BANNED USER: Repeatedly posting trollish "death to my outgroup"
22122
No bio...
User ID: 1194
Banned by: @Amadan
22122
1yr ago
its not necessarily about the state though, it should be allowed for a private business to offer, even suggest, euthanasia to people. if more people end up killing themselves than otherwise would, its not a problem because there was no coercion involved, and you can not determine for other people what is good for them, because pleasure and pain can not be measured.
the solution to the real problem with this is to privatize the medical industry. then people would have to pay for the costs of their unhealthy behaviors themselves. the other problems you listed are not externalities, if poor health lowers someone's productivity, that means their income is lower than it would otherwise be so the costs are borne by themself, and it doesnt impose costs on other people. maybe you think that people have a duty to not behave in ways that decrease their productivity and fertility, for the sake of the tribe/nation/race, but i disagree with that because that ideology denies people freedom and involves interfering in their property rights.
there's the PISA exams which are international standardized tests that resemble SAT/ACT college entrance exams and are given to a more or less random sampling of 15 year old school children by the numerous participant countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_Student_Assessment
American football and Basketball are nowhere near the skill expression of soccer and tennis, demonstrated by the many many pros who picked up the sport at something like age 16, so they are much easier for the dumb, but athletic to get into at any age.
Dexterity and coordination required to be skilled in these sports is not all that much related to intelligence iirc, but fast processing speed is a skill rewarded by team sports that is well correlated with intelligence.
22122
1yr ago
if you believe the christian religion then why would sending young children to heaven before they have a chance to do something that damns themselves to hell be despicable. the afterlife is eternal, this life is nothing compared to it. The real despicable thing is the religion which set up an afterlife system with the unjust consequences that make that behavior make sense.
22122
1yr ago
can you not call gay men cesspools here, im pretty sure insults like that are not allowed here.
22122
1yr ago
The counterexample to the infallibility of the Church is comparing its orthodox doctrines and moral framework to that of the early christians, they are on opposite sides of the political spectrum.
22122
1yr ago
So what is the justification for the church's infallibility on the teaching of faith and morals. If catholic clergymen become united in their agreement that something is a sin, they assume that god agrees?
22122
1yr ago
it is a universal, historical, and quite possibly apostolic doctrine.
how does this imply that it is true, or that god forbids it?
22122
1yr ago
I think whiteness is about not standing out because of your appearance to euro-americans. Under this definition there are large swathes of south european people who would not pass because you could tell them apart based on their appearance but its fuzzy because race is not a discrete thing.
22122
1yr ago
so your complaining that you don't have the freedom to force your children to live the same lifestyle that you do? and that this differs from authoritarian societies because there society would make sure that your children obey your desires?
22122
1yr ago
its better to not be shocked and disgusted by innocent activities than to be. it just goes to show how a lot of these aversions are instilled by society, and are not innately sourced.
there is nothing inherently christian about natural law, it only became part of catholic theology in the 13th century because of thomas aquinas incorporating ideas from aristotelian philosophy, and even then his synthesis was controversial and took some time to be accepted. I assume early christians based their teachings off of the judaic teachings at the time.
also i have never heard natural law described that way, can you elaborate what you mean? like what is considered the game theoretical optimum?
I agree with you on the proposal that fucking or marrying consenting girls should be permissible regardless of age, but I wish you would mention arguments that appeal to property rights, freedom, and self ownership considerations, which would entice liberal minded people to agree. Your arguments are convincing to reactionary/traditionalist or fascist rightwingers but are repulsive or ineffective for people of other political ideologies.
22122
1yr ago
Forgive me for having a condescending attitude towards Catholic theology, which argues in favor of eternal punishment for finite sin, burning heretics at the stake, and claims that masturbation is worse than rape.
this is not convincing to me because in my opinion the purpose of sex is pleasure, reproduction is a secondary effect which is not necessarily desirable. People who have sex while denying its reproductive potential do not feel like they are wasting their desire, instead they feel like they are fulfilling it. I think you are the one who is confused here.
22122
1yr ago
yeah, if sexual pleasure was not related to reproduction it would not have evolved to be a thing, so reproduction is its purpose in that sense. but i was referring to purpose as something that is determined by the user, so in that case sex would not have the same purpose for everyone.
in the case of eating, i would not say it is primarily for pleasure, but for an obese person it is, because they would not have to eat nearly as much if their primary purpose was sustenance.
in my opinion creating more people is not obviously valuable, so it may be a negative, idk.
What is sex, or pleasure, without that? Why does satisfying 'desire to have sex' mean anything without sex?
satisfying the desire to have sex creates pleasure which is intrinsically valuable imo, just as you believe creating more people is valuable, i think pleasure is a good thing that is meaningful of itself.
