7 ms·

No, I put 'Coca Cola'... Can you read?

by hamana 10y ago

jklinger410 10y ago
How edgy to you have to be to try and argue about the morality behind slavery. When you prove that animals are self aware and conscious to the level of humans you can start to try and make half of this point but you're taking it way too far with this whole energy molecules thing. What's next, comparing the Holocaust to fish farms?
- hamana 10y ago
  "How edgy to you have to be to try and argue about the morality behind slavery." How brainwashed do you have to be to mimic the beliefs of people around you? "When you prove that animals are self aware and conscious to the level of humans you can start to try and make half of this point" What do vague labels like 'conscious' and 'self-aware' have to do with slavery? "...but you're taking it way too far with this whole energy molecules thing." Are members of homo sapiens species not clusters of elementary particles? Have you studies physics or chemistry at all? "What's next, comparing the Holocaust to fish farms?" Absolutely. Why is it fine to enslave bio-chemical processes known as 'fish', but not okay to enslave 'humans'? Is it objectively wrong to enslave members of homo sapiens species? If aliens came to Earth and used humans the same way humans use fish, what would be wrong with that?
  - Trundle 10y ago
    It's either disingenuous or just plain ignorant to set the bar at objectively wrong, or to imply that everyone thinks it's fine to have pets/eat animals, or that aliens would follow our ethical guidelines. Neither moral universalism nor realism have a dominance in the philosophy of ethics, and even then I highly doubt that those that do actually support those positions do so because of any argument involving being a cluster of elementary particles. It's like you worked out that the intuitive emotional response that most people use for their moral compass isn't exactly well thought out, googled some phrase sceptical of ethics as a whole, found nihilism, potentially with a detour through scientism, and then burrowed down that rabbit hole without considering any other established school of thought. You're not going to learn anything, nor teach anyone anything, by asking a bunch of silly comparison questions in a tech forum. Any response short enough for anybody to bother writing is going to need to take a whole bunch of premises as givens and rely on definitions for words you don't agree with. It'll just keep leading to chains of posts like this where you just keep asking stupid comparison questions like you're some form of internet Socrates, and being pleased when people don't reply adequately/at all because you're the one with the negative claim and consider anything other than a full argument from them as a default win for yourself.
    - hamana 10y ago
      It's either disingenuous or just plain ignorant to set the bar at objectively wrong The bar for what? If you mean the bar for a good explanation of what morality is, then the conclusion that it's an objective feature of the world is certainly not necessary. or to imply that everyone thinks it's fine to have pets/eat animals Come on, there is obviously a tiny minority of people who don't think that. Just like in the Muslim countries, there is a tiny percentage of non-muslims. Majority, however, have conformed to what is accepted by people around them. Same with views on slavery of non-human animals today. or that aliens would follow our ethical guidelines. Hmm, what is 'our ethical guidelines'? If emotivism is true and if you look around you and throughout the history, there are no 'our (human) guidelines'. For almost any moral issue, there will be people who like it and those that don't like it. Neither moral universalism nor realism have a dominance in the philosophy of ethics. I don't care what is currently popular in academic philosophy. There are many views in ethical philosophy, so it's unlikely that any of them will be the dominant view. Emotivism seems to be a good description of what moral sentences actually are. You have to differentiate between 'what moral sentences actually are' and 'what people think they are'. So, it's possible to say that emotivism/nihilism is true, while at the same time say that most people think that moral realism is true. It's like you worked out that the emotivism that most people use for their moral compass isn't exactly well thought out, googled some phrase sceptical of ethics as a whole, found nihilism, potentially with a detour through scientism, and then burrowed down that rabbit hole without considering any other established school of thought. People don't use 'emotivism' for their moral compass, since most people don't even know what it is! How can ethical views and theories influence moral compass of regular people? Your reference to nihilism is very typical. Most people use it almost as an insult. There are strong religious and political interests in society and nihilism bursts their bubbles and questions fundamental assumptions, so the way they cope is by contaminating the word and using it as an insult. Any response short enough for anybody to bother writing is going to need to take a whole bunch of premises as givens and rely on definitions for words you don't agree with. haha then there is no point in replying. If you're going to redefine words and make arbitrary assumptions, then why bother talking about anything with anyone? It'll just keep leading to chains of posts like this where you just keep asking stupid comparison questions like you're some form of internet Socrates, and being pleased when people don't reply adequately, or at all, because you're the one with the negative claim and consider anything other than a full argument from them as a default win for yourself. This really ends with insults. You're labeling what I wrote as 'silly' and 'stupid' and trying to insult me by saying I'm wanna be internet Socrates. You've hit rock bottom with the insults.
- Kristine1975 10y ago
  >What's next, comparing the Holocaust to fish farms? Way ahead of you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights_and_the_Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights_and_the_Holocaus... Several writers, including Jewish Nobel Prize laureate Isaac Bashevis Singer, and animal rights groups have drawn a comparison between the treatment of animals and the Holocaust
dang 10y ago
We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the HN guidelines.

