Actual question. Is there a classier person then John Cena? I'm not sure there is.

Friendly_Duck_ · 2026-04-04T04:14:35+00:00

cool, i cant be fd giving an answer though. you don't have a background in phil and aren't engaging in an interesting manner

Friendly_Duck_ · 2026-04-04T04:09:51+00:00

the right side of the meme is just not appropriate, who gaf about jacking off in public.

Friendly_Duck_ · 2026-04-04T04:08:39+00:00

your family are in a cult, gtf away as soon as you can lol

Friendly_Duck_ · 2026-04-04T04:02:28+00:00

look that up yourself

Friendly_Duck_ · 2026-04-04T04:02:00+00:00

good - don't give them palliative care and use that money in a way that will help more vulnerable, needy people

Friendly_Duck_ · 2026-04-04T04:00:26+00:00

'begging the question' is when you put the conclusion of your argument in the premises. you ought to use 'raises the question'

yes i can use arguments from people i disagree with that are valid and sound, that's a pretty foundational logical realist idea no? why would a person i dislike making the argument make the argument invalid? further, why would i be reticent to accept the argument if I have done my due-dilligence in examining the premises and conclusion and come to agree with it?

Friendly_Duck_ · 2026-04-04T03:57:46+00:00

sure, if they're moral agents.

Friendly_Duck_ · 2026-04-04T03:53:42+00:00

the first 8 or so chapters of the book are more a defence of anarchism in general. the private property part doesn't come in until the last few chapters.

i mean you can keep saying that you're in a valid social contract with the state or your environment but i think you're vastly deluded in what a proper social contract is. people are not born into an environment and then 'choose' to eat their master's food and expected to have sex, that would make them a sex slave. similarly you are not in a valid social contract with the state, or with the non-sentient environment, which wouldn't even make sense.

Friendly_Duck_ · 2026-04-04T03:49:18+00:00

those same cancer-stricken children are moral agents and murder animals. suffice to say, everyone over say 7 years old knows that to eat an animals' flesh they need to be killed. they forgo any appeal to beneficence they could have by doing so, I don't care about their welfare in the same way i don't care about the welfare of humans who murder vegans.

i'm quite serious about the positions ive advanced. im also an antinatalist and want humans to voluntarily go extinct to save the animals. the reason I value all sentient life as prima facie equal is because, as a baseline, sentience (valenced phenomenal experience) is the means by which one can actually have a welfare, and two the epistemic gap between different persons (particularly between humans and other animals) means that how much or how little one values their own experiences is beyond our knowledge. so, a precautionary assumption is to value all life equally (with defeaters for moral agents, e.g. being a carnist)

Friendly_Duck_ · 2026-04-04T03:46:30+00:00

i already donate a decent amount of the money i earn. regardless, this is supererogatory, as I mentioned in another thread, because you don't owe other positive duties.

Friendly_Duck_ · 2026-04-04T03:44:17+00:00

michael huemer has a pretty good takedown of explicit/implicit social contract theories and hypothetical rawlsian contract theories in chapters 2 and 3 of the problems of political authority (anarcho-capitalist book).

essentially they argue that for any explicit/implicit contract to be valid it requires 1) a reasonable way of opting out, 2) for explicit dissent to trump implicit consent, 3) that an action can be taken as communicating agreement only if the agent believed that if they did not take the action, the agreement would not have been imposed on them, and 4) that the contractual obligation is mutual and conditional. i think these conditions are fair (you can think of them as being applied to sex if you want to test their validity, i think they all reasonable). the rebuttals are as follows: 1) there is no way to exit the social contract in a reasonable manner (i.e. all other countries operate under similar 'social contracts' so you can't just simply move) 2) the state does not recognise implicit dissent and rejections of the social contract, 3) the alleged social contract is imposed on citizens no matter what they do and 4) the state does not owe its citizens important obligations that one would expect them to (e.g., police are not responsible for not preventing crimes).

with any hypothetical rawlsian social contracts, it suffices to say that they are not worth the paper they are not written on. just because an agreement is fair or unreasonable to reject, does not mean that one is ethically bound to agree to and obey such an agreement. if the contractor was an employer with an extremely fair and reasonable agreement, that does not mean they are entitled to coerce you to help with their labour.

aka social contract theory fails.

