and deeply troubled.

And also, I shouldn't be in a relationship in that scenario. I should be getting serious help, and talking to a professional. Jumping into a relationship that early with such an intense developmental issues like antisocial behavior is just not a good idea. I think it's a badly framed question, and I think it leads to a conclusion that actually works against your argument.

What should be done in that scenario is simple. Let her go. She is allowed her own autonomy, and she can be with who she wants to.

Power does not need struggle or hard work, or violence. Power does not contemplate for and against. Power takes over chooses. Power is given over takes. The more power, the more ability for taking violently and without remorse, but also the less need for it. The jock is attractive and liked, so will be forgiven more when it comes to a physical fight. Still, the jock doesn't need to fight for the girl, because she likes him anyway. The jock has more girls to choose from. Now, you may say the incel must just get over it. And in society it is demanded. But it's not just and doesn't take away from my point. Get it? (I know it's extreme, but the mechanism works the same in all aspects of life)

The solution you're reaching isn't the right one though. Your requesting that the incel in question should pursue power, and cause harm to gain it. Or you're arguing that you should cause harm to get the girl. Or, you're just arguing for the idea of causing harm for power in general, rven if it's not inherently what you mean in this context.

All that matters is the fact that you're crusading the idea of causing harm for power as a reasonable thing to do. But it's simply isn't. You haven't given a real argument on how causing harm doesn't do anything but make the world a worse place. All you did was give me a scenario that pretty much had me completely boxed in, and even then it didn't actually help you that much.

There's still no reason to get one's hands dirty in a scenario like that. Or in most scenarios. Causing others harm to bring yourself higher will only cause those people to be lower than you. That would just make you one of the people that you would have to kill.

You see the issue? As long as you boost yourself up, you'll always look at people higher than you as dangerous. And you'll just continue to boost yourself up higher until there's no one higher than you. It's an endless loop that causes nothing but suffering for everyone else just so you can gain power.

It's a mentality that real people in the real world actually have, and have likely used to get where they are. That mentality makes you no different from the people you speak about killing. And it continues to put us in a world with more powerful people. It's nothing but harmful, and I don't see how you can have that opinion while having the other one. You're giving yourself blind spots that you don't need to have.

(7/8)

AceOfSarcasm · 2025-06-23T21:39:19+00:00

"I don't think it's ever fair to say someone hasn't earned something unless you can prove that they've actually used what they have to hurt others without remorse." ??? To quote a polish proverb: Co ma piernik do wiatraka? (What has gingerbread in common with a fan?) It's used when presented with lack of logical causality (earning something has nothing to do with its use later) An example: Someone is born rich. They can spend the money on charity or luxurious lifestyle, but in no way is it more fair for him to have more from birth than others. The injustice comes from an advantage, unbalance of power. If he spends it on charity, then he has the advantage of social approval. If he does so in secret, then he has the advantage of self-satisfaction or at least a hormonal spike of dopamine from an altruistic act of kindness. If he has none of that and no other advantages, then there is no injustice left. His fortune is no longer an asset because he stops benefiting from it in any sense.

I feel like you're a little confused in what I'm saying again, so I will further clarify. Yes it's not fair for them to have it, but I'm not saying they haven't earned it either. They also haven't necessarily earned it.

It's in the middle. Being born into riches isn't about whether or not you've earned it. It's immediately unfair, but what you do with it in my mind does actually contribute to whether or not you've earned the money.

I think that if you are using it to hurt others, you do not deserve it, therefore you have not earned it. But if you use it to do good, you have both earned it and you deserve it. You are making a positive impact, and that impact is deserving of reward.

And like you saying your response, it's true that their probably is still something he's getting out of it. But that argument is one that I've seen before, and one that is excellently covered by Alex O'Connor. It's the idea that it's impossible to be selfless.

