Time for another WORST and BEST R/P posters

[Lakersbake]

Is that your final answer?

Regardless of whatever plan or agenda you have, stealing is violating someones rights. Thats all there is to it. A kid being in danger doesnt erase someone elses rights.

Final answer.

[Mr Beer]

Yep.

ITT I was nominated for worst by a few people. Why exactly? My posts are full of content and my reasonings

Such a liar. The last thread of yours I can remember you were 'disproving' evolutionary theory by posting a link to a video, when I challenged you to express your own thoughts on the matter for rebuttal you dodged like the little bitch you are. At least lasher admits to trolling without being a sanctimonious hypocrite about it.

[Posthardcore]

Regardless of whatever plan or agenda you have, stealing is violating someones rights. Thats all there is to it. A kid being in danger doesnt erase someone elses rights.

Final answer.

You would surely make a wonderful politician with such non-answers.

I guess this was the right thread for you to post in

[Lakersbake]

You would surely make a wonderful politician with such non-answers.

I guess this was the right thread for you to post in

If I chose deal with the consequence of violating someones rights so that I could carry out my plan, that doesnt mean his rights dont exist. It doesnt change it from stealing to something else.

[Posthardcore]

If I chose deal with the consequence of violating someones rights so that I could carry out my plan, that doesnt mean his rights dont exist. It doesnt change it from stealing to something else.

Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with what I'm asking. You're making descriptive statements, I'm asking for prescriptive ones. Obviously, the question here is whether it is or isn't more moral to take whatever you need by force in order to save the child than to respect the private property rights.

You seem to make statements about inalienable moral tennets, yet pus$y out when it's time to carry them out...

[tnel00]

worst: Flairon

Not sure who the best is tbh

[Lakersbake]

Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with what I'm asking. You're making descriptive statements, I'm asking for prescriptive ones. Obviously, the question here is whether it is or isn't more moral to take whatever you need by force in order to save the child than to respect the private property rights.

You seem to make statements about inalienable moral tennets, yet pus$y out when it's time to carry them out...

First you need to know what is immoral to answer the question. It is immoral to violate the rights of another. That should answer the question, if you still dont get it I cant help ya.

[Posthardcore]

First you need to know what is immoral to answer the question. It is immoral to violate the rights of another. That should answer the question, if you still dont get it I cant help ya.

So I don't understand why you keep re-visiting this discussion when I state its logical conclusion. You believe one ought to not steal the material needed to effectively carry out the rescue and therefore your moral stance is completely insane, imo, because it is devoid of any kind of realistic perspective.

[Lakersbake]

So I don't understand why you keep re-visiting this discussion when I state its logical conclusion. You believe one ought to not steal the material needed to effectively carry out the rescue and therefore your moral stance is completely insane, imo, because it is devoid of any kind of realistic perspective.

Your view is insane because you dont think that the rope owner should be allowed to have his rope, you view your cause as the moral high ground, when you have no idea what he even needs the rope for.

[Posthardcore]

Your view is insane because you dont think that the rope owner should be allowed to have his rope, you view your cause as the moral high ground, when you have no idea what he even needs the rope for.

Good, we've both made our cases, we're done here.

[kusok]

Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with what I'm asking. You're making descriptive statements, I'm asking for prescriptive ones. Obviously, the question here is whether it is or isn't more moral to take whatever you need by force in order to save the child than to respect the private property rights.

You seem to make statements about inalienable moral tennets, yet pus$y out when it's time to carry them out...

I grew up a poor child, nobody ever gave us sheit. Nothing is stopping your poor child from learning. Those who want to learn will find a way. When there is a will, there is a way.

Listen, let me try to help you:

It's easy to make money, go knock on people's doors, be charming, next thing you know you'll be cutting everyone's lawn in your neighborhood and living in a $500'000 house. I know two people that did just this on my block alone. No education, no nothing, no hand outs. They didn't camp out in anyone's backyard and they didn't steal from anyone to fund their education.

I know a rich musical instrument maker who made and donated hundreds of instruments to poor kids. THIS is the way bro. Not forcing him to make instruments for those kids or stealing his money. You gave up on humanity. Your intentions may be good, but you fail to realize that government attracts the worst power-hungry scum and gives them all the tools to make sure that boy of yours remains poor and is a dependent underclass.

