What bothers me about the world
Options
Huruma
Members Posts: 2,284 ✭✭✭
is that there are people who are willing to cause innocent beings (human/non-human) to suffer, either because they are indifferent to their pain or because they take pleasure in it. It's not my personal experiences with these people that upset me, it's that they exist. I would punish many, many human beings if I had the opportunity to. Suffering for any reason is bad but suffering inflicted by another being who has a theory of mind capable of understanding that suffering is incomprehensible. I can't even wrap my mind around how someone (who is mentally capable of understanding the feelings of others) can be indifferent to the suffering of other, non-offending sentient beings, how it can simply not matter. Revenge I understand, even if, intellectually, I can see why it is wrong.
I should have some kind of control over how things are, I can't believe things are the way they are even though they shouldn't be. It's like a math equation that doesn't make sense. How do people accept the world the way that it is?
I should have some kind of control over how things are, I can't believe things are the way they are even though they shouldn't be. It's like a math equation that doesn't make sense. How do people accept the world the way that it is?
Comments
-
wack thread, no offense
-
Just ignore Shootem when he says stuff like that, he's actually pretty smart, but his wankerness can get in the way sometimes.
How do you accept the world the way it is? By accepting it, which doesn't equate to saying its okay. -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »Just ignore Shootem when he says stuff like that, he's actually pretty smart, but his wankerness can get in the way sometimes.
Ironic coming from a troll like you. -
shootemwon wrote: »Ironic coming from a troll like you.
I'm not THAT ugly. -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »I'm not THAT ugly.
I wouldn't know, but I'd bet that you actually are. -
I think there is no "should" as far as the state of the world is concerned. Things simply are the way they are, there is no "predestined" path that has somehow been diverged from.
So, if people have the means and desire to make others suffer, I see nothing wrong with them acting upon it.
That makes things interesting/amusing. -
Dictators started off with ideas like yours and soon became those people because they thought that they had the right to judge who was wrong and right with absolute authority.
-
shootemwon wrote: »I wouldn't know, but I'd bet that you actually are.
o0o0o0o you really do dislike me huh? HAHA -
HUman beings are inherently corrupt(ible.)
-
You know what bothers me about the world? ? mindlessly following every little trend cause they cant think for themselves. Well maybe just in amaraka
-
FuriousOne wrote: »Dictators started off with ideas like yours and soon became those people because they thought that they had the right to judge who was wrong and right with absolute authority.
Here we go with the "let's sit back and pretend that every view is legitimate" ? .
The world would be better off with me as supreme ruler. -
Here we go with the "let's sit back and pretend that every view is legitimate" ? .
The world would be better off with me as supreme ruler.
I'm glad I went ahead and labeled this a wack thread from the jump. -
You lost me with "non-human".
Ya'll vegan ? ain't never gon get me to feel bad about animal slaughterhouses, stop ? trying.
oh boo hoo the poor chickens
YUMMMMMMMMMMMMMM -
Threadstarter just sent me a feelings-filled PM, just in case anyone was still trying to get a sense of what kind of person he is.
-
Here we go with the "let's sit back and pretend that every view is legitimate" ? .
The world would be better off with me as supreme ruler.
Ok so you like what....15?.....? you culdnt run yo blockk let alone aa country or the world....? u gotta have ballz to do that type of ? .. you aint no street ? ....r u?...ok den...does huruma buss his gunz?...does huruma have anytype of street credibility?....wtf is a huruma.. -
KushBurninIndividual wrote: »Ok so you like what....15?.....? you culdnt run yo blockk let alone aa country or the world....? u gotta have ballz to do that type of ? .. you aint no street ? ....r u?...ok den...does huruma buss his gunz?...does huruma have anytype of street credibility?....wtf is a huruma..
I was kidding.
And I don't think it's ethical to ? 'bad' people either, I just don't care about them. Intellectually I know that I should feel empathy for everyone but, emotionally, I feel that people who harm the innocent without just cause deserve to be punished.
All views are not legitimate. Moral relativism is self-refuting since consistent relativists have to accept the view that relativism is wrong as legitimate as well. Happiness and suffering are the universal standards that can be used to determine the rightness or wrongness of all decisions. Factory farming is wrong because it causes unnecessary suffering, whether or not some people think that the suffering of chickens is acceptable makes no difference. These people can't logically argue that their suffering is dis-valuable but the same feeling is acceptable when other beings experience it. -
Thank you for enlightening us threadstarter. The universe is clearly a much simpler place than any of us ever imagined.
-
Whateva]I was kidding.
whur dis come from?And I don't think it's ethical to ? 'bad' people either, I just don't care about them. Intellectually I know that I should feel empathy for everyone but, emotionally, I feel that people who harm the innocent without just cause deserve to be punished.
Actually we do not...and lemme tell u why....Moral relativism is not a"view" but is mo like a logical deduction from the evident fact that we liive in a materialistic world (made up of matter, atoms n all dat shiit) because we live in a physical world and there is no typa evidence for any type of ? that dictates morality the logical deduction wuld be that "morals", "good" and "evil" are all things that have been used to describe and give meaning to an otherwise "meaningless world"..All views are not legitimate. Moral relativism is self-refuting since consistent relativists have to accept the view that relativism is wrong as legitimate as well.
Thats not true...because some actions may harm and bring suffering to some and make others very rich and happy....You can say factory farming is wrong because it causes sufering to chickens but in reality chickens do not have the same type of brain as us (assuming you also have one)...they do not have a consiousness like that of a sentient being.....They do not sit and think "wow this rlly sucks..wish i could go home" because they lack the hardware to do so...Happiness and suffering are the universal standards that can be used to determine the rightness or wrongness of all decisions. Factory farming is wrong because it causes unnecessary suffering, whether or not some people think that the suffering of chickens is acceptable makes no difference. These people can't logically argue that their suffering is dis-valuable but the same feeling is acceptable when other beings experience it.