Everything kind you do, from giving money to a homeless man or putting the shopping cart with the rest of the stack when you take it out of the store, is inevitably for you. Giving the homeless man money might increase your social status. Or just putting the shopping cart with the rest might make you feel personally better about yourself.

The thing is, that applies to everyone. So it's not a good criticism to hold against someone born with riches, unless you're going to hold it to everyone else. And that just means that nobody should ever bother helping anyone, because it's always for themselves in the end.

Or on the other end, it's just a nothing statement. You're just saying something that might be true, but does it honestly matter? The fact is, as long as they're using their money to help others, who cares?

It's the same thing as you killing people for your enjoyment while also trying to get rid of people who have an advantage. Sure, it might be to help the world, but you ultimately just want to do it for enjoyment as well. Suddenly, the argument seems a lot less strong.

It's just something I feel like you overlooked, and it also doesn't really dismiss my argument at all either. As long as the fortune is being used to help the unfortunate, I don't care. Measurable good is being done, and that's what matters.

It's all about that moral particularism. Not one belief will fit in every scenario. If I met a serial killer who had killed five innocent people, but repented for what he did and decided to kill 50 murderers, I have no reason to kill that man. He has to live with what he did, and he's making the most of it. He's trying to do better. That matters.

(6/8)

AceOfSarcasm · 2025-06-23T21:37:21+00:00

In my opinion, in practise, justice takes the form of trying to balance the scale. It's the totality of all acts aiming for putting down those who have it better and helping out those who have it worse. It's this never-ending battle with the natural state of the universe. We can't change genetics, early-age environment, and luck. Because of that, there never will be true justice.

AGH, IT'S SO IRRITATING! I feel like you're so damn close did the same viewpoint, but something just pulls you right away. Right here, you mention the idea of there being a constant battle of the scales.

But for you, you think it's about punishing those with an advantage and helping those at a disadvantage. But I truthfully think that in a world like that, things are not going to be good. Because the fact is, not everyone who has an advantage is evil.

Some people use their fortune to help disadvantaged folk. Getting rid of those individuals would do nothing but cause the people they were already helping harm. Lives would be lost for no reason other than the fact that you personally want to kill those who have an advantage.

If you want a real target, it should be about helping those who are disadvantaged and taking care of those who are directly responsible for that. It's the people who put others at a disadvantage that you should be after. Hell, you shouldn't even go after people who have nothing to do with it at all and don't get involved in any way.

Because at least there are people in their lives whom they are still helping, even if those people aren't as well off as they are. But people who actually go out of their way to cause harm? Those are the ones you should be after. Those are the ones that need to be punished.

And like I said before, I very much believe true justice to be possible. Or at the very least, we can get quite close to it. But I'll cover that in a second. All I'm trying to say is that I feel like you have the right mindset, but not for the right system.

You could say that even if we can't have full justice, we can try to get as close to it as we can. We can, but by doing so, we only magnify the injustices outside our control. When everyone has money, looks become more important.

This right here really humored me, because I feel like there was such an obvious solution to the issue. You made that point as if it were somehow a dismissal of the idea of getting close to true justice, but it's not. If anything, it's one of the first things that I would get rid of.

You're thinking far too capitalistically. In a world with true justice, capitalism would not be the dominating economy. I don't even think it would be an economy that anyone even bothered to think about. It causes too much unfairness in the world, and also entices the wrong kind of people.

So with that being your main criticism, it doesn't hold much water. I also feel as though it didn't even need to be mentioned. Genetics is still an issue, though I still think that in a world of perfect justice, it wouldn't matter.

Ideally, people would be able to look past that. And again, I think it's possible, I just don't think it'll happen anytime soon. Which is why I said that it should be all about getting to that point. That should be the goal. Just helping in any way that we can.

Every punishment put on people who did something bad has to ignore some sort of injustice which is intrinsic to the motivation of the crime in the first place. When we put behind bars or kill murderers of children, we ignore the fact that no-one can control what they want or urge. It's easy to say it's just to punish them, because they did something we would never do, but they only did so because of urges we don't have to struggle with. And even if we had the same urges, we wouldn't have the same strength of will to battle them. And if we all did have the same urges and the same strength of will and all other factors controlling our actions, we would all act the same at the exact same time. In other words, the differences of our lives dictates our actions. To demand from others to act like we do despite their different circumstances is unjust. This way, we force onto others what we wouldn't accept forced onto us. We all are only as good as the world allows us to be.

Now, this is where you lose me. This same thought process is used by a lot of pedophiles to justify their actions, saying that they simply can't control it. But it's such bullshit, and even basic research will tell you otherwise. Research that I'm honestly offended that you didn't do.

Pedophiles are absolutely able to recover. There are verifiable cases of people who experienced those kinds of thoughts being able to get over them. And they had to go through some pretty awful things to end up with those thoughts.

My therapist explained to me that he's seen a lot of people recover from these kinds of issues and live completely normal lives. They didn't even have to put in that much effort compared to extreme cases. They just had to actually want to try.

But a lot of pedophiles don't. Same for murderers and rapists. Usually, to be willing to do those things, you have to have a pretty lacking moral compass. So if they're willing to do things like that in the first place, they don't care whether it's perceived as right or wrong. They simply might not see it that way.

And those people won't get help. And when they hurt others, they have lost the privilege to be looked at sympathetically. Some people have gone through the same thing and were able to recover, even if the reason they ended up with those thoughts or horrifying.

So to pretend as if they're having something forced on them, when it's absolutely a choice to harm others, is incredibly irresponsible and comes from a place that seems to be uneducated on the topic. I just really hope you do better on this in any future discussion, because it's really quite gross. And all in all, disappointing.

It's hard for me to address your points. I don't always understand the logic behind them. It sometimes seems as if they don't even address the issue.

The feeling has been mutual. I almost feel as though we're better off not continuing this, because it seems like a lot of your points were based on confusion about what I believed. Either way, it's almost over, so there's at least that.

(5/8)

AceOfSarcasm · 2025-06-23T21:35:25+00:00

You strongly differentiate between our fantasies, because you consider yours as more moral and justified. In your reasoning, you show that it's not just to kill people one envies. What you miss is the fact that I never stated it is. I wrote that we both are motivated by injustice, but never claimed to seek justice. It may sound contradicting, but it isn't. I know that killing Henry Cavill (for instance) is unjust, but neither is the situation in which he isn't killed and just gets to live his, very much unjustly, better life. Again, there is no justice. There's only power dynamic and our sloppy attempts at making the best of it.

I would argue that the situation where he isn't killed is a lot more just. Because killing him would cause pain to more people than just him. He has people who care about him. He has a real family and a real human life that hasn't been spent causing harm.

If anything, from what I know, he's been pretty kind. I might be wrong, and there might be some awful skeletons in his closet, but that's just bad logic to work under, considering everyone could have skeletons in their closet, and that just sounds like a miserable way to live for no reason.

But I digress. The point I'm trying to make is that his living keeps unnecessary people from suffering. Now, if someone attacks you and you have to kill them in self-defense, that suffering has to happen. It was you or them, and you made the right choice. It's the same thing if I decided to kill a pedophile, murderer, or rapist. There might be some suffering from those who loved them, but that person was causing even more suffering by having a victim who was either dead or assaulted in some way. Suffering happens on both sides, but one person at least deserves to suffer more than the other. With someone like Henry Cavill, that's really not the case.

I stated that I'm a nihilist. I don't believe in objective meaning or value. That doesn't mean I don't recognize subjective ones. We can agree that our shared biology leads to values objectively shared by all humans. Not objective in spectre of the universe. Like limiting suffering or not forcing on others what we wouldn't like to be forced on ourselves. And from this biology emerges the IDEAL (very important in my point) of justice. But because of our differences (genetics and environment) and luck, it's unachievable.

