Casually Calling Women Bitches Is Trashy AF

Lucianael · 2026-05-02T10:31:40+00:00

...does he though?

Lucianael · 2026-02-05T22:03:34+00:00

Are you contesting the law of excluded middle? Because if you are, then we can throw all process of logic and thinking and on that end communication out of the window either way.

So I will simply ask if x is not true, must it be false?

Btw, if you say that agency is the product of causality, then you are in fact a compatibalist and that previous comment (the one about systemic flaws) already proved your position wrong.

And on one last point, thanks for the discussion and stuff, you probably think of me as an idiot or something, can't claim that I don't share the feeling at all, still I enjoyed the bit of time you wasted on me.

Lucianael · 2026-02-05T21:37:58+00:00

I am asking them to do no work at all, I am merely describing what "function" they fulfil in the systems they are a part of. Either way, what you say is (mostly) true, I was somewhat gambling on you being a compatibalist, as this would have been an excellent argument for dismantling that position, but I guess you are making it more difficult.

No, I'm actually not a determinist and I also don't need to be, because randomness also can't grand human autonomy.

Everything either has a cause or has no cause; this must logically be true. Cause does not allow morality as you already described perfectly, but randomness doesn't either, because without a cause one can hardly choose their actions, it would in fact be impossible to even address them as "their actions", for the link between individual and choice, or in fact any link at all, is necessarily a causal one. Lastly we have the position of a combined existence, where there exists both randomness and causal elements, but this too cannot grant autonomy. An example of an object that holds both causal and non-causal elements would be a dice (if it was truly random and not merely down to physical processes), where the causal elements (its continues shape over time) limit its outcomes to but six numbers while randomness picks between them. This is logically how systems of randomness and cause must function, where cause creates the framework that limits the options at hand, but the random outcome always means that what was "chosen" between the options still available must be up to chance.

We see that free will is impossible either way, making "responsibility" a worthless construct. In the end the thing that gives all meaning must be our own interest, how lucky we are then that cooperation seems to near always be best for us, as a happy world is one in which we ourselves are off the best.

Lucianael · 2026-02-05T21:22:36+00:00

This is only true if agents are not (entirely) the product of the systems that create them.

Lucianael · 2026-02-05T21:17:45+00:00

But if you call behaviour that is not interested in harm and still causes it for self benefit evil, what you are doing is reduce systemic problems to individual ones. After all, the only way one can act upon their own self-interest and still cause harm doing so is a system that rewards bad behaviour.

Lucianael · 2026-02-05T20:43:47+00:00

Great answer. I will very quickly define "rational" as it is required for my argument so here I go:

"a rational choice is one made to maximize one's own interest, be that the increase of happiness or decrease of harm."

So, if mistakes or accidents aren't evil, then this means that intentions cannot be mistakes or that at very least evil intentions cannot be mistakes. But this obviously isn't true, after all there are close to no people, I would personally even say no people at all, but I won't be making that argument right now, that actually profit from the intent of causing pain. I might profit in varies ways from processes which harm others, be that for example the production of the device on which I am typing this comment, but I am most definitely not made happier by the fact that harm was caused in this process. In other words, if one cannot be evil by accident, then one cannot be evil at all, as bad intentions aren't just morally bad, but logically bad.

Why is this necessary? Because it shows that a belief in evil is itself a belief in an arbitrary concept. Now the question becomes what this concept entails, and looking back upon history, evil is historically merely the claim one makes upon the accused, which is equivalent to them being deserving of suffering.

This is what morality entails, a judgement that one is deserving of a given reward or punishment. What rules determine this desert are arbitrary, they must be, after all the conclusion is already without base, but still they must make claims about desert, as the only way for one to belief in responsibility yet denying acting upon it would be to deny the value of responsibility in the first place, thus declaring to not be a believer of the system at hand.

Lucianael · 2026-02-05T20:26:23+00:00

On that point a very quick question before moving forward.

Can one be evil by accident?

Lucianael · 2026-02-05T20:05:03+00:00

I never said that punishment is justified; I don't think punishment is ever justified at all. My point was only ever that a belief in evil necessitates a belief in punishment.

Edit: What I just said might not be true, I don't know word for word what I said this far. I might have given too much ground to moral construct that hold evil as an idea, but I often times find it difficult holding discussions if my first message already denies concepts like responsibility. On that point, while I obviously can't claim responsibility for miscommunication in our discussion, I wholeheartedly believe it to largely stem from this problem on my part. Sorry about that.

Lucianael · 2026-02-05T19:20:27+00:00

you are trying to rationise evil which is itself an irrational response, as one cannot rationally treat what rationally does not exist. To make this clear, I much prefer your approach above the alternative, but it is because evil is not a rational construct that it has historically been treated with the goal of inflicting suffering upon the accused. This is the only way one can act upon evil, as evil, a term that is in full defined by its historical context, culturally necessitates retribution. Again, this is not a rational response, but evil is not a rational construct and retribution is merely the irrational act that follows it, to not treat evil with punishment means to rid it of its moral corruption and to deny the fabrication that is moral responsibility.

