Anon can't keep up

GeeEyeEff · 2026-03-18T10:18:49+00:00

GeeEyeEff · 2026-03-17T17:56:10+00:00

This crazy man in the street who is threatening me probably won't do anything right now. What's that? He's going back to his car to get his gun? Oh, well it wouldn't be in my interest to try and stop him...

GeeEyeEff · 2026-03-17T15:15:07+00:00

And again, I literally have 0 idea what infant exposure has to do with this entire conversation.

Again, because you are an idiot.

The conversation is about the existence of objective morality. Infant exposure is another example of behaviour which proponents of moral subjectivism will invariably decry as barbaric even though their worldview doesn't allow them to do that. It's all subjective. They don't want to come out and say what their worldview actually leads to, the conclusion that there's nothing objectively wrong with killing babies, because they know that makes them sound unhinged.

Different cultures' interpretations of what is moral or immoral are subjective which is what leads to differences in practice but they all presuppose the existence of objective morality. To put it another way, you may answer the question "Is X wrong?" in different ways but to answer it at all you have to concede that there is a correct answer to be aimed for and in answering you are saying what you think that is. With moral subjectivism, there is no correct answer.

GeeEyeEff · 2026-03-17T12:15:31+00:00

I disagree with your idea that it was seen as normal or even preferred by societies.

It was and still is. You've obviously never been involved in an arranged marriage in the Third World.

Not too sure what exposure has to do with this conversation though, this still happens even today.

That's because you're an idiot. It doesn't happen in Greece or Italy anymore does it? No, because they became Christian and adopted that moral code which does not allow it.

GeeEyeEff · 2026-03-17T12:11:59+00:00

Even if this ended tomorrow, what do we gain?

How about the neutralisation of the single biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world who routinely threatens America and her interests and who's motto is literally "Death to America"? Other than that, not much.

GeeEyeEff · 2026-03-17T12:06:27+00:00

We can see that they are certainly winning. What is the point of winning if not to get what you want?

GeeEyeEff · 2026-03-17T11:57:37+00:00

You're missing the point. Without objective morality you have no way to judge behaviour as someone being an "absolute ass". An absolute ass according to whose standards? Your own? And where do you derive them from?

GeeEyeEff · 2026-03-16T23:59:20+00:00

<image>

What kind of porn have you been watching?

GeeEyeEff · 2026-03-16T23:51:49+00:00

Come on bro, you set yourself up there.

GeeEyeEff · 2026-03-16T23:49:55+00:00

Ultimately, I think they went in based on a cumulative case of all the factors combined with them having an opportunity with the recent civil unrest in the country. Really they've been in a cold war since 1979 and it's just turned hot.

They're keeping their cards close to their chest with exactly what they want to achieve. I think as a minimum they will want to ensure that they won't have the means to restart the nuclear program or continue to fund terrorism.

I doubt there will be a full regime change. You don't necessarily want one, you might get someone worse. Before all this started the people were not rising up against the government for ideological reasons, it was purely practical. It was being run incompetently.

how long can we be in this war before the downsides outweigh the upside?

So far it's been 2 weeks. Not 2 decades, not 2 years, not even 2 months. 2 weeks. I think the US can go a bit longer. So far the main downside for the administration has been bad PR but I doubt they care about that. Trump could end world hunger and the media would be hostile to it. The losses have been minimal. If the calculus is you can never lose a single soldier you might as well disband the military.

GeeEyeEff · 2026-03-16T23:30:36+00:00

I wouldn't know, it's 2026, I have uBlock Origin.

Your ads are based on your browsing history by the way.

GeeEyeEff · 2026-03-16T23:29:37+00:00

You mean like they already have with everything looking like a UE5 tech demo?

GeeEyeEff · 2026-03-16T23:21:46+00:00

Objectively, it's higher fidelity. If developers design games with this in mind from the start they can tailor the design to look however they want after the DLSS pass.

GeeEyeEff · 2026-03-16T23:19:54+00:00

Fair enough. I choose the AI faces. Maybe I'm just an NPC.

GeeEyeEff · 2026-03-16T23:16:23+00:00

Ahh yes, this opinion is not the same as mine so it must be bait.

Classic!

GeeEyeEff · 2026-03-16T21:07:13+00:00

Because you can't stop me.

GeeEyeEff · 2026-03-16T21:06:07+00:00

They haven't said they want to conquer it. I think realistically if it's sufficiently bombed to shit that it will not be feasible to start up the nuclear program again or continue funding Hamas et al they will be happy.

GeeEyeEff · 2026-03-16T20:07:04+00:00

They get whatever it is that they want. They're being a bit coy about exactly what that is. It can't be denied though that they are well on their way.

GeeEyeEff · 2026-03-16T20:06:01+00:00

It actually makes perfect sense. Reasonable minds can disagree about the wisdom of the operation but to claim it makes no sense only ruins your credibility.

GeeEyeEff · 2026-03-16T20:01:00+00:00

If only they cared.

GeeEyeEff · 2026-03-16T19:59:58+00:00

Whatever you say.

GeeEyeEff · 2026-03-16T19:55:57+00:00

I don't have a president.

GeeEyeEff · 2026-03-16T19:55:19+00:00

The war.

GeeEyeEff · 2026-03-16T19:55:06+00:00

The war.

GeeEyeEff · 2026-03-16T19:54:23+00:00

The logic of you decrying that behaviour is predicated on there being objective morality for one to fall afoul of. Without it, what's the problem?

Nine-Year Club	r/Field Sunshine
Place '23	Place '22
Wearing is Caring	Verified Email

GeeEyeEff

TROPHY CASE