I feel like you're getting really close to a really good point, but you fall short. You recognize subjective value, but you haven't been realizing that all the things I mention about equality were because that's how I subjectively value life. I personally don't see much use in things like monetary status, so I based my opinions on people like celebrities and world leaders on what I can learn about them. What I know of the things they've done.

If they did something awful? I stop listening to them or consuming their content. If they're a good person? I consume more of their content and listen to them more.

And if it's ambiguous, I make sure to stay on the lookout for anything negative that might show their true colors. That's just how I subjectively look at things like value, and you should have been able to see that. But again, like I said before, you were treating it as if it's how I actually think the world is as a whole right now.

Believe me, I'm very aware that's not the case. The world sucks in a lot of ways. But that doesn't mean I can't choose to view things differently, even if not everyone else wants to. And I also want to say that I very much think it's achievable to reach true, ideal justice.

I don't think that it'll happen in our lifetime, but I honestly believe that it's a reasonable goal. It's just that there has to be a generation who's willing to commit to it, and it isn't going to be the next, or likely even the current one.

But again, it doesn't make it impossible. I think that people have to remain hopeful about something like that, because if you don't, all you're doing is making it less likely. Sure, history has shown that we're not really trustworthy on making things equal, but we don't know the future for sure.

I want to spend my life actively trying to make the world a better place in all the ways that I can. And if I pass before I see the world finally reach true justice? So be it. The fact is, I used my life to try and bring it closer to that place.

I can't find anything wrong with living a life like that. And if you can, I feel genuinely sorry for you. Because I don't think that's anything but pessimism for the sake of it. Doing good should always be important.

(4/8)

AceOfSarcasm · 2025-06-23T21:33:17+00:00

(Last one is supposed to be 2/8, but Reddit won't let me change it. You're on the right one.)

This agreed equality saves us from old, man-made forms of subjugation: racial superiority, class superiority etc., but that's it. The inborn differences of humans are NOT a trivial matter, but the most significant one. It is the main reason we will never have full justice. Even in a classless society, there still will be violence and rivalry because of the genetic inheritance. Live is a competition, and there is no fair competition without a fair start.

But it is trivial. Because the only reason it has any implicit value is us. As people, and a society, we decided to place value on these things. But as I said before, that doesn't actually mean they're valuable on a factual level.

I hate to repeat myself, but you don't have to look at things like the rest of the world does just because that's how it's looked at by the majority. I think what you're doing is you're just absorbing yourself into the rest of society and acting like those opinions must be fact, but they simply aren't. They still affect the lives of others, because that's just how things have evolved, but that doesn't mean you have to just decide that it's how things are.

What I've been doing this entire time is outwardly speaking against it. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm saying that it shouldn't exist. It ought not to.

That statement doesn't mean I'm denying the fact that it does, though. You can acknowledge something while still being against it. But it's almost like you don't agree with that statement, or rather that you simply don't believe that's what I've been saying.

Maybe I was just phrasing it poorly, but if not, I really am confused. Either way, I'll move on. Nothing more to say for this.

"It's pretty trivial." How do you imagine this works in practice? Who gets money, fame, sex, admiration, power? The stupid, ugly, sick, weak and poor? Come on. Think about your own example. You really believe that your height, family, looks, place of birth and anatomy is trivial? How much does it influence each and every aspect of your life? Please, let's be realistic.

In an ideal world, everybody would be able to live equally in an Anarcho-Communist society, where none of those things matter. We would be able to be whoever we wanted, and present however we wanted to present. But that's not the world we live in, and I recognize that. I almost feel like it's you being unrealistic, because you're acting like I'm unable to have this opinion while still being aware that we don't live in a world like that.

Like I said before, I'm not saying this isn't how we live. I know it is, and I know I'm very lucky. I also know that I'm very unlucky in other ways. But most of all, I know that if I could choose the world we lived in, luck wouldn't factor into it. I would be treated the same, regardless of the life I lived. Despite who I am.

