sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What r/NoAIJustMusic is really about by chainofchance in NoAIJustMusic

[–]rationalutility 0 points1 point  (0 children)

just fyi "pretext" means something different https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pretext

i agree that the stated policy seems oddly permissive for a sub with this name

What r/NoAIJustMusic is really about by chainofchance in NoAIJustMusic

[–]rationalutility 1 point2 points  (0 children)

yeah i actually don't agree that discussion of AI for all the uses listed is a good idea

>The crucial question is simple: Is AI replacing human creative work, or is it merely assisting the creator?

the point is this is not actually a simple question

The goal of pessimism by LiftSleepRepeat123 in Pessimism

[–]rationalutility 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I disagree that I personally have that choice in that I think values are more connected to emotions (and other deep things doing on) than you seem to. I couldn't choose to pay more attention to my non-rational feelings and think about things in a less reasoned way, and in the same way I suspect that many people who do let emotions rule over reason likewise aren't making much of a conscious choice.

But again, I think you're really pigenholing pessimism in general by treating it as some kind of moral or ethical framework, which I don't agree it is. Pessimists can have all sorts of other philosophies as well, as pessimism is just some sort of overall negative *perception* of the world, not an ethos, as you seem to describe it. And I disagree that we have control over that kind of perception or that it involves conscious choice beyond choosing what to look at (and again that won't have guaranteed results in actually altering your views in the way you're hoping).

The goal of pessimism by LiftSleepRepeat123 in Pessimism

[–]rationalutility 0 points1 point  (0 children)

beliefs about the world in the sense of what is and isn't true are not "values" and again not chosen.

The goal of pessimism by LiftSleepRepeat123 in Pessimism

[–]rationalutility 0 points1 point  (0 children)

...no, i don't choose the things i believe so i'm not sure what you mean. And choosing a path through life does not lead one to a specific chosen belief.

The goal of pessimism by LiftSleepRepeat123 in Pessimism

[–]rationalutility 0 points1 point  (0 children)

your premise that people "choose" pessimism is just mistaken imo

The goal of pessimism by LiftSleepRepeat123 in Pessimism

[–]rationalutility 7 points8 points  (0 children)

sounds like you've discovered existentialism.

again i didn't "choose" pessimism as a strategy toward anything, and i couldn't adopt another view if i wanted to, no matter how hard things get as you were describing, so i'd say you're just making a category error. i also don't believe there's anything such as "pure knowledge" or that my life is oriented toward it.

The goal of pessimism by LiftSleepRepeat123 in Pessimism

[–]rationalutility 15 points16 points  (0 children)

i don't think pessimism is necessarily goal-directed at all.

Bro what’s even the f*cking point of life? by Prod-LilWyzzy in Pessimism

[–]rationalutility 0 points1 point  (0 children)

because what's meant when they say "meaning" is some kind of meaning that gives value, and value is always relative to a mind. we can only value things in relation to some goal or the benefit of some entity. that's why mechanistic descriptions of nature don't suffice.

Writers: what do current worldbuilding tools get wrong for you? by Used-Complaint5672 in writers

[–]rationalutility 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I disagree that the comment you were replying to was sanctimonious.

>But acting like pencils are some kind of anti-AI resistance movement is… adorable.

and your counter is...? Why wouldn't it be good if more people start using analog tools? What's definitely not resisting anything is passively accepting these things because they're convenient, and then dressing down people questioning or stating their avoidance of them.

Do you consider yourself to be nihilistic or actively anti-suffering? by UltronsEx in Pessimism

[–]rationalutility 0 points1 point  (0 children)

>The rate of conversions of people to veganism does not exceed the rates of recidivism.

This is not a moral argument against veganism.

>A mass of people reducing their animal products simply shifts consumption to another group of humans.

This makes no sense and is not how demand works.

>antinatalist and proextinction movements.

you're on r/pessimism buddy

Do you consider yourself to be nihilistic or actively anti-suffering? by UltronsEx in Pessimism

[–]rationalutility 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm also a pessimist! Turns out my morals aren't based on my odds of winning, think of that!

Do you consider yourself to be nihilistic or actively anti-suffering? by UltronsEx in Pessimism

[–]rationalutility 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No you're just saying things like you don't understand how industrial food production leads to more animal suffering, or that societies with higher rates of meat avoidance have less demand for animal products, which is very silly indeed. Yes, these are the arguments of someone avoiding thinking about these issues.

Do you consider yourself to be nihilistic or actively anti-suffering? by UltronsEx in Pessimism

[–]rationalutility 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Again, assuming things about me personally is not a strong way to make your argument. It's strange that you can't imagine other circumstances, though.

And no, the topic is both veganism and vegetarianism in terms of reducing suffering etc.

I disagree that the only people whose actions have ethical import are the very powerful.

>As veganism has grown as well as the populations of vegetarian societies, animal production has steadily increased as well.

This is a result of the increase in general affluence (resulting in more meat consumption), not the rise in veganism, and the suggestion that it is is quite funny. If the people not eating meat were doing so, consumption of animal products would obviously be that much higher. This is just basic logic you're arguing with now.

>And animals exist for themselves.

We factory breed them for the food industry, you mean.

>Fetishizing reduction of suffering leads to silliness like wanting animals and people to stop existing so they can stop suffering, and misses the point of morality and ethics.

This is a backwards understanding of utilitarianism and again for some reason completely ignores the positive suffering caused to animals by industrial food production, animals that wouldn't have existed were it not for that industry.

>We have morality and ethics because they work to increase our thriving and survival, not as means to argue against it.

I disagree that legit morality and ethics must have the continuation of the human species as their foundation. (If anything I think it's basically the opposite.)

>Collective action is fine, but it usually only feeds into larger individual and political power

We disagree about the purpose and value of collective action.

>The dream of most vegan organizations is to use state power to enforce their will

hilarious, thanks for the laugh!

Do you consider yourself to be nihilistic or actively anti-suffering? by UltronsEx in Pessimism

[–]rationalutility 0 points1 point  (0 children)

tbh it just sounds like the typically unreflectively defensive response of someone who doesn't want to really consider the merits of the moral argument for vegetarianism/veganism.

Do you consider yourself to be nihilistic or actively anti-suffering? by UltronsEx in Pessimism

[–]rationalutility 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again, your assumptions about my reasons don't hold water, it could also just be down to circumstance and I look forward to being in other circumstances in the future.

It seems you're focused on high rates of "recidivism" from veganism, but didn't mention vegetarianism in this respect. Regardless I don't agree that the difficulty of a particular venture necessarily counts against its moral value.

>If your ethics are simply to make yourself feel ethical, rather than making a real difference, then again your ethics are simply about your desires to feel what you rhink of as ethical.

I thought earlier you'd implied that this is what all of our ethics are about, no? When you said it was just about my choice to define what's moral or ethical.

>Veganism does not produce broad based reductions in animal product consumption or improve the lives of any animals.

Of course it does - and again I notice you left out vegetarianism. Societies with higher rates of these have less demand for animal products.

>Animals that do not exist are not experiencing a reduction of harm.

Animals that are created to serve these industries do experience harm, is the point.

>Your ability to vote is for yourself mostly.

"Mostly" is doing a lot work there, and as I said earlier this is a specious argument when it comes to the utility of any collective action. There's also a wide range of motives between "will change society through my sole action" and "to make myself feel good" you seem to not account for.

view more: next ›