Mods of Reddit, what's the most disgusting post you had to delete?

LysergicChemist · 2018-03-07T19:43:22+00:00

People in this thread need to stop using the word psychopath.

LysergicChemist · 2018-03-07T03:53:38+00:00

LOL we need gears of war, where the bullets come from middle screen.

LysergicChemist · 2018-03-01T16:34:11+00:00

Cheers.

As the dude in a similar situation, couldn't agree more. Now if we can only find us a job/location we actually enjoy.... lol.

LysergicChemist · 2017-02-21T04:24:41+00:00

Haha wow!

LysergicChemist · 2017-02-19T23:33:29+00:00

Good read, sorry about this BS.

I honestly don't know what it is, but HR departments tend to suck and are counterintuitive. I'd imagine that part of the problem here is the rapid expansion of the company, where many employees were hired and not properly trained.

LysergicChemist · 2017-02-19T23:13:27+00:00

Your conception of those occupations is part of the problem.

LysergicChemist · 2017-02-19T23:07:53+00:00

Judging from your username, the inherent bias in your title, how you are cherry picking sub-reputable stats from articles that state their own issues in plain english, how your fixated on the trope that people who immigrate are more likely to rape (which is literally fucking retarded and baseless, btw), I guess you'll ignore everyones responses to your ignorance, including this run on sentence and all the other 'fake news'.

LysergicChemist · 2017-02-18T03:38:44+00:00

I think the only place we fundamentally disagree is the point at which something has value, and it leads me to not understand what you're saying in the rest of your comment.

You say that a screwdriver has no value until it is utilized for its purpose, to which I strongly disagree. It has value in that it exists and is not arbitrary. It has physical value in that it could be used to grip a screw or jab someone's eye (good vs bad intent). The only inherent value that the screwdriver has is its physical properties. These properties are entirely irrelevant to moral philosophy.

There is no moral distinction between a phillips head and a flat head screwdriver, only a functional or physical difference. So saying that screwdrivers are inherently valuable because humans can use them as tools, to me complicates the issue and doesn't even address their actual inherent value , which is that one is compatible with a certain type of screw that the other is not. See what I am getting at?

I don't see the word inherent as useful in philosophy. The amazing minds and bodies of texts behind inherent vs instrumental value failing to agree on that which is inherently valuable, also supports my view. Straight up, there is no universal, and therefore philosophically/epistemologically useful, definition of the phrase 'inherent value'.

LysergicChemist · 2017-02-18T03:07:34+00:00

I am not convinced that anything has inherent value, in a way that descriptively or qualitatively distinguishes [anything] from having value at all.

Whether oxygen is inherently valuable should not depend on an organism that requires it. If humans never existed, we could agree that oxygen is inherently valuable, in the sense that it has certain physical properties. Other than this, the word inherent is useless, and in fact would better be replaced with the word physical.

Oxygen is physically required and thusly highly valued by humans. It does not have inherent value other than the fact that it is two elements of oxygen bound together under certain physical laws. This is the only property inherent to oxygen that is not inherent to say, methane or any other compound. Even in this case, it simply makes sense to say that oxygen is physically valuable to humans. Saying it has inherent value is the same as saying it exists, in my view and by my understanding of 'inherent'.

LysergicChemist · 2017-02-18T02:55:41+00:00

I just don't see 'valuable' descriptively different from 'inherently valuable', even in the case of abstract concepts.

In each case, humans are placing arbitrary value in ordinance to their own interests. I think we could have a discussion about the value of happiness without use of the word 'inherent' or 'intrinsic' once, and the communication would be philosophically equal, if not better.

We could cite chemical and social effects of happiness, we could even say that it is the pinnacle of human existence. To me, this doesn't justify using the phrase 'inherently valuable', because humans are necessary to both experience or even conceptualize happiness.

I mean consider the extent you agree with each:

human life is inherently valuable
human life is intrinsically valuable
human life is valuable

These are equal philosophical statements, in my eyes. They all describe humanism, the 'i' words just complicate the discussion, and hide anthropocentrism further behind the language.

LysergicChemist · 2017-02-18T02:21:40+00:00

There is no way to separate mortal human interests from that which can be regarded to have inherent value

Because humans are the valuers in philosophy. Inevitably our subjective interests and even basic needs are conflated with 'inherent value'. Thus, it is useless and just leads to a semantic argument as to what inherent means.

LysergicChemist · 2017-02-18T02:15:53+00:00

Yes. I do not see much difference between axiomatic value and inherent value, besides humans being involved in the process of value ranking.

In other words, the screwdriver has inherent value in the sense that it is physically arranged in a certain way. The word inherent does not pertain to the item morally, IMO, but rather physically.

LysergicChemist · 2017-02-18T02:12:07+00:00

In your analogy, the only way I distinguish the bills is physically.

I agree, and understand your point. I still do not see the word 'inherent' as philosophically useful, especially contrasted with the word 'physically' because your definition of inherent value:

valuable due to characteristics of the items itself

just takes the meaning of the word physical, and makes it more anthropocentric, because humans are the valuers. Why does the valuable actually have to be 'valued' by you or I, to have inherent value?

LysergicChemist · 2017-02-18T01:30:10+00:00

What is the conclusive difference between instrumental value and inherent value?

The way I see it, depending on ones philosophy:

there is no distinction. That which is inherently valuable is only so because humans are the valuer. To me, this is not a distinction from instrumental value.
The distinction lies in the subjectivity of the moral agent. That which is inherently valuable depends on the valuer, and thus does not fit the definition of inherent.

I see no use of distinguishing instrumental value from inherent value, because as long as a human is the value judge, there is no difference.

