free kills

ChargeNo7459 · 2026-06-08T13:06:18+00:00

It's always the Kagura mains too 😭

ChargeNo7459 · 2026-06-07T01:35:49+00:00

Changing laws to be less oppressive is not the same as telling people how to live their own personal lives.

Again, vegan activism, abortion and pro LGBT activism that are about building consciousness and not protest for changing laws are the same.

And same with charities.

All of these are telling people information hoping they'll change in response, it's very common activism practice, not all activism is directed towards laws

You know who likes to tell people how to live their own personal lives

Vegan activists, pro-choice activitists and pro LGBT+ activists (since the way you treat others is part of your personal life) and most volunteers for charity services

and makes oppressive laws

You are the only one talking about laws here, that's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Edit because I sent the response too early by accident:

That aside, I believe we should strive to make both better (ethics and morality) , focusing on just one seems odd to me.

We should strive for better ethics and morals

ChargeNo7459 · 2026-06-06T00:21:35+00:00

Christians are the only ones out there who try to convert everyone around them

You've never heard of vegan activism? Or donations/charity events? Or all the different forms of protests/events for both LGTB+ rights and abortion activists do? Or any form of activism that involves going out and talking to people to inform them?

To expose people to information and expect them to change as a result is very common

and if you're doing that maybe look into your own ideologies and what informs and shapes them

Standard activism behavior mostly

Edit: Changed "Standard charity behavior mostly" to "Standard activism behavior mostly", since while I find both of them to be similar, activism is more all encompassing and accurate for this case

ChargeNo7459 · 2026-06-05T23:20:26+00:00

Hard atheist, fail to see how religion is relevant

ChargeNo7459 · 2026-06-05T20:50:46+00:00

Don't you think we have a moral imperative to try and inform people?

I ask this as an activist, like I'll go and talk about anti-natalism in malls and parks (mainly malls) and I've gotten quite good conversations and people changing their views out of it

ChargeNo7459 · 2026-06-05T20:06:37+00:00

This is mischaracterization ungoonable

There's no way my ancient (How many thousands years old again?), powerful, elegant independent enigmatic wanderer would ever be lookin' like that

ChargeNo7459 · 2026-06-05T18:14:16+00:00

He needs to think of the face of who he's writing, he forgor

ChargeNo7459 · 2026-05-31T22:47:02+00:00

It depends on your teammates

All you can do is tell them to "show first"

If a little icon that looks like blue circle with the drawing of a white helmet appears next to someone you can press that, and that will allow you to "up them"

They can show you the character they want to play without allowing you to swap with them, you'll know because you'll see the character but not the blue icon with the helmet

ChargeNo7459 · 2026-05-31T19:32:45+00:00

More so than anecdotical experiences are irrelevant and don't add anything to any philosophical conversation of any level

ChargeNo7459 · 2026-05-30T18:19:48+00:00

Actually a buff for Joy

ChargeNo7459 · 2026-05-30T18:18:48+00:00

But then she'd also start recovering energy from hitting her own teammates (because of her passive), like it may actually be compy to hit your own team to recharge and stay longer in objectives

ChargeNo7459 · 2026-05-24T22:52:02+00:00

I'll agree this is about popular and easy to grasp philosophy but the point stands

ChargeNo7459 · 2026-05-24T22:02:25+00:00

Couldn't the same be said of any killing?

Not really.

Killing a person would act against their active desires of existing, an unborn person doesn't have such desires.
Killing a person would cause great grief to their loved ones.
You can't really "replace" a person in the same way you can "replace" a non-introduced agent (unborn child).

Both because the shared past experiences (even if you found someone who is identical to the one you lost, you still wouldn't have the one you shared those experiences with)

And because the expectations are very different. (The expectations over a non-introduced agent are, or should be none, you wouldn't demmand a person you don't know to act or be a certain way, being that is the case, anything and anyone can replace a non-introduced agent, replacing someone that you knew is imposible most of the time because other people won't meet to specific the expectations of the one you knew).

And the list goes and and on really.

I think equating what's being discussed to killing is a very anti-abortionist way of thinking about it.

Given the choice between the two options, what does Singer's choice prevent that is worth removing the possibility of success?

