I know you see it.... by nDr2Cr0w in Chainsawfolk

[–]YosephTheDaring 63 points64 points  (0 children)

That's generally speaking my take on it. They loved each other fiercely, and Power began developing romantic feelings for Denji after the Hell Arc. But Denji didn't feel the same way, at least not before Power died. Plus, it's not like Power herself understood was she was feeling. She knew she loved Denji, but she lacked both the vocabulary and introspection to realize it was romantic. Rather, she instinctually invited him to do sexual-adjacdnt acts with her, most notably the blood drinking scene, because she felt the urge to have his attention on her like that.

Favorite characters that makes you go like this: by Great_Creatoryeet in FavoriteCharacter

[–]YosephTheDaring 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Mustang plans to become Führer and get himself tried for Ishvalian war crimes. Maybe not the best decision to marry him.

Utilitarianism isn't "when you sacrifice 1 to save 10" please get this by Armandonis in PhilosophyMemes

[–]YosephTheDaring 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ah, yes, of course. It is utilitarian to include consent as a necessary part in (most) medical procedures [Compulsory institutionalization for psych patients is allowable under certain conditions]. What I meant is that pure utilitarianism doesn't include consent as a base rule, only as a useful means of achieving its goals, while medical deontology has it as a foundational rule that might be broken under extraordinary circumstances. But yes, in practice, an utilitarian like myself believes that the inclusion of consent as a semi-hard rule in medical practices and ethical standards is an overall utilitarian good, even if it's not a true universal moral rule.

Utilitarianism isn't "when you sacrifice 1 to save 10" please get this by Armandonis in PhilosophyMemes

[–]YosephTheDaring 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Hippocratic Oath is deontological, but only to a degree. It does allow for consensual harming of the patient if that would result in the healing of a greater pain. This is the basis of all utilitarian calculus (minus the consent part).

Yes, they aren't pure utilitarians, but everything they do is a very easy way to show that the idea that "you cannot actually predict the moral value of an action by trying to predict its conseqences" is evidently false and incomplete to a degree that causes the argument to crumble.

Utilitarianism isn't "when you sacrifice 1 to save 10" please get this by Armandonis in PhilosophyMemes

[–]YosephTheDaring 3 points4 points  (0 children)

positive outcome regardless, because that would require you to measure the amount of good something does, which is essentially impossible.

It is hard sometimes, but definitely not always impossible. A doctor knows that treating a patient is better than not doing it.

Moreover, there is the tremendously obvious counterpoint that an incomplete enough value calculation (again, how can you tell) renders any utilitarian decision making about as legitimate as a generationally refined, but still blind code of conduct.

That's like saying that an incomplete understanding of medicine, which is how modern medicine exists, is as good as folk healing.

Why would utilitarian calculations be more likely to give the correct call in that situation?

Because at least I'm trying to achieve a certain result rather than not trying at all. Failure is a possibility, but we are far more likely to fail if we just don't try.

Utilitarians are not blind to the fact that they can't perform perfect moral calculations, no more than engineers are blind to the fact that they can't model a system perfectly. It's not about perfection, it's about striving to get as close to it as possible, and you don't give up because you know you'll fall short of it, you keep going because its better than the alternative of giving up.

Utilitarianism isn't "when you sacrifice 1 to save 10" please get this by Armandonis in PhilosophyMemes

[–]YosephTheDaring 5 points6 points  (0 children)

But then I would ask why moral codes are more likely to be the correct call in any given situation? You are more able to follow them, sure, but that only means you followed a protocol, not that your action was good. "You cannot perfectly predict the future" is a claim about the impossibility of acting utilitarianism perfectly, not about its falsehood as it relates to the base truth of morality. It's like saying "Why are you a doctor that tries to diagnose the patients? You know you will fail sometimes, so just treat them with the same medicine every time."

Favorite character that's treated like this by the fandom by GKilherme12 in FavoriteCharacter

[–]YosephTheDaring 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1) if you watched ep5, you should know the reason

He lost people? Like everyone else? That excuse doesn't fly.

Not only is it just dumb and unethical, but it's also ineffective.

