zurew

I disagree, because I talked about subjective morals but its not even necessary to solve this disagreement to establish what I want. What I would be curious is for you to show what is irrational about this premise: Person x has the value of deeply caring about reducing animal suffering. He didn't choose this value, he just knows that he has this value. This person organize his life in a way,where he wants to reduce animal suffering as much as he can. Appreciate that you engaged with the hypothetical and didn't dodge it. I wouldn't consider you sadistic, but I would consider you incredibly atypical and a sociopath for sure and this not supposed to be intended as an ad hom, but as a description based on your response to the hypothetical. By sociopath I mean having no empathy. Maybe you do have some empathy but then it has to be incredibly low. Few things here: - Again this assumes that one can choose his/her values, but I disagree with that. Can you show me how this is being done? Like how could a person have value x and then willingly change that value to the opposite? More precisely how can one willingly go from having the value of "I care about reducing animal suffering" to "I care about increasing animal suffering"? - What is the 'brain not going in your way' means there? You mean reducing your ability to survive or what? I didn't talk about you, because you are obviously an atypical person - I talked about the vast majority of people. When most people pressed about their views why they care about humans in a way where they normally don't want to kill them or hurt them - the honest reasons given for that will be typically grounded in values that won't exclude non-human animals.

I think most game B people agree with that including Daniel. I think most of them have the position of trying to put down the groundwork for game B in their lifetime if they are lucky. For example here in this video Jordan Hall (one of the game B guys) agree with John Vervaeke's notion of a cathedral mind, which means this: "Start building a cathedral with the full knowledge, that you won't see its completion". Its timestamped.

@Schizophonia You are not a nihilist. A nihilist wouldn't care about any value more than any other value , but you do care about following your own interest which in and of itself a subjective value that you optimize/strive for. You calling other people irrational who seem to follow other subjective morals compared to you, seem to be a contradiction on your end (or if not a contradiction it makes you irrational according to your own definition, if you define irrational as following subjective morals) because you follow a subjective moral system of "following one's own interest". My hypothetical included that you won't get caught. So here is the hypothetical: if you kill a person you get 50 euros or dollars without any possibility of being caught. This hypothetical includes that you will only get that 50 euros if you actually kill that person. Do you kill that person for 50 euros or not? and why or why not? The answer to such a question will be grounded in a moral system, but here is the thing: If I ask you "Why should I only do things that I benefit from" - for that question the answer will also be grounded in a subjective moral system. ..... I think this is the crux of this whole thing: For some reason you think that people who are ethical vegans choose their morals for themselves but I don't think thats the case. Its just that when you start to examine very deeply what you actually care about, a lot of people bottom out at caring about animals ,because they also care about humans and you need big mental gymnastics to reason your way out in such a way where you can care about humans but not about animals. Now the point is that I don't think you can choose what you deeply care about, but you can deeply examine yourself and find out what you actually care about. Now once one knows what he/she actually deeply cares about ,there is nothing irrational about following such a thing. Its just as simple as "I deeply care about x, therefore I protect x or optimize for x".

Following ones interest is a moral system in and of itself and its called:Ethical egoism. Where the highest good is defined as acting according to your best interest. Also depending on how wide you define "following one's interest", it can suddenly become almost completely identical to a group's moral system where following your own interest will include other peoples and other beings interests, because your very existence relies on other beings and agents. I don't buy though that you don't have any values and I would like to test it. Lets say there is a person who has 50 dollars in his pocket and you have the option to kill that person in such a way where you won't be caught. Do you kill that person or not and why?

How the world is run is different from all the possible ways - how the world could be run. Do you assert that a game B world is highely unlikely or that it is impossible? Because if you claim that it is impossible, then I would be interested in the justification for that.

Morals only make sense in the context of you having an ability to choose between options. If you lack that ability, then you are not considered a moral agent. Its not about limiting its about finding your values and then being consistent with your values. If you know that you care about x value the most, then why not make a coherent system that will protect that value or a system that will produce the most amount of that value? You make decisions about a ton of things all the time and you either have a well thought out system that is consistent with your values that you care about or you make your decisions on a whim based purely on your emotions/instincts (which, ironically, would be irrational) But the bottom line is this: You can either be systematic about your decisions or you can be impulsive about it. Again, its not really about depriving its about systematically choosing between a set of given options based on your previously thought out morals. With your "no morals" argument you concede every ground to judge any action or any lack of action in any manner whatsoever, because with "no morals" you essentially claim there is no standard to judge or go by. So when you say this x action or lack of action is "stupid" or "irrational" those all become meaningless words. Person x deeply cares about animal suffering and when he sees/hears/knows about animal suffering it makes him feel extremely bad. Now according to you its irrational for him to stop eating meat even though when he does eat meat , it creates unnecessary suffering for him. Sounds like a good reason for that guy to act according to his values.

