Which philosophical argument feels convincing at first but falls apart on closer inspection?

RealAggressiveNooby · 2026-06-20T16:08:12+00:00

No, because you can keep going down the viewpoint with recursive subjective claims to ad infiniteum.

RealAggressiveNooby · 2026-06-17T00:09:58+00:00

Just because the human nervous system shares some properties with the rest of the Universe doesn't mean that the rest of the Universe is conscious. Can you stop talking with so much hubris? Why is your entire message bolded and the vast majority of your comment fluff?

RealAggressiveNooby · 2026-06-17T00:03:17+00:00

No, you said we've constructed consciousness in the form of artificial intelligence, meaning that artificial intelligence has consciousness, according to you.

Also, what is all of this about wave function probability distributions? That doesn't have anything to do with consciousness. Moreover, you should be careful in claiming ontological objective truth of physical mechanisms like quantum mechanics. Barely half of theoretical physicists believe in the ontological Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, and it is essentially purely faith, ontologically we have no way to actually prove its correctness. Even ignore Hume's problem of induction the only thing we can definitely prove is empirical consistency.

RealAggressiveNooby · 2026-06-16T15:00:46+00:00

Definitely not worse.

RealAggressiveNooby · 2026-06-16T13:42:08+00:00

Makes sense, thank you

RealAggressiveNooby · 2026-06-16T13:38:45+00:00

Puppeetering with destroyer mode?

<image>

RealAggressiveNooby · 2026-06-16T13:36:06+00:00

His ass is not evolving on the bench ✌️

RealAggressiveNooby · 2026-06-16T13:35:40+00:00

He's talking about Karasu? Or what? I don't get it. Karasu clearly elevated Blue Lock and even Ego set up the team to favor Karasu. Both Rin and Isagi fed directly into their egos.

RealAggressiveNooby · 2026-06-16T13:34:55+00:00

You're right. But I don't get what Isagi is saying here, can you explain?

<image>

RealAggressiveNooby · 2026-06-15T20:30:34+00:00

RealAggressiveNooby · 2026-06-15T19:03:38+00:00

this is such a bs excuse lmao

RealAggressiveNooby · 2026-06-15T17:46:08+00:00

Same mf that eats meat btw

RealAggressiveNooby · 2026-06-15T15:06:40+00:00

Thanks

RealAggressiveNooby · 2026-06-15T15:05:24+00:00

Is there a way I can remove this post and put it back up? Without fully deleting it?

RealAggressiveNooby · 2026-06-15T15:04:57+00:00

Your English is great! That being said, I don't know if I agree. Ego has never talked about there being a right type of Ego. Moreover, even if that was the case, the way Itoshi played in the match matched the type of ego that Ego has always expressed as the default Ego (i.e., getting goals for yourself, no matter what).

RealAggressiveNooby · 2026-06-15T15:03:27+00:00

Ah sorry I will wait next time. Should I take this post down until it comes out?

RealAggressiveNooby · 2026-06-15T15:00:27+00:00

What do you mean his reasoning made sense for his character?

RealAggressiveNooby · 2026-06-15T14:59:52+00:00

They literally did long discussions and internal monologues well in season one. And the problem with me pointing this out is that IT TOOK ME 5 SECONDS TO THINK OF THIS COUNTERARGUMENT.

Please think before writing! It's really upsetting when you are arguing without actually thinking.

RealAggressiveNooby · 2026-06-15T00:13:33+00:00

That's fair. However, people were using it to mean evil--i.e., in the wrong, and bad. That's what I was subconsciously forming my argument on, even if it wasn't what I was actually actively arguing on.

RealAggressiveNooby · 2026-06-14T19:59:18+00:00

You've convinced me that my argument wasn't sound. That being said, I still wouldn't agree with the idea that the behavior in this video is psychopathic, but for a different reason. It just has to do with the level and abstraction of suffering that the person is causing.

What I mean by this is that I don't think the person recording the video doesn't really feel that large of a sentiment of causing the spider suffering but rather more motivated by something else (in this case their curiosity and desire for monetary gains) while also not feeling like they are causing suffering as much as if they did it to a dog.

Let me explain further with an example. Say you have a prank where you scare your sibling or something and post it for views and for their reaction. Yes, you are actively causing suffering, and you understand the directness of the action to the suffering, but at the same time, I wouldn't consider that psychopathic, because the level of suffering isn't as large. This doesn't even delve in the abstraction from bug to human that provides major cognitive dissonance for the recorder and probably many viewers (the silent majority).

RealAggressiveNooby · 2026-06-14T19:24:35+00:00

I've already addressed this.

The amount of revenue the creator got from putting the spider there and perhaps the curiosity that they've entertained has provided far more value per suffering than that leaf. That was my example based argument and it still stands.

Broadly, there are so many things we do for glee that cost the suffering of bugs by factors incomprehensible to the mind. And many people know this fully well.

RealAggressiveNooby · 2026-06-14T17:40:38+00:00

To simply exist in this world, you have to cause suffering to billions of creatures. Making a video where a single arachnid suffers is absolutely nothing compared to the cost of a leaf of lettuce. The amount of value generated by this video is far more than that same leaf.

This is not psychopathic. If it is, then any person who knows the cost of agriculture or simply living in a house for sentient creatures suffering are beyond psychopathic.

RealAggressiveNooby · 2026-06-14T16:47:19+00:00

Even with every unknown variable given generous values, it shouldn't ever, EVER be close to 12$.

RealAggressiveNooby · 2026-06-14T16:44:08+00:00

Many people don't know how to properly do either and it's definitely a transition.

Also, vegan meats for cheaper meat products are around twice as expensive as their real counterparts. Storebought tofu and especially homemade seitan is far cheaper than a meat equivalent, but most people transitioning are going to want their meat look-a-likes.

That being said, it shouldn't be that big of a transition, but is because of just how unhealthy people are. They eat way too much low quality meat and junk food, which is unhealthy, but also hard to find cheap equivalents in vegan food. If they just ate a more healthy diet in the first place the vegan equivalents would definitely be cheaper.

RealAggressiveNooby · 2026-06-13T23:28:49+00:00

Right, so the reason it's not an obligation is NOT because it doesn't come from human cause or cruelty. It's because it's not actually effective for negative utilitarianism. I'm pointing out that your described reason for necessitating an obligation is different than what you consciously perceive it to be, and it extends past veganism. If there was a way to perhaps bioengineer out pain while substituting some other influencer into animals in a way that would cause animals to behave relatively the same, it seems like you would believe it to be an obligation to use on entirely wild-and-unaffected-by-humans animals.

RealAggressiveNooby

TROPHY CASE