The Wow I Can't Believe That News Story Thread - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge > Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion
Register Blogging Today's Posts
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-06-2019, 08:20 AM   #19471 (permalink)
one-balled nipple jockey
 
OccultHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dirty Souf Biatch
Posts: 22,006
Default

Why do you think anti semitism is ok?
__________________

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Member of the Year & Journal of the Year Champion

Behold the Writing of THE LEGEND:

https://www.musicbanter.com/members-...p-lighter.html

OccultHawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2019, 08:29 AM   #19472 (permalink)
jwb
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 4,403
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre View Post
Not really because 'harm' and 'help' in the context of humanity is more complicated than you make it to be. I'm not willing to die on the hill of those two things being the only things but you really have done a **** job of convincing me otherwise. Really, I'm just rejecting the idea that morality is a purely subjective idea built by culture when I think it's more than just what we've been taught.
you aren't looking to be convinced. All you've done is dodge points, try to muddy the waters, and try to hide behind vauge allusions that suffering or harm are 'more nuaced' I.e. trying to expand the definition of those words to include whatever is needed to maintain your framework.

Have you ever read Bentham? This is not exactly a new topic/idea.
jwb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2019, 08:34 AM   #19473 (permalink)
jwb
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 4,403
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord View Post
Just remember he's trying to bring this back to a traditionalist American view where it's okay to be a neoliberal watching CNN on TV. He hates Hillary Clinton but he really is Hillary Clinton.
Nah, Hillary is more hawkish than I am. Just because I think we're better off being the top super power doesn't mean every war is worth it. There have been plenty of blunders we could've avoided with little consequence.
jwb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2019, 08:49 AM   #19474 (permalink)
Cuter Than Post Malone.
 
Lucem Ferre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,978
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jwb View Post
you aren't looking to be convinced. All you've done is dodge points, try to muddy the waters, and try to hide behind vauge allusions that suffering or harm are 'more nuaced' I.e. trying to expand the definition of those words to include whatever is needed to maintain your framework.

Have you ever read Bentham? This is not exactly a new topic/idea.
No, I actually haven't. I've completely explained everything and you just reject it in an attempt to over simplify things because nuance is something you can't seem to grasp.

You did the same exact **** with the IQ test debate.

Let me clarify. I would not kill a homeless person if I knew it'd cause less suffering than it prevented if they had the ability to do it because robbing him of a choice is a cause of human suffering that isn't necessary. Me not killing him doesn't make me responsible what so ever for his continued suffering because I didn't cause it and he is not dependent on my choice to end his own suffering. In the event where he would be dependent on me, such as assisted suicide or euthanasia, I would because at that point I'd be directly responsible for his prolonged suffering.

I've already said this but for ****s sake you're stubborn in wanting to hear it.

Also, as I've already explained but you don't want to listen, it's different than the kill a child to save 100 scenario because in that instance I know that they are dependent on my choice.

Nothing muddied, clear as day.
__________________
Quote:
Lucem, you're right, it's silly to talk about what I would or wouldn't do IRL. Glad you brought it up. Maybe you should write an instrumental about it. I recommend a piano paired with a clarinet. With ambient sounds of you hanging from your shower curtain you ****ing failure.

Art Is Dead. Buy My ****.
Lucem Ferre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2019, 09:00 AM   #19475 (permalink)
jwb
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 4,403
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre View Post
Let me clarify. I would not kill a homeless person if I knew it'd cause less suffering than it prevented if they had the ability to do it because robbing him of a choice is a cause of human suffering that isn't necessary.
-_-

Do you see a problem here?
jwb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2019, 09:09 AM   #19476 (permalink)
Cuter Than Post Malone.
 
Lucem Ferre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,978
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jwb View Post
-_-

Do you see a problem here?
There is none, you just have a hard time understanding as usual.
__________________
Quote:
Lucem, you're right, it's silly to talk about what I would or wouldn't do IRL. Glad you brought it up. Maybe you should write an instrumental about it. I recommend a piano paired with a clarinet. With ambient sounds of you hanging from your shower curtain you ****ing failure.

Art Is Dead. Buy My ****.
Lucem Ferre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2019, 09:37 AM   #19477 (permalink)
jwb
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 4,403
Default

This is where we're having a fundamental disconnect

Quote:
Let me clarify. I would not kill a homeless person if I knew it'd cause less suffering than it prevented if they had the ability to do it because robbing him of a choice is a cause of human suffering that isn't necessary
the premise is that killing him will definitely lead to less suffering. So saying you will cause unnecessary suffering as the reason not to do it is going back on the premise once again.
jwb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2019, 09:41 AM   #19478 (permalink)
Toasted Poster
 
Chula Vista's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: SoCal by way of Boston
Posts: 11,332
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre View Post

1) I would not kill a homeless person
2) if I knew it'd cause less suffering than it prevented
3) if they had the ability to do it
4) because robbing him of a choice is a cause of human suffering
1) Cool. Me neither.
2) Can you quantify 'prevented'? Prevented what? More suffering? How much more? What kind? Bullet to the brain or death by 1,000 cuts?
3) Ability to kill themselves?
4) I robbed my kid of the choice of running into the street. Did they suffer?
__________________

“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well,
on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away
and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.”
Chula Vista is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2019, 10:46 AM   #19479 (permalink)
Cuter Than Post Malone.
 
Lucem Ferre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,978
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jwb View Post
This is where we're having a fundamental disconnect

the premise is that killing him will definitely lead to less suffering. So saying you will cause unnecessary suffering as the reason not to do it is going back on the premise once again.
It's not going back on the premise because you're ignoring the part where I said I would if they were dependent on my choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chula Vista View Post
1) Cool. Me neither.
2) Can you quantify 'prevented'? Prevented what? More suffering? How much more? What kind? Bullet to the brain or death by 1,000 cuts?
3) Ability to kill themselves?
4) I robbed my kid of the choice of running into the street. Did they suffer?
2) Read the scenario JWB cooked up and you'll get it.

3) Yes.

4) But that's different because your child's lack of awareness makes them dependent on you. Euthanasia would also be robbing somebody of choice but that person lacks the ability to decide there for they are dependent on me to decide for them and I already support that.
__________________
Quote:
Lucem, you're right, it's silly to talk about what I would or wouldn't do IRL. Glad you brought it up. Maybe you should write an instrumental about it. I recommend a piano paired with a clarinet. With ambient sounds of you hanging from your shower curtain you ****ing failure.

Art Is Dead. Buy My ****.
Lucem Ferre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2019, 11:27 AM   #19480 (permalink)
jwb
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 4,403
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre View Post
It's not going back on the premise because you're ignoring the part where I said I would if they were dependent on my choice.
It is going back on the premise, because you're still insisting it will cause more suffering when the entire premise is predicated on the fact that it won't.

I have to be honest, I'm beyond bored of this argument at this point. I wish some good Samaritan would come along and kill me right about now.
jwb is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Similar Threads



© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.