No, I put 'Coca Cola'... Can you read?

by hamana 10y ago

No, I put 'Coca Cola'... Can you read?

How edgy to you have to be to try and argue about the morality behind slavery. When you prove that animals are self aware and conscious to the level of humans you can start to try and make half of this point but you're taking it way too far with this whole energy molecules thing. What's next, comparing the Holocaust to fish farms?

hamana 10y ago
"How edgy to you have to be to try and argue about the morality behind slavery." How brainwashed do you have to be to mimic the beliefs of people around you? "When you prove that animals are self aware and conscious to the level of humans you can start to try and make half of this point" What do vague labels like 'conscious' and 'self-aware' have to do with slavery? "...but you're taking it way too far with this whole energy molecules thing." Are members of homo sapiens species not clusters of elementary particles? Have you studies physics or chemistry at all? "What's next, comparing the Holocaust to fish farms?" Absolutely. Why is it fine to enslave bio-chemical processes known as 'fish', but not okay to enslave 'humans'? Is it objectively wrong to enslave members of homo sapiens species? If aliens came to Earth and used humans the same way humans use fish, what would be wrong with that?
- Trundle 10y ago
  It's either disingenuous or just plain ignorant to set the bar at objectively wrong, or to imply that everyone thinks it's fine to have pets/eat animals, or that aliens would follow our ethical guidelines. Neither moral universalism nor realism have a dominance in the philosophy of ethics, and even then I highly doubt that those that do actually support those positions do so because of any argument involving being a cluster of elementary particles. It's like you worked out that the intuitive emotional response that most people use for their moral compass isn't exactly well thought out, googled some phrase sceptical of ethics as a whole, found nihilism, potentially with a detour through scientism, and then burrowed down that rabbit hole without considering any other established school of thought. You're not going to learn anything, nor teach anyone anything, by asking a bunch of silly comparison questions in a tech forum. Any response short enough for anybody to bother writing is going to need to take a whole bunch of premises as givens and rely on definitions for words you don't agree with. It'll just keep leading to chains of posts like this where you just keep asking stupid comparison questions like you're some form of internet Socrates, and being pleased when people don't reply adequately/at all because you're the one with the negative claim and consider anything other than a full argument from them as a default win for yourself.
  - hamana 10y ago
    It's either disingenuous or just plain ignorant to set the bar at objectively wrong The bar for what? If you mean the bar for a good explanation of what morality is, then the conclusion that it's an objective feature of the world is certainly not necessary. or to imply that everyone thinks it's fine to have pets/eat animals Come on, there is obviously a tiny minority of people who don't think that. Just like in the Muslim countries, there is a tiny percentage of non-muslims. Majority, however, have conformed to what is accepted by people around them. Same with views on slavery of non-human animals today. or that aliens would follow our ethical guidelines. Hmm, what is 'our ethical guidelines'? If emotivism is true and if you look around you and throughout the history, there are no 'our (human) guidelines'. For almost any moral issue, there will be people who like it and those that don't like it. Neither moral universalism nor realism have a dominance in the philosophy of ethics. I don't care what is currently popular in academic philosophy. There are many views in ethical philosophy, so it's unlikely that any of them will be the dominant view. Emotivism seems to be a good description of what moral sentences actually are. You have to differentiate between 'what moral sentences actually are' and 'what people think they are'. So, it's possible to say that emotivism/nihilism is true, while at the same time say that most people think that moral realism is true. It's like you worked out that the emotivism that most people use for their moral compass isn't exactly well thought out, googled some phrase sceptical of ethics as a whole, found nihilism, potentially with a detour through scientism, and then burrowed down that rabbit hole without considering any other established school of thought. People don't use 'emotivism' for their moral compass, since most people don't even know what it is! How can ethical views and theories influence moral compass of regular people? Your reference to nihilism is very typical. Most people use it almost as an insult. There are strong religious and political interests in society and nihilism bursts their bubbles and questions fundamental assumptions, so the way they cope is by contaminating the word and using it as an insult. Any response short enough for anybody to bother writing is going to need to take a whole bunch of premises as givens and rely on definitions for words you don't agree with. haha then there is no point in replying. If you're going to redefine words and make arbitrary assumptions, then why bother talking about anything with anyone? It'll just keep leading to chains of posts like this where you just keep asking stupid comparison questions like you're some form of internet Socrates, and being pleased when people don't reply adequately, or at all, because you're the one with the negative claim and consider anything other than a full argument from them as a default win for yourself. This really ends with insults. You're labeling what I wrote as 'silly' and 'stupid' and trying to insult me by saying I'm wanna be internet Socrates. You've hit rock bottom with the insults.
Kristine1975 10y ago
>What's next, comparing the Holocaust to fish farms? Way ahead of you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights_and_the_Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights_and_the_Holocaus... Several writers, including Jewish Nobel Prize laureate Isaac Bashevis Singer, and animal rights groups have drawn a comparison between the treatment of animals and the Holocaust

dang 10y ago

We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the HN guidelines.