Whats scary to me is that we yet to see if we have other things,that we have been collectively suppressing. Big, giant collective shadows coming to the surface in a short timeline could be disastrous as fuck.

Lot of confidence , lot of smugness , but is there any substance? lets test it! From that wall of text it seems to me you don't know what morality is. So what do you think morality is and then answer this: what is irrational about morality?

Please stop with this kind of thinking and stop looking at Jacksonhinkle's twitter who is notorious for posting misinformation. Using an AI as an absolute authority to determine whether something was or wasn't generated by AI is just silly and stupid. You only need 1 false positive or 1 false negative and this AI's authority is completely undermined. And the fact of the matter is that that AI gave contradictory answers to the same given image multiple times so its unreliable. ...... But even without testing it the fact that someone would use an AI tool like that to with 100% confidence dismiss something is incredibly superficial and potentially disgusting and disrespectful if the pictures are real, so why even risk being that hurtful to other people? - like imagine seeing your burnt baby being posted on the internet and then see people dismissing it using an AI tool that says "its fake". You can easily disagree or condemn Israel's actions without any need to rely on silly AI tools and without any need to dismiss potential true pictures about what Hamas did.

I suspect you don't really mind being called nice, I think what you are essentially searching for is being charismatic, so that people will take you more seriously or will take you as a more serious character.

I would be careful with what "supporting Hamas" actually means. Do they support Hamas or "supporting hamas" means they support firing back at Israel? Because those two are different and it would be interesting to see how the survey was conducted so that we can know what people were actually voting for and how those questions were phrased. Or if I were to ask them do you support Hamas or a 2 state solution and if they were to answer 'Hamas', does that really mean that they support Hamas or does that mean more like they support Hamas over a 2 state solution? Also it would be interesting to see how big the sample size was. Just to be clear - I will easily concede that it could be the case that there are that many Palestinians who support Hamas - I just know that these surveys can be misleading depending on how the questions were phrased and on how the survey was conducted.

@Danioover9000 I see you recently getting more and more interested in rhetoric and in debates. I can share one person who I find interesting in the debateosphere. This guy is an MD (dermatologist) has a good amount of philosophy knowledge and can argue pretty well. He debates about a wide variety of topics including covid19, nutrition, veganism, different kind of philosophy stuff etc. He is very good at laying down both the moral and the empirical side of any topic he debates about.

You don't know for sure how they would live if Israel didn't exist. But even if I buy into the premise that they would live worse , thats that still won't justify the bad things Israel did against Palestine. If doing some kind of unintentional or intentional good to someone or to a group of people would give sufficient justification to do bad things against them, then we could basically justify any horrible actions that was done historically almost against any group of people , so basically its obviously a kind of reasoning that we should never use. The "they just envy" is not a good steelman or analysis, because if only envy would be the case or the main reason, then Hamas wouldn't have applied their envy selectively mostly on Israel.

Doesnt seem like it. Its wild seeing nazis,muslims and far leftists uniting and framing a terrorist attack as a revolution. Its also wild seeing the lack of acknowledgement how fucked life has been in Palestine for a long while now. Like wtf guys, you can acknowledge the facts: you can condemn the bad and horrible moves on each side and still support the innocent civilians.

The guy just wasn't prepared to have the conversation about drugs or about any of the topics Alex sent to him beforehand. He wasn't even pressed hard on the topic of drugs and he ran away from it. Alex was super easy on him and was super good faith with him. He knew what the convo/debate will be about , he knew all the topics beforehand and he could have changed the topic any time in the middle of the convo.

Its crazy whats going on on twitter. I mean twitter was always a shithole, but now "everything I don't agree with is AI generated". People are using AI image detectors as if they were reliable and then use that to confidently dismiss things they disagree with(this obviously goes for both sides).

https://twitter.com/IsraeliPM/status/1712471782303867144?s=20

Basically you are implying here that you can't teach/know something if you haven't embodied it. Thats a heruistic at best, but why would you use such a heruistic, when there are better ways to evaluate and to approach knowledge?

Good thread! If you want to find interesting stuff about math I can recommend two youtube channels : Veritasium and 3Blue1Brown

Hasan cheering on and rationalizing Hamas muslims killing , raping jews is the most ironic thing in the world.

You should embrace his superior cognition that he has to strongly emphasize all the time (maybe to convince himself about it?)

Stage yellow system thinker strikes again with a profound take . One would have to be exceptionally myopic and stupid to only care about death as a negative effect and don't count anything else. I guess we also shouldn't count death where people died because they were not treated with issues outside of covid , because hospitals were flooded with covid patients.

sure, I agree with that.