@SubstantialFrivolity's banner p

SubstantialFrivolity

I'm not even supposed to be here today

5 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 225

SubstantialFrivolity

I'm not even supposed to be here today

5 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 22:41:30 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 225

Verified Email

Given that Trump single-handedly mitigated the vast majority of the border problem in about a month, we now have definitive proof that the entire border issue was a deliberate intentional undertaking by Joe Biden.

We actually don't. Even assuming your logic behind that (Biden could've done something but didn't) is true, that doesn't prove whether his lack of action was deliberate or the result of incompetence.

Perhaps, but that's not what was originally under discussion. The original statement was "Empathy requires shared reciprocity. Why should I care for people who hate me and want to see me destroyed?". This is at best indifference, and at worst outright hatred. In neither case is it a virtuous attempt to take harsh actions to achieve a better future, it's just giving in to base instincts.

You're not alone. I want both groups of rioters to get significant prison sentences (like 5 years or so) in order to send a message that such activity is not acceptable in our society. But unfortunately most people are all about punishing rioters right up until they agree with the rioters' politics.

Perhaps instead, in reality it actually is wrong to imagine or fantasize about what other people look like while naked. The reason this is so commonly accepted as benign is because its so unenforceable to prevent.

IMO this is the correct answer. It is in fact wrong to fantasize about what someone looks like naked, or having sex with them, or what have you. It's very common, yes. But it's still wrong.

Let's say for example that you regularly fantasized about some female friend being naked. Furthermore, let's say you never told a soul but did write it in a diary which you kept safe and never let anyone see. Some might say you did nothing wrong. But even so, if your friend decided to snoop in your diary and found that out she would be profoundly creeped out, and the friendship would be seriously damaged. I think the same would happen for a male friend too, of course, this isn't a gender thing.

But if sexual mores are so arbitrary/constructed that something that would otherwise be wrong can just be arbitrarily agreed-upon as acceptable just because its unenforceable, how really wrong can any ('victimless') violation of sexual mores be said to be?

I don't think this is a good argument. First of all, we don't agree that it's acceptable. We simply realize that it's impossible to tell, so we can't do anything about it. Those aren't the same.

Second, I don't think that whether a norm is enforceable has any bearing on whether the activity is actually wrong. Even if we can't catch a murderer and bring them to justice, we don't say "well I guess it wasn't that wrong to murder that person". The immorality of an act, and our ability to punish that immorality, are unrelated to each other.

It absolutely is an unreasonable ask when the OP is leading with an unproven, apparently false, argument.

I would say that if there is no objective measure of quality, it does necessarily follow that quality is subjective. That's how the definitions of the words work, really.

This is quite stupid, if you could have a kid by getting kicked in the balls you'd do it more than once.

I agree it's a poor argument, but I can assure you that this is not true. I know exactly zero men who would choose to get kicked in the balls even once to have a child, let alone more than once.

Nor do you see me defending Biden's pardon of Fauci. I think it is equally ridiculous and damaging to society. Furthermore, who exactly would I be arguing against? When I saw that subthread everyone was in agreement that it was bad.

I have no idea who Milley is, so I can't offer an opinion there. But you're searching for an inconsistency which simply isn't there. Not commenting on something isn't some kind of tacit agreement with it.

If the right continues to "take the high ground", there's no reason for the masses to ever change their behavior or beliefs.

On the contrary: if the right abuses the tactics the left does, there's no reason that the masses will ever change their behavior or beliefs. They will see "the right is a bunch of hypocrites" (and they will be correct to do so), and continue to fight to put the screws to their enemies. After all, they thought the right was evil before, the right confirmed it in their eyes, so why shouldn't they fight to put them out of existence?

That's why people keep saying to not escalate things into a cycle of hatred where each side stabs the other as soon as it gets ahold of a dagger. Taking the high road is not a sufficient condition for peace, but it is necessary. Taking the low road simply ensures the conflict will continue unabated.

Piracy might be morally wrong, but I've always felt like the attempt to compare it to "stealing" is incorrect. It's in a separate category. If I steal an apple, the merchant doesn't have the apple any more. If I pirate a movie, no merchant has been deprived of a DVD or anything like that - there's just one more copy of that movie in the world.

This is the usual argument that piracy is not stealing, yeah. I've never found it persuasive. IMO the salient thing which defines stealing isn't that it's zero-sum, it's that you're taking something which doesn't belong to you. So it doesn't matter that you are just copying bits, it's still stealing.

I feel like media companies have resisted moving to funding models that are a better fit for the world we live in, and trying to stop the creation of new copies when literally every person has the means of creating a copy in their pocket is Quixotic at best, whatever it might mean for morality.