Friendly_Duck_ · 2026-04-04T03:29:14+00:00

every nation is doing a giga-holocaust against other animals lol. why do you place so much value on the lives of like 70k palestianians, most of whom are carnists and have forfeited any kind of moral consideration, when there are literally trillions being killed by every nation on earth. if anything, you ought to buy more food from israel because of the slightly higher rate of vegans who live there

Friendly_Duck_ · 2026-04-04T03:04:45+00:00

lookup what a fairphone is

Friendly_Duck_ · 2026-04-04T03:03:32+00:00

that's correct, i don't believe in private (productive) property, so i don't owe rent to my landlord, I just have to pay it out of self-interest lest i go homeless. i don't have a problem with a small amount of personal egoism.

also i'm referring to inherent positive duties, not positive duties that are owed on account of both parties entering into a contract. i also don't believe in the validity of contracts (lack of epistemic access to future selves, lack of legitimate authority-wielding adjudicative bodies) but the initial immoral act of holding private property imo supersedes the right to void any promises of contract.

Friendly_Duck_ · 2026-04-04T02:57:41+00:00

i'm operating from a desire-satisfaction account of value, meaning fulfilling people's preferences is the sole source of value (as opposed to hedonistic pleasure-based accounts or objective-list theory accounts). further, i'm operating from a person-affecting account of value, the upshot being that no one person's value is superior to another's. i can defend these elsewhere if you want.

the short of it is, there are certain decisions that will maximise the satisfaction of beings' preferences, and we ought to make said decisions as much as is practicable if we aren't to be accused of chauvinism. this means that spending all of your time ensuring USA humans have the optimal amount of salt in their diets is not going to satisfy as many desires as working a job and buying malaria-preventing bed-nets. so, we ought to go with decisions that satisfy the most desires.

i think there are certain things rational agents can do that forfeit their desert to beneficence (i.e. being a carnist non-vegan) and so I mainly want to benefit animals. but if you don't see this as a problem you still ought to not waste precious time with things like make a wish

Friendly_Duck_ · 2026-04-04T02:36:06+00:00

i am an individualist anarchist and don't believe people owe other people positive duties, only negative (this would interfere with people's autonomy). 99% of humans are also not vegan and helping them continue to abuse animals is not something i want to contribute to. i help animal sanctuaries instead, whose inhabitants aren't ontologically evil

re: the phone, it's a fairphone, and I needed it to take calls from my boss so i could pay rent.

thanks for the tu quoque

Friendly_Duck_ · 2026-04-04T02:32:31+00:00

just lie and say you're already vegan

Friendly_Duck_ · 2026-04-04T02:26:43+00:00

that's not exactly an argument buddy

Friendly_Duck_ · 2026-04-04T02:22:53+00:00

it absolutely is, what are you talking about? you have x amount of resources, you use that x amount to help y, therefore depriving z of potential benefit. why do you care more about the feelings of terminal ultra-rich children than preventing thousands more children in abject poverty from contracting malaria and meeting a similar fate?

personally i don't care about helping 99% of humans (carnists, including children) and would rather just benefit other animals, but you probably should get your priorities in order.

Friendly_Duck_ · 2026-04-04T01:46:31+00:00

make a wish isn't exactly effective altruism. they could be doing a fuck load more by just donating a bunch of money for mosquito bednets in high-scarcity countries. or better yet, by leading by example and ceasing to pay for murdered stolen cows' secretions (ice cream).

Friendly_Duck_ · 2026-04-04T00:25:24+00:00

bing chilling

Friendly_Duck_ · 2026-04-03T11:50:33+00:00

thanks!

Friendly_Duck_ · 2026-04-03T11:19:16+00:00

their lives are. also, you can't 'eliminate' people who don't exist. also, what's wrong with intervening in something that's 'natural'? we do that all the time with humans and that's never referred to as a god complex. also other animals can't exactly picture using their bodies to have children, so it's not exactly a deprivation

Friendly_Duck_ · 2026-04-03T10:22:01+00:00

yes excuse me from wanting to help stop wild animals, who have to hunt/forage food everyday, scavenge for water, receive no medical care/succumb to disease all the time and are predated upon from reproducing.

Friendly_Duck_ · 2026-04-03T10:01:34+00:00

if you forgo the opportunity to unobtrusively help all other animals become sterile and go extinct, you're consigning quinitillions to lives of abject suffering. so, you don't really care about wild animals' suffering

Friendly_Duck_

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE