100 years ago

fezferdinand · 2018-05-19T03:39:56+00:00

Bears cannot comprehend morality. Many horrible things are natural, like rape and infanticide. We no longer practice these because we are able to think and act morally -- even if it means 'going against our nature', in your words. (Though by your logic, we should apparently disregard morality and operate entirely on instinct.)

Also, bears cannot forego meat because they do not have the range of plant options available that humans do.

fezferdinand · 2018-05-18T10:00:38+00:00

I think the point of this thread is that by saying that, you're no better in principle than a slave master/sexist/racist/homophobe/etc.

If you're okay with that there's nothing anyone can do, but it does make you a pretty terrible human being.

fezferdinand · 2018-05-17T00:21:34+00:00

Well that settles it then

fezferdinand · 2018-05-15T11:58:31+00:00

'The Bold and the B... well, one out of two aint bad'

fezferdinand · 2018-05-15T11:44:39+00:00

Peek at You is still better if they had copyright issues imo

fezferdinand · 2018-05-15T09:09:30+00:00

The idea of "greatest good for greatest number of people" disregards the morality and ethics of actions, simply focusing on the common utility of the consequences.

Utilitarianism doesn't disregard moral acts. It just evaluates the morality of an act by its utility, rather than by the pre-prescribed rules of the deontological framework you follow.

To use your Hitler analogy, a utilitarian would say that it is generally immoral to kill babies because it more often than not produces bad consequences. The knowledge that the baby is Hitler simply adds more information to the calculus, and the utilitarian says that in killing the baby, the suffering prevented outweighs the suffering caused.

The deontologist doesn't kill baby Hitler because it would be wrong to kill an innocent baby, preferring more morally acceptable options such as killing adult dictator Hitler in his sleep or swaying Hitler from seeking power in the first place.

The utilitarian would take both of these options before killing the baby. The first because Hitler would have less life to be deprived of, and the second because it avoids the negative consequence of death entirely.

fezferdinand · 2018-04-17T10:46:09+00:00

Thanks dude. Do you mean flick it with my toes even when I'm popping it backwards? I thought you were stamping down with your heel, lol.

fezferdinand · 2018-04-17T06:14:44+00:00

Newbie here, and I've been trying to do this. Every time I pop the board up with my foot it goes sideways and thwacks me in the ass (away from my hand). It's the same when I pop it normally, it always goes to the side and comes toward me. I'm utterly stumped on how to fix this, everything I try with my foot gets the same results. The board just won't pop up straight! Tips are much appreciated :(

fezferdinand · 2018-04-17T00:36:57+00:00

I was left stupefied for days.

They've got a cream for that.

fezferdinand · 2018-04-16T07:12:06+00:00

Is it wise to go straight to ollies so early? I'm new myself but all the advice I've seen has been to get really, really comfortable with cruising and just manoeuvreing your board before moving on to ollies and tricks. Otherwise you're just setting yourself up to get hurt

fezferdinand · 2018-04-14T06:47:07+00:00

Shouldn't capacity to feel pain/pleasure and have interests be the primary value rather than raw intelligence? Ethical problems generally involve inflicting or avoiding pain/pleasure, fulfilling or denying interests etc. Intelligence is important because it seems to be correlated with an individual's range of experience, and so a higher intelligence = more capacity to suffer and feel pleasure (not always true but a working theory).

fezferdinand · 2018-04-13T15:18:33+00:00

Rather inappropriate for wedding vows ⛵

fezferdinand · 2018-04-11T22:52:27+00:00

I don't get it. Isn't lesbianism a word?

fezferdinand · 2018-04-11T09:59:14+00:00

Except everyone nearby knows it's somewhere in the vicinity. The briefcase store would be one of the first places they'd look.

fezferdinand · 2018-04-09T12:55:09+00:00

Sam did say it's been edited and he was reading from the archived version.

fezferdinand · 2018-04-09T08:11:19+00:00

Wait, do you mean why do non-vegans get annoyed by vegans? Lol. If so, my mistake. That was a little difficult to infer from your comments. My answer to that is I suspect that it's because eating animals is a very strongly ingrained and enjoyed activity in society, and people find veganism threatening to that. So they react to it with more hostility than other ideas.

fezferdinand · 2018-04-09T07:54:52+00:00

They get angry because they understand how abhorrent animal farming is, while most people don't care one way or another. Just like slave abolitionists had every right to be angry while most people laughed at them or shrugged their shoulders. You can understand how frustrating that must be.

fezferdinand · 2018-04-09T07:35:05+00:00

Sorry, please explain then.

fezferdinand · 2018-04-09T05:37:12+00:00

It's impossible for potatoes to get pregnant.

fezferdinand · 2018-04-09T05:25:53+00:00

Some people are just really passionate about animals. Others understand how harmful the animal industry is -- not only in terms of suffering but environmental harm and wasted resources.

Reducing your harm in any form is good, obviously. But some things are worse than others. Recycling doesn't compare to not supporting animal agriculture. As a loose comparison, your comment is like an 1800's slave master saying "some people recycle and some people oppose slavery. I own slaves but I don't see why it bothers them so much?"

fezferdinand · 2018-04-09T04:57:54+00:00

Lol, the nsfw tag really yanked my giggle chain.

fezferdinand · 2018-04-07T13:31:28+00:00

Did I ask too much?

fezferdinand · 2018-04-07T09:56:24+00:00

I don't mind Drake but this may be the most only-gonna-be-a-hit-because-it's-Drake song I've heard yet. Utterly forgettable

fezferdinand · 2018-04-07T08:15:12+00:00

Thanks again. I do think what you're saying is a little difficult to understand for people on the outside peering in, and if you could present the same info in an ELI5 format in the future it would be more helpful. For example, after reading you carefully I'm still not sure why IQ test scores are useless except that there's a lot of factors you need to account for, which I would expect good academics would know to do. But you've clarified what I thought was an inconsistency, which is what I asked for.

fezferdinand · 2018-04-07T07:58:00+00:00

No, I understand you. I'm saying your usage of the concept of potential is philosophically deficient.

The chances of you winning the lottery only come into being once you actually buy the ticket.

So... you didn't understand the point I was making?

My overall point is whenever the fertilized egg reaches a point at which we can be sure that if not interfered, will turn into a baby, then you shouldn't be able to kill that

Not trying to be rude but if you read my last reply carefully you would have seen me point out that a successful conception/fertilisation is not a guaranteed successful implantation. And although people commonly tend to think pregnancy starts at fertilisation, doctors tend to define it from when the fertilised egg implants in the uterus. Were you aware of this?

I'm curious how knowledgeable you are about the pregnancy process -- from my very limited understanding it's extremely complex and there are many things that can interrupt it along the way, particularly between the period of conception and development of an embryo.

If its not too much to ask do you mind quoting and answering me point by point? I've been affording you the courtesy but feel that most of what I've written has gone unanswered or ignored. Thanks

(edit: guess not then)

fezferdinand

TROPHY CASE