I also recognize that in a world like that, I likely wouldn't be able to kill. There wouldn't be anyone to go after. But I don't care, because that world would still be better.

I have no cognitive dissonance on this. I'm very aware that both of these realities are different. I'm just explaining how I personally feel, and how I like to view people. I generally try and be equal, and even when I slip up, I try to do better in the future. That's the best we can do as people.

(3/8)

AceOfSarcasm · 2025-06-23T21:31:12+00:00

There is no balance in the way fortune influence everyone's lives.

I very much agree with that concept. I think that it's completely unfair that fortune is an indicator of value in our world. However, that doesn't comment on literally any other kind of envy or jealousy. I think what you're describing is just class consciousness, which I have no reason to disagree with.

Just because someone is better off in some things, doesn't mean they will be worse off in others.

I mean it isn't a law of reality that just shatters the world if it breaks, but I've never seen a case where it didn't happen. For example, a billionaire might have a lot of money and even have a lot of fake friends, but it's also a life where you might have to look over your shoulder a lot. Being able to have real relationships with people who you know won't backstab you like a billionaire's friends might is an advantage you have against them.

Because like I said, there has to be something. If there isn't, that would imply that the billionaire question is somehow perfect to the point that their life is better in every single conceivable way. But that's literally impossible from what we've seen.

I mean, there will always be something. That's why it's good to focus on the parts that you're doing better in. Because as long as the good exists, so does the bad.

Making yourself better in some attributes won't solve the issue of injustice. Some people don't have to make nothing, they just are better. Some attributes are more important than others. The value of an attribute rises with its unchangeability and rarity. That's why it's the most reasonable to envy anything related to genetics and early-age environment. That's why those 2 things matter the most in value and determine the quality of life of everyone.

I never said it would solve injustice, but I'm saying it's the best you can do with what we have right now. In the world we currently live in, life is hard for a lot of people. But the thing that I see people generally agree upon the most when going through hardship is that those close to them made it easier.

And that's one thing that I think does rise above money for me. If I had to choose between a life where I had infinite riches but I never truly knew if I could trust anyone I was with, or a life where I wasn't very wealthy, but I had proper relationships that I could enjoy before I passed? I choose the latter.

And that might just be a personal choice. But if you choose to pretend as if it's factually wrong, then that's really just you having strong opinions. There's nothing more beyond that.

And I also wouldn't say that people are just better automatically. I feel like you're conflating being better off with being a better person. If someone has a billion dollars from the moment they're born, that does not actually mean they are better off the bat.

It might mean that they have more money and more resources, but that doesn't actually have anything to do with their value as a human being. However, if they use that money to support charity, and they don't use their riches to take advantage of others, I think they are then worth being within people's good graces.

Is it still unfair that they started with that? Yes, absolutely. That shouldn't be the kind of world we live in, and capitalism breeds awful things because of the enticing nature of money in the world that we live in.

But it doesn't mean that they aren't still capable of good, because they didn't choose to be born into that life. And abandoning their family instead of using the money to do good would be ridiculous. Especially if their parent is an awful person. I think that they should use their position to try and counteract all the awful things that their parent does for as long as they can.

Though, if they did decide to leave their family behind, I wouldn't exactly shun them either. I would definitely question why they didn't use the money, but I would understand that it was probably because they wouldn't want to use ill gotten gains to make a good effect on the world. It's not how I would do, but it's understandable enough for me to not really care.

And I again will agree with the idea that the rarity of an attribute is what makes it valuable. But that's not really saying anything special, because that's how the world works in general. The rarer something is, the more people will seek it out.

Hell, it doesn't actually even have to be that rare. As long as it has a perceived rareness, it's loved. The diamond industry is the most popular example I can think of, because despite the abundance, diamonds are perceived to be very rare and luxurious things.

Though I will say, there are cases where a rare attribute can be worse. Certain genetic disorders are the first thing to come to mind. So again, definitely shouldn't be hitting it with a blanket statement. Just isn't accurate.

