Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
Precarity is not inconvenience.
It's life threatenning.
You do not understand what being in precarity means for the mental and physical health or even simply being casted away from your social group because of a pregnency.
It's completely about that. But in your case it's lack of acceptation + fallacious reasonning + Missunderstanding.
You think you are rationnal but you are only taking reality under a moral lens and do not understand sociology or the material reality of the world.
For example here, you take a study (that you understand not correctly because you don't read it) and you do not place said study into context thus missing the entire point and reason why those reason (while appearing not justifiable for you) are actually very important and life threatenning for those women.
And I'm done explaining that with you too. Have fun with your ignorance. I'll not reply to you on this subject more that that either.
Have fun under fascism.
No. I choose to step away from people who are not equiped to understand a discussion.
This is your case.
Yes it does.
That's how will works.
Prove me that you wouldn't push the button. Give me a reason why you would not push it and I will continue to discuss. Until then, we are moving in circle. And you are not understanding the point. Which is normalsince you are in denial and that's k.
Either you understand the experience or you do not. I will- once again - not try to explain a concept 5 times.
Here is the only thing that you need to know:
The electrical signals inside your brain preceed your choices and your consciousness of said choice. The choice you will make is the logical result of millions of parameters that will create an electrical and chemical path into your brain for your body to act. You consciousness be be an aftermath projection of this process.
This experiment is caricature of all the reason that will push you to act, something that we can sum up with just "love". This love will create a path in your brain that will not be able to create a different result than pushing your body to push the button. Thus saving the person.
There is no counter reason, those are the parameters behind the electrical and chemical path of descision making. Our descision making are therefore CONSEQUENCES and not CAUSATIONS.
If there was other parameters inside the experiment, let's say like "if you don't push the button, you will potentially save humanity", the choice wouldn't be so clear but it would still be determined by the material condition of your existence and be out of control.
Or is this more "cockroach are much more valuable that we think".
We are all living being, there is no innate value in one life more than another. We only choose that it is less ethical to ignore ones and priviledge others.
Don't worry, it's not germinator. It's people outside of this community and my own reflextion on the way I should proceed agains the ideologies I'm fighting.
No. I was transformed actually into a much more radical and coherent leftist.
And with that, you can create eugenism.
Nah he does not. He is using moral as a way to argue and I'm not trying to fight those type of argumentations.
The reason why I'm quiting is because - for once - I actually though I had a genuine person who wanted to have a genuine discussion in front of me.
This is not the case. I was talking to someone who does not WANT to understand the difference between ethic and moral.
It's life threatenning.
You do not understand what being in precarity means for the mental and physical health or even simply being casted away from your social group because of a pregnency.
It's completely about that. But in your case it's lack of acceptation + fallacious reasonning + Missunderstanding.
You think you are rationnal but you are only taking reality under a moral lens and do not understand sociology or the material reality of the world.
For example here, you take a study (that you understand not correctly because you don't read it) and you do not place said study into context thus missing the entire point and reason why those reason (while appearing not justifiable for you) are actually very important and life threatenning for those women.
And I'm done explaining that with you too. Have fun with your ignorance. I'll not reply to you on this subject more that that either.
Have fun under fascism.
No. I choose to step away from people who are not equiped to understand a discussion.
This is your case.
Yes it does.
That's how will works.
Prove me that you wouldn't push the button. Give me a reason why you would not push it and I will continue to discuss. Until then, we are moving in circle. And you are not understanding the point. Which is normalsince you are in denial and that's k.
Either you understand the experience or you do not. I will- once again - not try to explain a concept 5 times.
Here is the only thing that you need to know:
The electrical signals inside your brain preceed your choices and your consciousness of said choice. The choice you will make is the logical result of millions of parameters that will create an electrical and chemical path into your brain for your body to act. You consciousness be be an aftermath projection of this process.
This experiment is caricature of all the reason that will push you to act, something that we can sum up with just "love". This love will create a path in your brain that will not be able to create a different result than pushing your body to push the button. Thus saving the person.
