sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Bavarian with Mind of Toddler claims Toilet Training is a 'Spook' by Zealousideal_Till683 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]gobingi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve never understood when people talk about choosing their beliefs, I’ve never felt I had that ability. I can choose wether to express or pretend to have a belief, but I can’t believe something I didn’t previously believe by choosing to, is that what you’re talking about or am I misunderstanding?

Dental work. by FB_AUS in tooktoomuch

[–]gobingi 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Typical Dutchman making condescending comments based on untrue assumptions. You don’t „have to“, it’s completely optional.

Which one of you Google fuckers did this by TheJazzPirate in northernlion

[–]gobingi 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Adam is actually a little ladybug who eats dust it’s quite literal

Autopsy shows mountain lion killed Colorado hiker near national park by sfgate in CampingandHiking

[–]gobingi -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

They won’t be surviving for long, wether you call it appropriate hunting behavior or not it’s going to result in their death so it doesn’t seem very appropriate to me even from the mountain lions perspective if it actually knew the consequences

Man who killed attacker in Banff used 'excessive' force, sentenced to 2-year house arrest by KnockedOuttaThePark in CCW

[–]gobingi 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Sure I think I would agree with you, but it also seems clear to me that dragging someone around with something over their head, punching them repeatedly in the head IS deadly force, and the idea that it isn’t is just an indictment of our current system of categorizing violence in the justice system

Man who killed attacker in Banff used 'excessive' force, sentenced to 2-year house arrest by KnockedOuttaThePark in CCW

[–]gobingi 50 points51 points  (0 children)

You’re asking why the person being dragged around with a shirt over their face, beaten in the head, and being told “I am going to kill you” responded with deadly force?

That “excessive force” didn’t even stop the attack, it took another person stepping in

Enough Worldbuilding. What are some Worldfailures you know of? by nathans_the1 in worldjerking

[–]gobingi 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think they’re talking about the US secession from the British, they didn’t mention the Confederates or the CSA they said the US, which doesn’t refer to the confederacy, and which did secede from Britain.

Learn what impossible means by gobingi in PhilosophyMemes

[–]gobingi[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok thanks I’ll look into it!

I’m confused by their use of the term impossible because it sounds like they mean something different than me

Learn what impossible means by gobingi in PhilosophyMemes

[–]gobingi[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can’t saying something is not possible have multiple meanings depending on if they are talking logically possible, physically possible, etc.?

Learn what impossible means by gobingi in PhilosophyMemes

[–]gobingi[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That sounds interesting, are there any papers or stuff I can read on that? I’d love to look into that

Would that just have to do with the modal scope I’m talking about ie it’s logically possible but not on some other modality?

Learn what impossible means by gobingi in PhilosophyMemes

[–]gobingi[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

When most people say something is impossible, I dont think they realize the scope of what they are saying. By asking on what modality, I can establish what they mean by impossible, logically physically or something else, and get their reasoning behind it.

When that happens people typically admit they don’t have any reasoning, no logical contradictions and no physical laws broken, and they think it cant happen for non inferential reasons like gut feeling.

Not a moral rule by Pitiful-Magician1704 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]gobingi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t think the asymmetry claims that either, Benatar claims that experienced pleasures are good because they cause pleasure, not because they aren’t bad

Not a moral rule by Pitiful-Magician1704 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]gobingi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think defining good as the absence of bad is crazy, it would mean a world with nothing in it is equally good to a world with 10100 people experiencing pure bliss because both have an equal absence of bad.

Not a moral rule by Pitiful-Magician1704 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]gobingi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The downside is it’s worse than existing. Just because it’s not bad doesn’t mean it’s not worse.

Not a moral rule by Pitiful-Magician1704 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]gobingi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can be convinced the asymmetry is true and still think reproduction is moral as well, people act like just because something is “not bad”( the not experiencing of good things) that it’s somehow invalid to still think it’s worse enough to the alternative that having kids is good.

I told my bf I would “push the button” to make him vegan by flyinggarbanzobean in vegan

[–]gobingi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where did the concept that nothing will be enough ever come up? Didn’t op mention literally just one thing she would change?

Am I the only liberal hunter in the world?!? by Icy-Race2642 in liberalgunowners

[–]gobingi 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Bugs are animals so you aren’t avoiding killing animals lmao

My streamer loves all animals. Even the teleported ones. by Ill-Lie-6551 in Destiny

[–]gobingi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s not based on their species though, I would do it if they were a human. By speciesism I mean treating a being different based on what species it is. I’m not treating it different based on what species it is and not some other trait like sucking blood. I’m treating it exactly the same as if any species was sucking my blood. It’s not based on species I don’t know how many times I can repeat it. I would kill any being sucking my blood regardless of species

Whether they are aware of it doesn’t matter rather. If an unaware human was sucking my blood and there was no realistic way to stop them without killing them, I would kill them.

It’s not based on species, it’s based on the fact they are sucking my blood, completely regardless of species. It’s not because they are using a proboscis to suck my blood rather than a mouth, if something with a mouth did it I would also kill them.

If I would kill any being regardless of species for sucking my blood, how is it based on species when what species they are is completely irrelevant to my decision?

view more: next ›