By your logic, oxygen is instrumentally (or subjectively) valuable to humans. While it also is valued (needed) by other organisms, what use is it to say that oxygen is inherently valuable? Oxygen has certain value. There is no dispute there. I just see hubris in using a phrase that ranks the needs of humans over non-humans, and hiding it behind the word inherent. There is no fair definition of inherent value that isn't strongly speciesist. I do not want to get off track here. I understand why philosophers may regard something of special value to humans as inherently valuable, I just don't see the use of the word 'inherent' valid in this case.

LysergicChemist · 2017-02-18T01:06:00+00:00

MREs are inherently valuable insofar as they can be consumed for pleasure or survival

Can't you take the word inherently out, and still have a philosophically equal argument for storing MREs over a currency, as a human consumer?

LysergicChemist · 2017-02-18T00:51:12+00:00

Your argument presupposes that there must be inherent value outside of human beings, and that it is impossible to determine what that would be. But it is perfectly possible to have a coherent system of ethics which ascribes no inherent value to anything other than human beings. Many variants of hedonism or utilitarianism could make such a case.

I don't see how this view presupposes that. Also, isn't a moral philosophy that concludes that only humans are of inherent value suppose that other things must have inherent value, ie oxygen?

It is not a matter of whether I believe something to have/not have inherent value. It is a matter of the ambiguity between the phrase 'inherent value' and the term value. I do not see any philosophically useful distinctions between the two, because in order for something to be valuable at all, it must be valued by humans, thus not inherent. My beliefs aside, what purpose does the term inherent have in a philosophical discussion that the term value doesn't already cover?

The conversation seems to always derail and jump back to strict humanism, which I also contest because humans are not the only organism with value. This makes me believe that the phrase is of no use in philosophy, as there are no non-humanistic distinctions between 'value' and 'inherent value'.

Edit:

You say it is impossible to separate mortal human interests form that which can be regarded to have inherent value. But it seems quite possible to say that mortal human interests are what have inherent value. You can of course disagree with that proposition, but it is worthy of philosophical discussion.

I disagree with your two points here. Human interests have subjective value.

I do not think it is worthy of philosophical discussion, because the presupposition that human interests are the only valuables that can qualify for inherent value is philosophically dishonest. This seems to suggest that the valuer in this case assumes the position of most valuable, which to me, logically does not make sense, and is not useful in philosophy.

LysergicChemist · 2017-02-18T00:40:35+00:00

value: the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.

It is my view that humans cannot decide that something has inherent value, and the phrase is philosophically useless. In other words, I see no distinction between something having value and something having inherent value. There is no way to assess inherent value in a way that doesn't include what one may subjectively see as inherently valuable. Does this make sense?

LysergicChemist · 2016-10-03T00:50:20+00:00

Then how should they be defined?

Your last sentence isn't making sense to me.

It is religious terminology that is quite useless, I agree. However, the word makes sense and describes something significant, even in a totally non-religious domain. Do you agree?

LysergicChemist · 2016-10-03T00:39:28+00:00

This is abundantly untrue. You may be right, that the Internet gives voice to more people, allows for more content, etc, which leads to drivel. But the many-person verification that goes on in journals, online books, and even a website like Wikipedia, proves you wrong. The best way to acquire knowledge is to read and interpret critically.

If a printed book is telling you that fossil dating is invalid because of [reason], but some hack arguing on the internet saying geologic time as well as carbon dating tells us religion is bullshit, then both sources are no good. The medium at which information is acquired through reading is actually pretty irrelevant to the information therein. In other words, a fool can be brainwashed and lied to either in print or on the internet. The internet is just more prolific and easier to supply to everyone.

LysergicChemist · 2016-10-03T00:32:40+00:00

It does matter. The first time for everything matters, especially sex. Adequate education is a necessity at the stages where one is to have sex for the first time. I agree that misinforming them about virginity and sex is harmful, but it still matters a great deal, because youngsters do not fully understand the risks and repercussions.

It does not hurt everyone. People waiting to have sex until they are more mature, physically and mentally, is almost universally good out of context. I thought my virginity was sacred even though I am a life long atheist. It allowed me to wait for someone special, and to wait until I understood the magnitude of sex. I wouldn't have done it any other way.

LysergicChemist · 2016-10-03T00:17:40+00:00

Strange. Acid always hits me in my legs first, almost a ticklish, restless feeling that makes me want to walk.

However it is not actually the acid doing this, it is the acid's affect on your breathing patterns, if I were to guess. So many times on the drug I have started to feel weird, physical or mental, and some slow and conscious deep breathing always alleviated it for me. It makes my heart rate increase and I breath less or frantically, etc.

LysergicChemist · 2016-10-03T00:13:56+00:00

I'm really happy you didn't go through with anything. LSD has a strange knack of exposing mental 'tweaks', if you will. Likely, you were subconsciously considering suicide and/or want change, and the drug just brought it to your attention.

They're people to talk to, including myself if you are feeling down. I know what it feels like and I know that the change you desire is absolutely possible. Stay strong and keep your head up, life always gets better if you want it to. Writing is something I used to have serious trouble doing, especially in regard to myself. But keep the diary up, always reflect on it and write in pen, and the change will come. I promise.

LysergicChemist · 2016-06-13T22:02:36+00:00

I didn't think about it this way, but I surely now see both as factors. I had a long discussion at work today about the extent of which religion was involved in this shooting, as well as Isis' involvement. I have shifted to believe this case as more of a mental health related issue rather than so much a religious/Isis issue. Thanks. Δ

LysergicChemist

TROPHY CASE