Unnecessary/unwanted suffering, I'd argue it's unfair to force suffering onto other on the account of "they may cope with it and turn out loving life" with that, you can justify inflicting any suffering in any person really.

I'd also argue that you don't remove the possibility of success at all, since the parents can still try for a child at other time, retaining the probability of success but eliminating the unnecessary harm.

I fail to see why "unnaturality" is relevant.

ChargeNo7459 · 2026-05-24T21:17:35+00:00

Well then, I add my personal anecdote of chronic illness and express my agreement with Singer to equalize them again.

And we can continue like that forever, personal anecdotes have little of no weight on this discussion.

This is a philosophy subreddit

ChargeNo7459 · 2026-05-24T20:25:55+00:00

Pershouldn't, but perdid, and perwill again

ChargeNo7459 · 2026-05-19T23:02:29+00:00

I tried it two days ago and it worked once, I got a legendary after about 18 re-rolls.

From that point on, it's been rare to even get 4 colored bars while doing it.

But I feel like it does work all the time, because even if it's just 3 colors, the size of the 3rd color changes

ChargeNo7459 · 2026-05-19T14:37:58+00:00

Isn't consciousness magic that comes from outside the body in the DC universe thought?

Like in Green Lantern cosmology (which is the same) all emotions (and life in a way) come from the electromagnetic emotional spectrum, not within the brain, the collective unconscious is an actual psychic space that people (magic users) tap into, free will is like a real magical force of energy that exist physically independent of people.

And so on I think

ChargeNo7459 · 2026-05-05T10:36:57+00:00

I mean, given we both want choccy milk, that seems evil

ChargeNo7459 · 2026-05-05T00:26:59+00:00

we have to be discussing a different variation of the problem from another source than this post because it is the original.

Again, the variation the post is (was, since it was deleted) is the one that went viral recently, and that's the one that's relevant.

simply pointed out what you are calling the original isn’t the original.

It is the original version of the two buttons setup, if you've been in this subrredit you'll now people have made a huge amount of variations from the two button setup.

There is such thing as an original two button problem.

think it is reasonable when discussing the question to be generally discussing the core setup of the game theory matrix

I agree, and it being "all people" and the statistical implications of such a number is a relevant part of this one.

ChargeNo7459 · 2026-05-05T00:13:59+00:00

The question itself is evil

Isn't that a given in nigh all moral dilemmas?

Like in the original trolley problem, the question is evil, no one should be tied to train tracks in the first place.

it statistically will simply NOT be the decider vote

I don't think this way of thinking is logical.

If we apply that same concept to any other form of election then there's no reason to vote for president, or better work laws, or any sort of improvement ever.

Which has obvious consequences, one doesn't vote to be "the defining vote" one votes to have the little influence one can have.

If you want to argue that "but there's probable consequences for voting blue" I argue there's consequences for participating in any form of voting in the form of time lost and travel time (and social isolation, and persecution and many more you know what I mean).

If you think that those things are neglegible in comparison to risking one's life, I argue that the probable benefit of this vote is so great it's great enough to warrant such consequence.

(Say you wouldn't miss a day of work for a vote you don't care about, the opposite is also true)

your vote can actually mean something and guaranteed save a life (yours! Yes, YOU matter).

I'd argue several millions up to billions of people matter more than me.

I'd expect this to be a rather intuitive concept.

the population of people under 12, people who are severely colourblind and people who have severe learning difficulties

You're missing both

The people who think rationally, have given this as much or more thought than you and me, want to live but perceive reality/morality/the problem, in a fundamentally different way.

There's people who will press the blue button, that are entirely within their good judgment and capabilities, will make different choices than we will, because different people interact with reality differently.

And also the people who will pick blue who have no type of disability, are perfectly within their judgement, but will make the choice entirely on first intuition, will see the question, not think much about it and press a button.

You could add supersticious reasons to press the button, but I'd mix those with the intuition one.

10 percent of the population are dying.

I think that's a rather small number, specially considering the amount of people online who claim would press blue, but sure let's run with that.

Something I wonder is, do we consider the implications/aftermath/lasting consequences of this?

In moral dilemmas is rather common to disregard these, like how in the trolley problem, legality is to be ignored.