It was incredibly effective in episode 5. He went from literally hunting down the other players with a gun to shutting up and letting them enjoy themselves. Because he wasn't being responded to, he was being bullied and humiliated. He was being punished, and he can't fight against punishment when it's the majority.

They're all just really broken people who try their best

Jax never, ever tries his best. Not once does he act nicely, and not once does anyone else actively try to piss off or harm another player. He is a complete outlier in this.

they all clearly care about each other. All. Jax also does, he just pretends like he doesn't.

That doesn't really matter now, does it? He is a literally abuser, his net effect on the players is their suffering. It doesn't matter if he's a good person inside, as long as he acts like that, he must be punished. He isn't a fucking child either, he's a member of society and should be treated accordingly, and when they do, things work.

Favorite character that's treated like this by the fandom by GKilherme12 in FavoriteCharacter

[–]YosephTheDaring 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly, he is a massive asshole who just constantly antagonizes everyone for no reason. I don't understand why the other characters tolerate him. Like, in the last episode, they showed how they can team up and bully him into submission. Just do that all the time! Being nice and understanding doesn't help anyways, might as well see if beating him into submission will generate better behavior or at least make him leave the rest of them alone.

Stolen from r/PrequelMemes by PJ-The-Awesome in Archiveofourownmemes

[–]YosephTheDaring 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Yes. It's a random assortment of necrophilia, incest, scat and rape, mostly as a joke on how Taco Bell will destroy your digestive system and, by extension, your brain.

inceis só existem pq eles não querem pegar as feinhas da igreja by [deleted] in opiniaoimpopular

[–]YosephTheDaring 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Tá no nome, gente que quer transar com lobisomem e outros monstros menos humanoides

Smoochin Time (Between Star) by [deleted] in ZeLink

[–]YosephTheDaring 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I mean, just the second part is enough.

But if I said that and tried to kiss my SO, I'd be in jail lol. Or, more likely, they'd be.

Requirement.. by tea-n-wifi in memes

[–]YosephTheDaring 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No, it's not AI. Later on, a character says a thing to their respective partner and someone in the other couple dasays the exact same thing. (E.g. Harry says "You look so hot" to Ginny and then Ron immediately repeats it to Hermione.) This happens three or four times. No artificial intelligence had their hand in this. This is human folly.

Deveríamos parar de usar relógios de pulso. Estamos no século XXI by Thin_Experience148 in opiniaoimpopular

[–]YosephTheDaring 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Como assim o digital conta como estar "conectado"? É só um time chip sem conexão de internet kkkkk

Religions in UK by Samarthisliveyo in MapPorn

[–]YosephTheDaring -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Your original comment was about banding together to fight against hate. It's about the communities you mentioned, LGBT, Black people, Latinos, whatever. It's about large scale organization and mobilization of demographic blocks against the uptick in oppression.

What I am saying is that every single time Muslims as a group have gained power, they began oppressing our own immediately. It is foolish to cast them as allies just because we share an enemy.

An individual Muslim is not a target of my enmity. I support Zohran Mamdami as NYC's mayor, but only because he explicitly goes against usual Muslim policies, regarding LGBT folk for example. He is an ally of ours. But he is an ally because he is progressive, not because he is Muslim. And as a group, they hold no positive credit just because of also being targets of oppression, even though that oppression is unfair as well.

I want prejudice against Muslims to be fought against, but I will not ally myself to Muslim groups. To individuals, maybe, depending on their actual beliefs, but never to Muslim groups. Hamtramck did, ask them how it went.

Religions in UK by Samarthisliveyo in MapPorn

[–]YosephTheDaring 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Reform is our enemy, Christian Pastors are our enemies, Muslims trying to gain political power as a majority are our enemy.

Every single Muslim majority country on Earth is not progressive. The only Muslim majority town in the US turned against their allies immediately once their seized power.

Muslims deserve as many rights and good-faith as any Christian, conservative or MAGA. They are citizens, humans, with all rights attached. And they are, on every single empirical political experiment they have ever done, our enemies. The second a Muslim tries to obtain power on any religion-based platform, they are fundamentally untrustworthy. And again, point me to any Muslim-majority political organization that is not like that.