There is no counter reason, those are the parameters behind the electrical and chemical path of descision making. Our descision making are therefore CONSEQUENCES and not CAUSATIONS.
If there was other parameters inside the experiment, let's say like "if you don't push the button, you will potentially save humanity", the choice wouldn't be so clear but it would still be determined by the material condition of your existence and be out of control.
Or is this more "cockroach are much more valuable that we think".
We are all living being, there is no innate value in one life more than another. We only choose that it is less ethical to ignore ones and priviledge others.
Damn...someone made Logiko quit a debate
The New Year barely started and we already got crazy feats.
The New Year barely started and we already got crazy feats.
Wait, were you transforming into a conservative?
No. I was transformed actually into a much more radical and coherent leftist.
And with that, you can create eugenism.
Nah he does not. He is using moral as a way to argue and I'm not trying to fight those type of argumentations.
The reason why I'm quiting is because - for once - I actually though I had a genuine person who wanted to have a genuine discussion in front of me.
This is not the case. I was talking to someone who does not WANT to understand the difference between ethic and moral.
It is literal Google definition that ethics observe morality, so a moral argument like mine is an ethical one. If a hamburger is ethics, the patty is morals. Logiko is crying that I'm eating a beef patty when I should be eating a hamburger 😂
[automerge]1735763988[/automerge]
And the leftist NPC cries bigotry and nazi, leaving the argument cold in the rain
Animal lives contain life, human lives contain life + a will & intellect.
The ascendancy that humans have over creatures without an intellect or will is a difference of substance, not degree, and so there is no degree to which humans are superior to animals, humans are worth infinitely more
Humans are all substantially equal in dignity, so no, it wouldn't lead to eugenics. Maybe on animals lol
All moral arguments are ethical ones, you have no arguments left so you cry that I am being unfair
[automerge]1735763988[/automerge]
And the leftist NPC cries bigotry and nazi, leaving the argument cold in the rain
Animal lives contain life, human lives contain life + a will & intellect.
The ascendancy that humans have over creatures without an intellect or will is a difference of substance, not degree, and so there is no degree to which humans are superior to animals, humans are worth infinitely more
Humans are all substantially equal in dignity, so no, it wouldn't lead to eugenics. Maybe on animals lol
All moral arguments are ethical ones, you have no arguments left so you cry that I am being unfair
Last edited:
Nah mate. But you won't get, let's move on.
As expected.. I was right to end the discussion here
Actually animal lives also contain life and intellect. But not even us have will.
Your vision of human is moral. It's not based on anything but a moral argument and a moral social construct. Once you start to hierarchize lives based on intelect, you open the door to eugenism.
We are not. We are diverse just like the rest of the animal reign.
No they are not
And no. I'm just disspointed in your lack of reasonning.
As expected.. I was right to end the discussion here
Actually animal lives also contain life and intellect. But not even us have will.
Your vision of human is moral. It's not based on anything but a moral argument and a moral social construct. Once you start to hierarchize lives based on intelect, you open the door to eugenism.
We are not. We are diverse just like the rest of the animal reign.
No they are not
And no. I'm just disspointed in your lack of reasonning.
I'd post the google definition of "ethics" but you deny the dictionary. Whatever language it is that you speak, I don't speak it!
Lmao you literally ignored my point and didn't even bother to address it, you just said "FASCISM!!!!". You are getting destroyed here and I am going to reply to your comment about free will when I get off work so get ready
They contain life, but not intellect, and thus no will
You probably have not studied enough to properly define what an intellect or even "thinking" is. It is not something animals have
Ethics observe morals. That is the definition of ethics, the "ethical" thing to do is also the "moral" thing to do, you incoherent, spattering brainlet
True, we're diverse. Like Paris
Alright, you asked for it
eth·ics
/ˈeTHiks/
noun
Lmao you literally ignored my point and didn't even bother to address it, you just said "FASCISM!!!!". You are getting destroyed here and I am going to reply to your comment about free will when I get off work so get ready
They contain life, but not intellect, and thus no will
You probably have not studied enough to properly define what an intellect or even "thinking" is. It is not something animals have
Ethics observe morals. That is the definition of ethics, the "ethical" thing to do is also the "moral" thing to do, you incoherent, spattering brainlet
True, we're diverse. Like Paris
Alright, you asked for it
eth·ics
/ˈeTHiks/
noun
- 1.
moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity.