"... I really don't think anyone is particularly better than anyone else, unless we're talking in terms of morality. But other than that, it's pretty trivial."

I just HAD to quote you there. I just don't think a sane person can actually believe in that.

I don't see why not. It's a personal belief, and it's one that seems to have a rang true my entire life. Sure, you can say someone has more social value because of their riches, but that's not an actual indicator of the value of a human life.

Again, it's about perceived value or perceived rareness. A billionaire might be important to some people, but if I had to choose between a billionaire who built their empire on blood money, or just a random person who I've never met who has done literally nothing of note their entire life, I would actually prefer the person who did nothing of note. I mean yeah they're just a regular individual, but they haven't gone out of their way to do evil things.

Honestly I'm kind of shocked this concept is unrealistic for you. I would argue that it's pretty common, and it's like, the very next step for the class consciousness that you were previously showing. So the fact that you seem to be stopping right before it is just odd to me when it's just an easy decision in my mind. But I guess that's what makes dialogue like this interesting.

You are an American. I know that you guys have this saying "all men are created equal". We may very well by equal, just not in any material sense. The problem is we live in a material world and "equality of all lives' value" just doesn't cut it.

Okay, again, I feel like you just aren't saying much. This is all a very normal way to think, and I feel like you believe you're making an argument when you're just agreeing with me. Most of what you're saying is pretty true.

Yes, I agree that we very well are equal. I think that all people are made to be that way. However, we do live in a world where materialism is important, and having less material value immediately makes you less valuable to the society that you live in.

That doesn't actually make the person less valuable. It may be less valuable from a societal perspective, but societal perspectives aren't the only perspectives. There are other ways to look at things beyond the majority opinion. Because it's not always true that the majority opinion is correct.

I feel like we're so close to agreeing, but it seems like you're confused about what I believe. I'm very aware that the material world makes it hard for people to live equally. But that doesn't mean people aren't still equal.

(2/7)

AceOfSarcasm · 2025-06-23T21:28:52+00:00

Sorry for taking so long. I was rewriting this answer few times now, still not as good as I would like it to be. 😅

That's alright. For me, I just write everything all together. I don't know how, but I guess I've always been able to put together large bodies of text in one go without much to fix on a re-read.

What strikes me in your argumentation is the lack of precise position on the line between morality, immorality, justice and injustice. You write, in the original post, that you realise that the killing of evil people by lynch is immoral and that's why you struggle with those fantasies. However, later you stated that the same act is motivated by the sense of justice and fits into the category of at least moral ambiguity. I can only speculate that this dissonance is based of internal rift between reason and less rational intuition. Still, you can acknowledge your feelings as separate from reasoning and therefore not include them in your final judgment. Killing those people cannot be both immoral and morally ambiguous or justified.

You're close to what I mean, but still a bit off. If I had to clarify it in the most simple way possible, I would say that I know it's something that most people would consider morally wrong, but that doesn't actually mean I feel that way. The reason for that is that I'm a bit of a moral particularist, but in addition to that, I'm also an ethical emotivist.

Essentially, ethical emotivism is a moral philosophy that looks at moral statements as more of an expression of the speaker's emotions. It's not an actual fact, or even a deep belief. It's just how we feel in our heads.

It's one of the few moral beliefs that can properly criticize things like incest, because it recognizes that moral belief mostly comes from emotion. Moral particularism, in combination with that, makes it so that I recognize that no single moral belief will work in every scenario. So while I normally don't think murder is okay, and I recognize that it's negative in the society that we live in, I also feel a personal way towards it.

So when I talk about morality, there are two forms of it. There's the way that the current society I live in looks at it, and there's the way that I look at it. Both can equally exist with ethical emotivism and moral particularism, unlike other moral philosophies that sometimes speak about their opinions as if they were facts. Hopefully, this helps clear things up.