Why not just jerk off? Or do heroin for that matter.
jerking off is usually not as pleasurable. and heroin has side effects that can spiral out of control.
22122
1yr ago
Except my post was saying more than just that. I don't merely think that it is stupid because there is no reason or evidence which justifies its claims, but further that what it stands for is deeply immoral, incompatible with liberal morality, and dangerous for myself and most everyone outside of its grasp.
It isn't - why not just 'determine' that the purpose of eating is for pleasure?
my point was that telling someone that they are misusing something and thereby implying a negative moral judgment because they are using it in a way that is contrary to its purpose as defined by an objective framework is not a convincing moral argument, this being because of the fact that people use things for different reasons, not necessarily aligning with the purposes derived from said objective framework, meaning that things have different purpose distributions to different people. for example, the makeup of a pencil is oriented towards writing with, but that does not make it wrong to use their sharp tips to clean within nooks and crannies. Though it would be misleading to say that the purpose of pencils is to clean within nooks and crannies just because that is what you usually use it for. But this problem does not port over well to sex or sexual pleasure because most people think pleasure is the more important effect of sex than reproduction, otherwise birth rates would be a lot higher.
If you had a peaceful way to instantly die, would that be worth taking? Would it be worth most people taking it? And if not, then why isn't the same true for a new person?
There are plenty of people who believe their life is bad and that they wish they had never been born, yet they do not kill themselves, are they mistaken or confused about this evaluation? Suicide is seen as a shameful, selfish, and cowardly act, so people often defy their desires to do it for the sake of keeping face/ honor. Another reason that makes people reluctant to follow through with their suicidal temptations is because they are afraid of death.
What physically makes something 'pleasurable' though? If the purpose isn't to have children, and it's just to "feel pleasure" - as if to say the point of having sex is to 'feel like you're having sex' - why not just make pleasurebots - remove the sex from the equation, just bathe neurons in heroin? Of course, if you do that, the neuron just dies - 'pleasure' only has meaning as part of a person acting, seeking.
If there was a socially acceptable and harmless way to wirehead yourself, most people myself included would use it. But masturbation is not really analogous to that because in addition to bringing pleasure, it also satisfies sexual urges, which are more or less involuntary.
But the same is true on a larger scale - if you jerk off and enjoy it once, and you do it again, one realizes that nothing is happening, really, it seems fake - and it becomes less pleasurable. For a person - it might happen that, after having sex without children for a while, it seems repetitive and hollow. Usually doesn't, though. So what happens is - you don't reproduce, and there are fewer people (and fewer like you)!
It does not come to feel hollow or less pleasurable because you think its not resulting in anything besides pleasure and the satisfaction of sexual drives unless you have been taught to think that way. If society keeps telling somebody that what they are doing is useless and hollow, then I assume they become more inclined to think that way, than if that behavior was not stained by those narratives.
This place has never been free of unpleasantness, just look at how often innocent people get labeled as degenerate by right wing posters and no one bats an eye.
The poster was wondering why people do not approach his religion respectfully, and I explained why, yeah it was a bit snarky but nothing extraordinary for this forum. If a post with a similar tone was made against wokism or some other leftist ideology, I don't think it would be downvoted like this one and I don't think it would have been called out by a mod.
But maybe I am just hopelessly biased to see things accurately.
I don't think his views are unpopular around here, just the opposite, alot of people here have a lot of sympathy for orthodox religions even if they are not themselves believers, and this shows from looking at comment ratings. If you look at his posting history, you will find that posts where he defends or promotes his religion usually garner plenty of upvotes on net. Meanwhile posts on this forum that are critical of religious orthodoxy usually are unable to get off the ground in terms of rating.
Also one of the reasons why it can be productive to say things in a tone that is more provocative than is necessary is because it increases the chance of drawing engagement, which can overall makeup for the unpleasantness of the post that sparked it.
Would the following comment receive a warning?: "Forgive me for having a condescending attitude toward woke ideology, which argues in favor of disordered sexuality, double standards that unfairly treat my race, and the violation of my property rights and freedom of association."
I doubt it, and I have a feeling it would be highly upvoted rather than sitting at -7.
22122
1yr ago
first of all, please update your quote to match my edited comment. second of all, i dont understand why you think my comment was more antagonistic than the example i gave, would you mind elaborating?
22122
1yr ago
No. My quote reflects why you were modded.
Just to make sure we are on the same page, I meant the quote within your post where you were responding to the example I gave of a comment that follows the same format as my post that was modded but is directed against woke ideology instead. Not sure why you would be against updating it to match what you are responding to.
arent both behaviors maximally natural just as any behavior, because we and everything we can interact with exists within nature? how do you define natural such that taking gender transition hormones is unnatural while taking hormones as a male to become stronger and more masculine is natural?
More options
Context Copy link