I mean, yeah I agree that media companies are being idiotic. They have resisted new methods of doing business at every step of the way, right up until their hand is forced and it turns out they actually make more money the new way. But that doesn't mean it's OK to just steal their shit, nor that the law should turn a blind eye to it. Kind of like I was saying in my post above: if companies are retarded in their business practices you should by all means not do business with them, but it doesn't justify stealing from them.

I'm a fucking idiot for falling for the lie and I will pay a price for it.

I disagree. Because at the end of the day, your integrity is one of the few things you can actually control. You are proposing that you would give that up, for what? Some stupid grad school? Seriously, who the fuck cares? You aren't going to be actually worse off because of it, you aren't going to have opportunities denied because of it, it just plain and simple doesn't matter in the end.

Social security is going to run out of money, so what? Anyone with wisdom has been planning to not get anything back out of it for ages.

By your own rationale - if he believes you said rape was OK, then there's nothing wrong with saying that. I don't agree with that logic, but if you're gonna defend your own uncharitable post with that logic then it applies to his too.

Why should anyone care, exactly? It's not like any of us are having sex with her. If her partners are fine with how she is (and they seem to be, if she's still having success getting some), then good for her I guess.

My understanding is that "heritable" refers to both traits which are innate as well as those which are acquired from one's environment. So I don't think that your argument need be opposed to my observation.

More generally I think the HBD hypothesis is nonsense, so yeah of course I believe that this sort of thing isn't genetic. But even if we take it as a given the the HBD argument is true, surely you would not try to argue that there are literally zero behaviors which are learned rather than innate. So really we are talking about the degree to which race is a factor versus culture, not whether culture is a factor at all.

I agree. People are jumping to conclusions. I have no doubt that Brinton is a thief, but the reasons why he is a thief are unclear at this time. Maybe he has a fetish for stealing women's clothes, as people have suggested. Maybe he wanted the bags to use them. Maybe he wanted the clothes for normal, non-fetish purposes. Maybe he's just a kleptomaniac and steals things compulsively.

The fetish explanation is certainly one possible explanation, but it's not the only one. It isn't even the most likely one, imo. Asserting that we know why this man is stealing bags is premature at this time.

No, it doesn't become an invasion just because it has bad effects on us. Words mean things, and an invasion isn't "lots of people arrive here and it causes problems". There's more to it than that (intent is a big one, and imo unarmed civilians don't qualify as an invasion either).

Trying to redefine "invasion" in this way is no different than when leftists try to redefine "violence" to include things they don't like. It's not reasonable, in either direction, to redefine words just because you feel strongly that something is bad.

As far as I’m concerned the burden of proof is on the people saying it’s not happening.

That's not how burden of proof works, as it is impossible to prove something isn't happening.

No it isn't. A person of good character strives to excel because excellence is its own reward, not because they can beat others.

And if your argument was "Christianity can't provide comfort to the victims of sectarian violence", that would be a valid point. But your argument instead was "Christianity is disordered because its adherents sometimes commit sectarian violence", so your point is rather off the mark.

You have yet to demonstrate that there's an intent to take over the country. The more likely explanation is that immigrants are coming here because they feel they can have a better life here, and the various NGOs are helping because they are compassionate towards the less fortunate. It doesn't take a conspiracy theory to explain this.

And, as I've already said, I don't agree with your idea of what the result here is going to be.

As I said, nobody ever updates.

It is so ironic you say this given you had multiple people giving you examples of them updating. It sure sounds like you yourself didn't update.

I don't particularly care. I said as much.

I don't think "nobody was injured because nobody knows" is a reasonable defense. I don't think that there needs to be an injured party for something to be wrong.

Also dreams are an entirely different thing than actively fantasizing. The latter is a choice you make, the former is firing of random synapses in your brain. Intrusive thoughts that you don't dwell on are similarly not wrong. I've had dreams where I cheat on my wife, and I feel scuzzy in the morning. But once I get out of the post-dream haze, I realize I didn't actually do anything wrong. However, if I were dwelling on a fantasy about cheating on my wife I would be doing something wrong because that is a choice and is under my control.

I think at least 80% of men regularly fantasize in some way about naked apperance of / sex with some female acquaintances?

Yes, and? It's still wrong, even if 100% of men did it.

This is true, but practicality is part of morality because morality is about actions and their consequences...

I disagree with your assertion of what morality is about. Consequences don't even come into it for most systems of morality (and indeed I personally think consequentialism is generally mistaken). I certainly don't agree that practicality is part of morality. It can be part of the enforcement mechanisms of morality, but it isn't part of morality itself.