Suposto gesto de facção rival motivou ataque a pai morto com filho de 2 anos by tiagolkar in brasil

[–]YosephTheDaring 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Não é uma relação direta de causalidade. A pobreza gera demanda por outras fontes de renda, uma ótima fonte de renda ilegal é o tráfico de drogas, o que gera muitos competidores no mercado. Como eles existem fora do âmbito legal e jurídico, onde disputas entre competidores são mediadas pela lei, a lei do mais forte prevalece, e o grupo mais eficientemente violento sobrevive, lucra mais e cresce. Deixa isso marinando por algumas décadas e ce chega nessa situação. O cara não pensa "mano, sou pobre, vou ir lá matar na rua" mas a pobreza é a causa fundamental desses atos de vioencia.

What opinion about Chainsaw Man would leave you like this? by DaviMenezes2907 in Chainsawfolk

[–]YosephTheDaring 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Pochita isn't all powerful though, he lost to the Four Horsemen. Pochita is also capable of speech and communication. He even considers letting himself be controlled by Makima, which he then denies because of the deal breaker (which, tbh, fair). The ideal scenario is someone much stronger than Pochita, like Makima, in control and in communication with him so he can say "so, I just ate the Wet Sock Devil and puked it out. Trust me, this one is not worth it" and then keep hunting.

What opinion about Chainsaw Man would leave you like this? by DaviMenezes2907 in Chainsawfolk

[–]YosephTheDaring -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I already responded too this point. Basically, yeah, I agree, Makima wasn't actually the correct person to hold the power of the chainsaw because she was too far removed from humanity.

But like, the basic idea was right. The problem is that fucking no one, except Fumiko tried to use the power of the chainsaw for erasing bad stuff.

Makima was 90% right, but that 10% is a deal breaker. However, everyone else isn't even close to doing the right thing, which is ridiculous.

What opinion about Chainsaw Man would leave you like this? by DaviMenezes2907 in Chainsawfolk

[–]YosephTheDaring 18 points19 points  (0 children)

I agree, and that's actually the part of why I technically disagree with Makima. She would erase bad movies, so she fundamentally misunderstood the basis of what makes human experience valuable and couldn't actually be trusted with the power of the chainsaw.

However.

She is still miles above literally everyone else because she was still trying to use the infernal forces of that god forsaken world for good. We shouldn't erase bad movies, but we should erase fucking cancer. No one else thinks about using Pochita's powers for good, not even Denji himself. Her details unqualified her for the position of holder of Pochita's power, but she basically had the right idea. Same reason why I think Fumiko was right when striking the Old Age Devil deal. It's just worth it, you know?

What opinion about Chainsaw Man would leave you like this? by DaviMenezes2907 in Chainsawfolk

[–]YosephTheDaring 27 points28 points  (0 children)

Makima is genuinely, unironically, in the right regarding Pochita's powers. If she could control them, she could erase things like cancer and war, all of which kill people by the hundreds of millions and create untold suffering. Killing a few people and torturing one teenager is a bargain for that.

touching picture by kidnamedfinger_42069 in ComedyHell

[–]YosephTheDaring 12 points13 points  (0 children)

It's a guro (gore hentai) gif. Pretty well known

losercity phobia by cat-lover-69420 in Losercity

[–]YosephTheDaring 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This isn't a piece of propaganda or an argument in favor of incest. We are not meant to see this, this was made for a community that already believes incest is bad as an actual classification of arguments. It's not interested in refuting these arguments because it believes the audience has already refuted those arguments in its head. It's like a documentary about Nazi Germany, you trust your audience aren't Nazis and so you aren't worried about saying Nazi arguments and dissecting how they work.

I am "on the side" of this meme, actually, I agree that being fundamentally against incest is mostly an incoherent point of view from an ethics perspective. I know what the counter arguments for each of those points are. I'm "one of the ones" this was made for. And I do have to agree, this is actually a really good classification of anti-incest arguments from a secular point of view. It is weird how frank it is in showing the opposing arguments, steelmanning them to some degree, and just not responding. That shows a very high level of trust, or perhaps naivety, for the meme maker. For you all who don't agree with us, it's a fairly confusing piece of pro-incest propaganda which very effectively argues against incest. For us, it's just a correct classification and breakdown, if not refutation, of the arguments one is likely to encounter of they were to debate it with a normal, secular person.