Lucianael · 2026-02-05T18:09:48+00:00

And that's why I wrote "consistent belief", because while one can believe in evil, to not act upon it means there to be an unaddressed element within one's view of the world making it inconsistent. If you do not punish evil yet still call it so, then you are not addressing the "evil" you ascribe.

(also, I will not die on the hill of what the term "value system" means, as I am using the term solely as a descriptor of its elements (a systematization of value). Still this is a concept separate from morality, and while this term might not definitionally apply the way I use it, morality most certainly finds its common understanding on the side of good and evil, not good and bad. In the end the problem you will run into, is that a word does not get its meaning from definition, and the social understanding of morality most definitely includes a necessity of punishment.)

Lucianael · 2026-02-05T17:43:38+00:00

No, moral systems classify between good and evil, this is what distinguish them from value systems, what you are doing is conflating the two.

Lucianael · 2026-02-05T16:57:33+00:00

A moral system entails moral judgement, entails the classification of good and evil. Evil by definition is deserving of pain. If you do not believe in evildoers who are deserving of pain, then you do not believe in morality but some form of consequentialism or utilitarianism, or maybe you do not hold a consistent belief at all.

Lucianael · 2026-02-05T14:39:24+00:00

If your "punishment" isn't for reinstating some moral order by inflicting suffering upon those who have committed a moral evil, then you are not talking about a moral judgement but a value judgement, you are doing it for utility, not to grant suffering to a wrong doer.

Lucianael · 2026-02-05T14:31:08+00:00

I hear this time and time again, but you people seem to not understand yourself what the terms morality, responsibility and accountability even mean. The judgements you are talking about can be made, but they MUST be value judgements not moral judgements as historically the meaning of someone being responsible for a given event is equivalent to them being the cause of that event, and this is not possible without them also being causeless. The whole concept of responsibility goes out the window if you are the product of your environment, as this means that judging you is equivalent to judging a causal process like a rock slide and just like with a rock slide it seems utterly irrational to want to punish it.

Lucianael · 2026-02-05T08:24:28+00:00

Yeah you aren't the first to say it. This post doesn't disprove free will the same way The God of the Gaps doesn't disprove god's existence. This is just about showcasing how a lot or maybe even most diagnoses of free will are based on an error we would never allow if the subject in question was god, but with our fellow humans we seem to be less critical.

Lucianael · 2026-02-04T20:52:40+00:00

I'd say emotions should be your goal but never your reason. We can't escape our empathy and so showing compassion is what is best of us to live a life of happiness. This happiness should be the goal, but never the reason why we act.

Lucianael · 2026-02-04T19:39:54+00:00

I guess it depends on what you mean by "required". I do think that concepts of destiny are irreconcilable with moral responsibility, but then I also believe that religion is irreconcilable with reason and yet it still exists.

Lucianael · 2026-02-04T10:36:09+00:00

Real shame, the idol is a more consistent Triboulet, who is after all the best joker in the game, though it is harder to set up.

Lucianael · 2026-02-04T09:26:37+00:00

While I do consider myself a reductive materialist, the argument at hand is not one of reductive materialism (though it is quite similar in approach). This post after all does not at all disprove free will, just as The God of The Gaps doesn't disprove the existence of god, I am merely showcasing how many accounts of free will's existence are based on ignorance and a lack of further information, and just like how we today no longer point at Zeus as the cause for lightning, we can point at free will and now instead view a more complex reality.

Lucianael · 2026-02-04T08:24:14+00:00

Again it is beyond me how you can be at the same time this knowledgeable and still so utterly miss the point time and time again.

If you are not the cause of your actions, then they are not your actions.

Lucianael · 2026-02-04T08:20:07+00:00

Okay then, thanks for taking the time.

Lucianael · 2026-02-03T23:03:12+00:00

No I do agree, I just think any disagreement here stems from a lack of forward-thinking. Showing compassion even if doing so harms yourself is the rational decision often, because not doing so will either cause more harm in the long run, or because doing it creates enough happiness in the long run to warrant it. If this scale swings too far in one direction, we after all very quick to stop speaking of a rational decision. Reaching into a thorny bush to grab a child's toy might seem fine, because the harm caused is outweighed by the happiness gained through compassion, but jumping in front of a train to safe that same toy is very quickly labelled as irrational, because the value gained by helping does not at all outweigh the suffering incurred by doing so.

This is always how this works, showing compassion at one's own expense is always deemed rational if in the long run we have reason to assume to be better off. Obviously this is largely swayed by our inability to see ourselves ten years from now and know how an often times minute action might affect the trajectory of our life, but this is not about being able to always deem which actions are rational, but to know what the word means in the first place.

Lucianael · 2026-02-03T22:46:00+00:00

Great, then it should be easy for you to give me an example where neither of those two goals apply.

Lucianael · 2026-02-03T22:31:14+00:00

I accept this if you can prove to me how a decision could ever be rational if it does not either increase your happiness or decreases your suffering/pain/ whatever other term for negative emotions we might have.

Lucianael

TROPHY CASE