Ya blinded by ya emotions fam....that aint good -
Actually we do not...and lemme tell u why....Moral relativism is not a"view" but is mo like a logical deduction from the evident fact that we liive in a materialistic world (made up of matter, atoms n all dat shiit) because we live in a physical world and there is no typa evidence for any type of ? that dictates morality the logical deduction wuld be that "morals", "good" and "evil" are all things that have been used to describe and give meaning to an otherwise "meaningless world"..
I think you're confusing moral nihilism with the moral relativism that I'm talking about (and, contrary to popular belief, materialism does not justify nihilism). If happiness and suffering have inherent value/dis-value, then the value/dis-value of happiness/suffering has nothing to do with the identity of the being who experiences it. It is wrong to circumcise little girls because it causes unnecessary suffering, the fact that it's accepted in some cultures doesn't negate that suffering. As for pleasure and pain having inherent value/dis-value to begin with, whether or not the universe can be explained in material or metaphysical terms is irrelevant. It's self-evident that some emotional states are intrinsically good and bad experiences, consciousness might be an 'illusion' but an illusion is still perceptually real.Thats not true...because some actions may harm and bring suffering to some and make others very rich and happy...."
That's true which is why the action is justified only if 1) the harm caused is outweighed by the harm prevented/pleasure caused and 2) the harm caused is necessary because there is no other way to prevent the greater harm/promote the greater pleasure. Everyone's emotional welfare should be given equal consideration.You can say factory farming is wrong because it causes sufering to chickens but in reality chickens do not have the same type of brain as us (assuming you also have one)...they do not have a consiousness like that of a sentient being.....They do not sit and think "wow this rlly sucks..wish i could go home" because they lack the hardware to do so...
It's unanimously accepted by modern day neuroscientists that the likeliness of non-human mammals and birds being sentient is equal to the likeliness of other humans being sentient. Human nervous systems and other mammalian nervous systems are too similar to deny this and avian nervous systems are structured in the same basic way, even though they're no more closely related to us than they are to frogs. Most likely, all vertebrates are sentient and there's good reason to believe that even 'primitive' invertebrates are as well.
Most experts believe that birds have an intelligence equal to non-human primates and they're definitely more intelligent than human toddlers are. Chickens worry about their future because they don't live in the 'here and now' like infants do, also unlike small infants, they have the mental capacity to realize that objects continue to exist even when they aren't presently exposed to them. Like mammals (and crocodiles), birds are social animals, they nurture their young, there is a strong correlation between sociality in animals and intelligence. Regardless of how intelligent chickens are, if it's acceptable to ? and torture chickens on the basis of their being less intelligent than psychologically normal, human adults, then it is also acceptable to ? and torture human infants and some extremely mentally ? human adults. How intelligent chickens are has nothing to do with their capacity for pleasure and pain. -
Agent Smith: Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world? Where none suffered, where everyone would be happy. It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost. Some believed we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world. But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery. The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from. Which is why the Matrix was redesigned to this: the peak of your civilization. -
Adaptation... ppl jus learned not to give a ? about the next man..
-
Last Of My Kind wrote: »You know what bothers me about the world? ? mindlessly following every little trend cause they cant think for themselves. Well maybe just in amaraka
cant knock this statement -
I think you're confusing moral nihilism with the moral relativism that I'm talking about (and, contrary to popular belief, materialism does not justify nihilism). If happiness and suffering have inherent value/dis-value, then the value/dis-value of happiness/suffering has nothing to do with the identity of the being who experiences it. It is wrong to circumcise little girls because it causes unnecessary suffering, the fact that it's accepted in some cultures doesn't negate that suffering. As for pleasure and pain having inherent value/dis-value to begin with, whether or not the universe can be explained in material or metaphysical terms is irrelevant. It's self-evident that some emotional states are intrinsically good and bad experiences, consciousness might be an 'illusion' but an illusion is still perceptually real.
That's true which is why the action is justified only if 1) the harm caused is outweighed by the harm prevented/pleasure caused and 2) the harm caused is necessary because there is no other way to prevent the greater harm/promote the greater pleasure. Everyone's emotional welfare should be given equal consideration.
It's unanimously accepted by modern day neuroscientists that the likeliness of non-human mammals and birds being sentient is equal to the likeliness of other humans being sentient. Human nervous systems and other mammalian nervous systems are too similar to deny this and avian nervous systems are structured in the same basic way, even though they're no more closely related to us than they are to frogs. Most likely, all vertebrates are sentient and there's good reason to believe that even 'primitive' invertebrates are as well.
Most experts believe that birds have an intelligence equal to non-human primates and they're definitely more intelligent than human toddlers are. Chickens worry about their future because they don't live in the 'here and now' like infants do, also unlike small infants, they have the mental capacity to realize that objects continue to exist even when they aren't presently exposed to them. Like mammals (and crocodiles), birds are social animals, they nurture their young, there is a strong correlation between sociality in animals and intelligence. Regardless of how intelligent chickens are, if it's acceptable to ? and torture chickens on the basis of their being less intelligent than psychologically normal, human adults, then it is also acceptable to ? and torture human infants and some extremely mentally ? human adults. How intelligent chickens are has nothing to do with their capacity for pleasure and pain.
yall ? talkin a lot.... -
Damn, now I must have some popeyes later today. Long drive though...
-
threadstarter is on some captain picard ?
"all sentient beings deserve rights, blah blah blah"
he's actually making an interesting argument, but the IQ level of the SL is so low in 2011, ? won't be able to participate