"medical ethics also enter into the question"
Ethic is a reflexion ON moral, so of course we talk about moral in ethic, but it's not moral.
And to understand why, you need to take a step back on moral rethorics.
Nah, actually you are the one being ridiculed, but you do not see it since most people here have mostly the same world vision as yours.. I told you, I'm ending the discussion here. You do not want to listen and even less want to expand your mindset, I'm the only one who accepted to make efforts in that discussion, so it's useless.
Have fun under fascism. Let's see how the argument "you shall not kill" ends up under such a system.
Ironic looking at your argumentation.
Learn about the animals reign. You need it.
Indeed. Ethic observes moral and is CRITICAL of moral. That's the point of saying that ethic different from moral and that you are doing moral argument without taking ethic into questions.
I'm done replying to you on this subject. Learn or I will ignore you.
And to understand why, you need to take a step back on moral rethorics.
Nah, actually you are the one being ridiculed, but you do not see it since most people here have mostly the same world vision as yours.. I told you, I'm ending the discussion here. You do not want to listen and even less want to expand your mindset, I'm the only one who accepted to make efforts in that discussion, so it's useless.
Have fun under fascism. Let's see how the argument "you shall not kill" ends up under such a system.
Ironic looking at your argumentation.
Learn about the animals reign. You need it.
Ethics observe morals. That is the definition of ethics, the "ethical" thing to do is also the "moral" thing to do, you incoherent, spattering brainlet
I'm done replying to you on this subject. Learn or I will ignore you.
"we talk about moral in ethic"
Yeah so moral arguments are ethical at the same time
The only difference is about which is contained within
Let me ask you: is saying some things are inherently evil, a "system", or is it true? Is things like rape, genocide inherently evil? Consider the ramifications of saying no to this
You think human lives aren't worth anymore than a cockroach or ant. I think you need a straight jacket
Ethics judge what is moral in a given context. You cannot be "critical" of something moral, because moral is synonymous with good, to be critical of something is to demonstrate it's being evil in some regard
Yeah so moral arguments are ethical at the same time
The only difference is about which is contained within
Let me ask you: is saying some things are inherently evil, a "system", or is it true? Is things like rape, genocide inherently evil? Consider the ramifications of saying no to this
You think human lives aren't worth anymore than a cockroach or ant. I think you need a straight jacket
Ethics judge what is moral in a given context. You cannot be "critical" of something moral, because moral is synonymous with good, to be critical of something is to demonstrate it's being evil in some regard
From now on. If I need to reformulate more than two times a basic explanation based on factual arguments.
I will end the discussion.
Ethic is a reflexion "ON moral" and not "OF moral", i made a mistake*
No. They are opposites. For all the reasons I explained before.
We are not talking about rape or genocide, but the act of killing someone.
No. I think the lives of every species are worth the same as humans.
You are pushing humanity toward less value. I'm doing the opposite with every other species.
No. Ethic judges what is ethical under a certain given context not what is moral.
Sigh
I will end the discussion.
Ethic is a reflexion "ON moral" and not "OF moral", i made a mistake*
No. They are opposites. For all the reasons I explained before.
We are not talking about rape or genocide, but the act of killing someone.
No. I think the lives of every species are worth the same as humans.
You are pushing humanity toward less value. I'm doing the opposite with every other species.
No. Ethic judges what is ethical under a certain given context not what is moral.
Sigh
An anarchist youtube channel I watch Anark, is part of an organisation called cooperstion Tusla, which works with a black church to make free food to give away, that they get from the voluntary work they put in a land that was, from what I remember, but I may be incorrect about it, partly bought by them, and two thirds of it donated by someone else to them
Why do ethics reflect on morals?