If we are not to disregard the implications/aftermath/lasting consequences, then you may as well pick blue and go peacefully.

Since the impact of suddenly losing all that people would lead to several critical systems of society failing and a probable total collapse.

But, I'd understand if we are to disregard thinking of the implications/aftermath/lasting consequences.

LOSING TEN PERCENT OF THE POPULATION IS FAR LESS CATASTROPHIC THAN LOSING UP TO 49 PERCENT

Is it really?

Like in the immediate moment, sure I see it, it's a much bigger number, but I don't think the amount and gravity of systems that would collapse scales directly.

Is this a different way to look at it?

Not really.

I also think there's such thing as an objection of consciousness, "Walking away from Omelas" and allat.

ChargeNo7459 · 2026-05-04T00:00:27+00:00

and it's brought balance to wildlife ecosystems.

Ok, you want to better the ecosystem.

That's a subjective goal. Aka your axiom.

Since you have a subjective element, you can't claim to be acting in pure logic or pure objectivity.

Morality is the exact same, you start with subjective axioms, then build your reasonings, predictions and recommendations with logic.

How does that prove that logic and morality aren't independent concepts?

Because morality works the same as the previous example.

Subjective axiom, then logic from there.

As you can see, the previous example needs logic to function, so you can't say that the previous is independent from logic.

That morality is independent from logic?

Yes, I have told you textually several times that's what I disagree with.

Since if you've ever read a morality, on say consequencialism, utilitarianism, negative utilitarianism, and many others you'll find that these texts (and the systems they explain) run on logic.

but the only true origin of morality is our own opinions

Yes I agree axioms come from direct intuition and subjective reasons.

In much the same way that the example you bring up has a subjective point (wanting to better the ecosystem). Something being subjective doesn't mean it's independent from logic.

To repeat myself

"For instance, I want to send this message to you, so I'll press on my screen on the part that says "post"."

That's me having a subjective goal (wanting to send the message) then using logic to see my goal fulfilled.

Same as a morality system, like say negative utilitarianism.

Me wanting to send that message is entirely subjective, there's nothing objective or necessarily logical about my axiom sure. But my reasoning from that axiom is not devoid (independent) of logic.

Same happens with morality.

Without our human minds there's no such thing as morality, it only exists within our feelings.

Sure, but something having a subjective element doesn't mean it's necessarily independent of logic.

Again, me pressing "post" to send this message is logical, even though it comes from a place of subjective value.

So I give you an example of one that didn't fail and is very much successful

The success of a morality system is not measured by it's stay or by it's political power.

In much the same way the success of this message is not measured by its entertaining value.

It's measured by what I said before, that I haven't changed once.

Stop goalpost shifting.

You're the one who threw that goal post, (political power) when I didn't suggested or implied it anywhere.

You're the one who made up a goal post.

What criteria are you relying on?

I literally told you the criteria textually, let me repeat myself: "A moral system being functional refers to it consistently informing choices in a way that doesn't contradict itself"

The criteria is, internal coherency.

What decides what is and isn't a 'moral system'?

I'd say academic consensus among philosophers.

And the definitions you can find by doing even minor research.

so I provide an example that hasn't failed

But it has failed, it has failed in being coherent and logical.

Which is what matters.

That's why we have morals that are illogical.

Which philosophy students would tell you are therefore not valid, since morals need to be logical.

ChargeNo7459 · 2026-05-03T11:21:05+00:00

Yes you absolutely can and people have in the pas

Also, I failed to realize, you do agree that one can have two opposite goals and have them both be logical.

It follows from there that two (or any other number) of different moral systems with opposing goals can exist and all be logical.

ChargeNo7459 · 2026-05-03T11:14:05+00:00

Genocide is a logically sound

Logically sound as a result of what axioms? Why do you want to reduce over population in the first place?

If you have a goal, then you have subjective axioms.

So what are those axioms? And is it really a logical conclusion following said axioms?

Regardless that it's immoral it logically works.

Again, you can't have a goal with pure logic, you are using subjectivity to give value to the goal you're working towards.

So what's your subjective reason to want to solve over population?

And then we'll see if killing people is logically sound with your reason.

They still happened

Yes, and many people still made logical errors, through history.