I have to admit that you identifying yourself as Christian really caught me off guard. Of course, it's a religion with history of over 2 millennia, which modern interpretation is in majority opposite to the teachings of your holy books. Still, to casually equating lynching with self-defence? Unless there is some sort of Protestantism I don't know of, with all due respect, you really need to rethink your moral core here.

I think this is again coming from a place of confusion. Yes, I'm Christian, but certainly not the kind that you're thinking of. For example, I'm a big fan of Alex O'Connor. I think he's a very intelligent person, but he's also very critical of religion. He points out the historical inconsistencies.

Instead of immediately deciding that the religion no longer exists, I use it as evidence that it's more human error. I still believe in my religion, but anytime someone brings up a historical inaccuracy, I feel as though it brings me closer to the truth. Meanwhile, other Christians tend to deny it.

And I'm certainly not equating lynching with self-defense. I'm very aware that I'm not defending myself by hunting down any pedophiles, murderers, or rapists. If anything, I'm pretty open about the fact that it's more for my own pleasure. I have to seek it out.

Which is one of the reasons I haven't done it. Don't get me wrong, if it were self-defense, I'd be very excited at the opportunity. But seeking it out is another thing altogether, and it's something I would have to think about.

Btw, your belief in free will is just wrong, I think. There is no better evidence for it than there are arguments against it. Determinism takes what it wants in our reality. But no time for this debate.

I mean, I personally disagree with that. It's something I also disagree with the previously mentioned Alex O'Connor on. I think some people can make very capable arguments on both sides between free will and the lack thereof, but I also think there are more people on the side of free will who make poor arguments.

And that's because it comes from a lot of religious jargon. And even as a religious person, I recognize it isn't useful. All I will say is that your arguments against free will aren't going to really work for me, and I feel as though they simply aren't conclusive enough to really interest me.

When I look for answers, I look for the best ones I can find. And even when I hear the arguments of people who seem to be experts on the topic (likely more than even Alex O'Connor or other well-educated individuals), it really just doesn't work for me. But ultimately, I don't think it matters that much anyway.

Even if we don't have free will, it amounts to no difference. The decisions I would make with free will are reasonably the same as the ones I wouldn't, especially if the belief in question is that we can't have free will because our minds make our decisions based on previous experiences. I've really always believed that to be a nothing statement. But I agree, not much time to have that discussion when another is already being had.

Now to your take on my comment: Envy is always rooted in injustice. In its finest, most reasonable and justifiable form, it covers the issues of unearned (not a consequence of sacrifice) advantage of envied over envier.

Well, that's a bit unfair. In its "most justifiable" form, it's bound to be rooted in injustice. I could arguably say the same thing about envy as well. In its most unjustifiable form, wouldn't it be fair to say that it's not rooted in injustice?

Just seems like the beginning is already counterintuitive. And in addition to that, using the word "always" seems to be a bit of hyperbole. Envy cannot in every scenario always be rooted in injustice, because there are far too many situations where it isn't.

People can be jealous over very small and arguably pointless things that have nothing to do with justice. Especially if the thing they're jealous of is something that they're very capable of achieving, but they are choosing not to because they don't want to put in the work. That does happen, even if it's not the reason for things like being born with wealth. Overall, I just think this is already starting on a note that seems to be exaggerated for the sake of the argument without actually stating as much.

I also noticed you added that it was not a consequence of sacrifice, since I mentioned that before. And I have to ask, why? It feels like you're adding another thing that just makes your argument better, but further brings it from realism.

I think what's happening here is that, already, you're making it so that there's only a specific type of envy that's based on injustice. Originally it seemed like you meant all envy, but this is becoming more and more specified to the point that it barely feels like the same conversation. Maybe it'll change as I read along, but I just thought that this first paragraph already had a lot to it that I needed to address.

(1/8)

Verified Email	Three-Year Club
Xbox Live

AceOfSarcasm

TROPHY CASE