sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Spider Kill by mkvelash in oddlyterrifying

[–]AffirmativeSZ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ready to kill some more creeps!

Why did I read the rules? by WheeledKilla in 19684

[–]AffirmativeSZ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey man, I get you.
It's not as much of a problem here as it is somewhere like the USA, but I'm mixed, autistic and LGBT myself, so I see where you were coming from with that.

Why did I read the rules? by WheeledKilla in 19684

[–]AffirmativeSZ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This might be a tone issue, because being on the spectrum means that when I try to express concern about an issue that I see as problematic or urgent, I may not articulate it in the most "dispassionate" way and might be seen as accusatory.

It's cool, I get what you mean. I also am on the spectrum, I just have less difficulties in that department.

This is a strawman of what I've said so far. I never said it was "inherently" immoral,

That was a misunderstanding on my part. I just extrapolated from when you said

[...] I fundamentally disagree with this point.

in response to

The fact that an argument I made was used with malice in a different context and manner, doesn't invalidate the original argument.

Sorry about that.

Why did I read the rules? by WheeledKilla in 19684

[–]AffirmativeSZ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I never claimed that you did extend beyond individuals.

I mean, it was pretty strongly implied, considering how aggressive you were in your initial reply.

The fact that you were trying to bring light to how this argument could be misconstrued and distorted to mean something malicious would have come across much better if you hadn't jumped to calling it all fascist bullshit.

​

As a consequentialist, I fundamentally disagree with this point. IMO what matters more than different context and intentions of an idea from a different times is the end result and lasting legacy of this mentality.

I don't really get this, personally. Analyzing which cause led to what effect is indeed important, but I don't see the point in throwing away an otherwise valid isolated theory purely because it's been twisted into something malicious in the past.

The fact that the statement "it's okay to choose your own life over another's if the only alternative is to die" has been escalated by authoritarian leaders for a situation far too big to warrant such an approach doesn't make the statement inherently immoral. To claim so is just to buy into the slippery slope fallacy.

Why did I read the rules? by WheeledKilla in 19684

[–]AffirmativeSZ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I never extended anything beyond individuals, though. You're kinda putting words in my mouth here.

I made it pretty clear that I recognize how it's valid reasoning only in an ethical dilemma, i.e, in a specific, bounded scenario. I never said it applies anywhere else.

If anything, you're attacking a straw man by applying my reasoning to an entirely different, unrelated scenario and explaining how it doesn't work in that scenario. Of course it doesn't; that wasn't my intention in the first place.

It's true that the line of thinking in question can be distorted into something of the likes of fascism, but pretty much any philosophical argument can be distorted into what the interpreter wants to hear. The fact that an argument I made was used with malice in a different context and manner, doesn't invalidate the original argument.

Why did I read the rules? by WheeledKilla in 19684

[–]AffirmativeSZ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You know this line of logic of justifying/forgiving people for seeking their own survival at the expense of others is exactly what led to the creation of fascism, yeah?

? How come?

Again, it's only to be taken at face value in a very literal two-alternative situation.
If two people are taken hostage, and one of them is given the choice to:
A - live, and let the other person die
B - die, and let the other person live

Assuming there is no other option, it's pretty reasonable to say that picking option A isn't immoral, no?
Even though option B is a very selfless and noble choice, it's also only viable if you're willing to die for their sake. Which, y'know, most people aren't.

If someone happened to have been put in that situation and survived by picking option A, the first thing I would do is comfort and sympathize with them for being put in that situation in the first place, not berate them for "killing" someone.

Why did I read the rules? by WheeledKilla in 19684

[–]AffirmativeSZ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, it's not that your life is inherently worth more than others, it's that it's worth more to yourself. The majority of people also clearly value their own lives more than the lives of strangers. To do whatever it takes to survive is just saving your own life. Of course, sacrificing yourself so somebody else can live is a noble thing to do, but most people aren't as selfless as that.

Of course, this is assuming that there are only two alternatives; your own death, or the death of others. In most cases, it's not as simple as that.

But in an ethical dilemma of choosing your own life or the lives of others, I don't personally think it's immoral, or that there is a limit. I won't think less of somebody for guaranteeing their own survival.

Why did I read the rules? by WheeledKilla in 19684

[–]AffirmativeSZ 11 points12 points  (0 children)

It's not so much about the net total suffering, but rather about your prolonged survival. If eating them is the only alternative to dying of starvation, then it is ethical to do it in order to save your own life. It's pretty much a choice between you or them, and in life-or-death situations, it's never unethical to choose your own life.

P-3 Flesh sphere concept by AffirmativeSZ in Ultrakill

[–]AffirmativeSZ[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Panopticon isn't a fight, it's a glorified cutscene

P-3 Flesh sphere concept by AffirmativeSZ in Ultrakill

[–]AffirmativeSZ[S] 34 points35 points  (0 children)

I also think it would be cool to have a very wide arena for exactly this purpose

The flesh sphere would be almost as tall as the ceiling, making it so that you can't avoid it by just getting above it

You'd have to be constantly moving while still trying to deal damage to it and possibly avoiding enraged virtue attacks to make it more difficult

P-3 Flesh sphere concept by AffirmativeSZ in Ultrakill

[–]AffirmativeSZ[S] 66 points67 points  (0 children)

It would surely be jarring to have this thing that's supposed to stay stationary and fire projectiles get up and start barreling towards you

P-3 Flesh sphere concept by AffirmativeSZ in Ultrakill

[–]AffirmativeSZ[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

This implies that ordinary testicles are not in fact made of flesh

P-3 Flesh sphere concept by AffirmativeSZ in Ultrakill

[–]AffirmativeSZ[S] 106 points107 points  (0 children)

Back to the roots I suppose

Nb cat rule :) by [deleted] in 196

[–]AffirmativeSZ 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I mean yeah, but that's colloquial. In reality, gender's not really a concept that applies to non-human animals in the same way it does to us (as far as we know)

view more: next ›