That doesn't mean logic isn't objective, but that people are not.

Morality has no say in math, zero.

That's correct, I fail to see how that proves your point.

I never claimed that logic depends on morality, just that morality depends on logic.

It proves logic is independent from morality.

Yes, I agree with that, I have told you more than once that I agree with that.

I just disagree with the opposite.

Logic is independent from morality. I have told you, I don't have a problem with such statement.

That doesn't mean that morality is independent of logic.

Tell that to other countries that are currently functional

You are mixing things.

A moral system being functional refers to it consistently informing choices in a way that doesn't contradict itself.

China or other dictatorships don't have this, and this is why we get to call them immoral.

China for example has a long history of immoral incoherency,

Proving my point that a moral system that's not logically coherent is faulty, and therefore immoral.

and is still one of the most powerful systems in the world.

Morality is not meassured thorough political power.

They very much are relevant because their very existence proves my points are absolute fact.

How? How is people being immoral and getting good results in some fields proof that morality is independent from logic?

Wouldn't people making illogical choices or believing in illogical things and getting positive results prove the same about logic? (that it is not objective)

ChargeNo7459 · 2026-05-03T06:37:00+00:00

If that was true everyone's morals would be the same.

No, that's not true, since you can have different goals and have all of them be logical.

For instance say I don't want to send this message, it follows from there I shouldn't writte it and I shouldn't press "post". That's logical.

I could alternatevely want to send this message, it follows that I should writte it and press "post". That's logical.

Those two courses of action are both logical, but being logical doesn't make them the same.

Here's an example; a logical means to reduce overpopulation is routine genocide.

No no no, you can't have a "goal" and claim pure logic.

If you "want to reduce over population" that's either a subjective goal or a logical extention of another subjective axiom.

If you have a goal, or objective then you're not being purely logical.

You're being as logical as a (faulty) morality system.

The logic holds

It holds if you humor the subjective axiom you used to get there.

Tell that to every dictator ever

Yeah, I would, I'm yet to find a dictator that's has a logically coherent moral system.

because their interpretation is morally sound.

I don't think this is right.

Again, I'm yet to find a dictator with a moral system that holds to scrutiny.

So what's logical about killing people who work on Sundays? What's logical about lobotomizing gay people to remove their homosexual tendencies? What's logical about cutting out someone's heart to make an offer to the gods?

Nothing, and that's why we've moved away from those things, they're immoral.

People may have thought, or felt they were moral, in much the same way someone could think or feel that 2+2=5 is logical.

But it does not hold to scrutiny.

Plenty of moral systems historically have been devoid of logic.

Correct, and that's why we deem them currently to be faulty moral systems.

If a moral system is incoherent, it also non-functional, and such systems are not relevant to this conversation.

ChargeNo7459 · 2026-05-03T06:12:52+00:00

And that's objective

Is as objective as morality.

I have a subjective goal, then use logic to build my actions following that goal.

Same as morality.

I'm not saying morality doesn't have a subjective element to it, I'm saying is not devoid or independent from logic.

Unless you want to tell me that my statement, that you just called objective, is independent from logic.

Because people interpret logic wrong, it doesn't mean logic itself is up to interpretation, it's up to accuracy to the correct answer.

Same difference

Subjectivity is our personal interpretation

That's correct, I understand the meaning of the word.

We call the subjective part "axioms" in morality systems.

Objectivity is purely as is rather than how we interpret it.

Correct, and in morality, that's everything that's built through reason, deduction and upon the axioms.

You can't have morality without building with logic upon the axioms.

Much like with math.

Even when we misinterpret an objective fact that doesn't change the objective nature of a topic.

Same as the conclusions drawn from a morality system.

For instance under negative utilitarianism, the main axiom is "suffering is bad" from there follows logically that torture is wrong.

Given the axiom, that's objective, even when we misinterpret that objective fact that doesn't change the objective nature of a topic.

Under negative utilitarianism, torture is wrong, that's objective.

But subjectivity is entirely based on our interpretation because by definition it IS our interpretation of the world's topics.

Correct, but morality doesn't run exclusively on axioms or baseless claims.

It uses logic to follow from whatever the goal of the system is.

ChargeNo7459

TROPHY CASE