To arrive at an answer of what to do. Thus ethics reflect on morals in a way that uses morals to arrive at the right thing to do
Example: I'm in my car, some people are crossing the street but I need to go as well. Ethics would look at the immorality of hitting them with my car, and arrive at the answer which is to wait for them to pass
Well, but your "fascism" argument was in response to my assertion that some actions are intrinsically evil, like rape or genocide
I agree killing someone isn't inherently evil, there can be justified reasons for it, but unjustified killing (murder) is intrinsically evil
Abortion is always unjustified because ethics always observes the morality of killing, and sees that a fetus is always innocent and should never be killed
Oh so again, no contradiction here, you do not value humans any higher than a cockroach or ant, all species are worth the same to you
Thank you for basically saying "yes" to what I said but typing a "No." in front of it
Definition of ethical
eth·i·cal
/ˈeTHəkəl/
https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=49a45f0a2da0fb9f&sxsrf=ADLYWIIuwTsqv4hfbB9groqyjhVWfvAHfg:1735768750917&q=how+to+pronounce+ethical&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOMIfcRoyS3w8sc9YSmDSWtOXmPU4uINKMrPK81LzkwsyczPExLmYglJLcoV4pbi5GJPLcnITE7MsWJRYkrN41nEKpGRX65Qkq9QANSSD9STqgBVAQBiJXDcWQAAAA&pron_lang=en&pron_country=us&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi77L2-wtWKAxVtC3kGHUhDNCIQ3eEDegQILxAM
adjective
Give up
To arrive at an answer of what to do. Thus ethics reflect on morals in a way that uses morals to arrive at the right thing to do
Example: I'm in my car, some people are crossing the street but I need to go as well. Ethics would look at the immorality of hitting them with my car, and arrive at the answer which is to wait for them to pass
Well, but your "fascism" argument was in response to my assertion that some actions are intrinsically evil, like rape or genocide
I agree killing someone isn't inherently evil, there can be justified reasons for it, but unjustified killing (murder) is intrinsically evil
Abortion is always unjustified because ethics always observes the morality of killing, and sees that a fetus is always innocent and should never be killed
Oh so again, no contradiction here, you do not value humans any higher than a cockroach or ant, all species are worth the same to you
Thank you for basically saying "yes" to what I said but typing a "No." in front of it
Definition of ethical
eth·i·cal
/ˈeTHəkəl/
https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=49a45f0a2da0fb9f&sxsrf=ADLYWIIuwTsqv4hfbB9groqyjhVWfvAHfg:1735768750917&q=how+to+pronounce+ethical&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOMIfcRoyS3w8sc9YSmDSWtOXmPU4uINKMrPK81LzkwsyczPExLmYglJLcoV4pbi5GJPLcnITE7MsWJRYkrN41nEKpGRX65Qkq9QANSSD9STqgBVAQBiJXDcWQAAAA&pron_lang=en&pron_country=us&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi77L2-wtWKAxVtC3kGHUhDNCIQ3eEDegQILxAM
adjective
- 1.
relating to moral principles
Give up
This is an unproven premise. i don't accept it
In your hypothetical, the burden of proof is on you to determine why the will must have an internal reason to choose between 2 things
The will choosing without a reason doesn't entail a logical, or metaphysical contradiction. Logical or metaphysical contradictions restrict what is possible.
Because the will could possibly choose without a reason, ur argument fails
In your hypothetical, the burden of proof is on you to determine why the will must have an internal reason to choose between 2 things
The will choosing without a reason doesn't entail a logical, or metaphysical contradiction. Logical or metaphysical contradictions restrict what is possible.
Because the will could possibly choose without a reason, ur argument fails
Yeah, but, the political definition of anaechism is stateless socialism, where people directly have democratic control of the workplace, instead of state bureaucrats having control of the workplace like in the USSR, and it has hierarchical power structures where the people involved have equal decision making power on that thing
[automerge]1735769678[/automerge]
Like an anarchist workplace is like a workers cooperative except its aim is not to make monetary profits but to produce what others around deem is valueable and distribute it based on need and desire
[automerge]1735769678[/automerge]
Like an anarchist workplace is like a workers cooperative except its aim is not to make monetary profits but to produce what others around deem is valueable and distribute it based on need and desire