[Posthardcore]

I grew up a poor child, nobody ever gave us sheit. Nothing is stopping your poor child from learning. Those who want to learn will find a way. When there is a will, there is a way.

Listen, let me try to help you:

It's easy to make money, go knock on people's doors, be charming, next thing you know you'll be cutting everyone's lawn in your neighborhood and living in a $500'000 house. I know two people that did just this on my block alone. No education, no nothing, no hand outs. They didn't camp out in anyone's backyard and they didn't steal from anyone to fund their education.

I know a rich musical instrument maker who made and donated hundreds of instruments to poor kids. THIS is the way bro. Not forcing him to make instruments for those kids or stealing his money. You gave up on humanity. Your intentions may be good, but you fail to realize that government attracts the worst power-hungry scum and gives them all the tools to make sure that boy of yours remains poor and is a dependent underclass.

Though I don't disagree completely with what you're saying here, it's irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[kusok]

Though I don't disagree completely with what you're saying here, it's irrelevant to the topic at hand.

What's the topic at hand?

I'm just saying, you need to live in reality! On paper you can imagine government taking from evil let's call him Rockefeller and giving his money to a poor boy for his education. In reality Rockefeller owns government, and the poor boy will never see that money nor any education, the money will be stolen by the government to fund government officials' golf vacations. Some peanuts will indeed trickle down to that poor boy's education in form of Communist education like in Sweden when your poor boy will not know what sex he is, or like in New York where your poor boy will not know how to read upon graduation. This is the reality. You gotta take human factor into account, not just make up communist utopia on paper. If you give something to someone for free where they don't earn it, they will abuse it. Obvious stuff.

[GreatOldOne]

Are you denying that a lot of your posts are trollish?

I would like to invoke my 5th amendment right not to provide an answer which might incriminate myself at this time.

Whats wrong with being an anarchist? (which Im not btw)

I thought we were playing the 'i get to decide what you are' game. The flaw in anarchism is that it requires a population of moral people for a reasonable chance of success...which unfortunately we don't have.

[DizzySmalls]

Your view is insane because you dont think that the rope owner should be allowed to have his rope, you view your cause as the moral high ground, when you have no idea what he even needs the rope for.

I swear Christians and their inane "God says so and he's fukking the essence of righteousness brah" is more tolerable than helpless rationalists trapped in a cognitive corner talking about rights as if they are real things. They are so full of shyt that it has formed a shyt river and overflowed its banks into this thread.

[GreatOldOne]

I swear Christians and their inane "God says so and he's fukking the essence of righteousness brah" is more tolerable than helpless rationalists trapped in a cognitive corner talking about rights as if they are real things. They are so full of shyt that it has formed a shyt river and overflowed its banks into this thread.

He's Christian. If that helps.

[DizzySmalls]

He's Christian. If that helps.

That I did not know lol. My true target is Stizzel

[GreatOldOne]

That I did not know lol. My true target is Stizzel

I dunno. I think there's a legit difference between recognizing value and then understanding causal effects. IMO this is why morality conversation gets so screwed up. You can map moral language legitimately onto emotions and cognitive processes giving rise to speech. You can legitimately say humans have a 'human nature'. Based on that you can derive a 'most likely to be moral' which is masquerade on top of 'most likely to be recognized as moral eventually'. Assuming everybody in the universe does eventually die you end up with an objective answer to 'most likely moral' only nobody is practically going to have access to that information.

I think Stizzel just shoots from the hip but isn't a bad shot when it comes to morality. Grant people as a reflection of the universe in some respect and you quickly get golden rule and all of the other goodies which you can scrape off of that.

The worst IMO is to have your morality derived from possible consequences enforced by an invisible being who actually doesn't exist. That's nuts. BRB this life sucks but that's fine. I get a replay in heaven.

[DizzySmalls]

I dunno. I think there's a legit difference between recognizing value and then understanding causal effects. IMO this is why morality conversation gets so screwed up. You can map moral language legitimately onto emotions and cognitive processes giving rise to speech. You can legitimately say humans have a 'human nature'. Based on that you can derive a 'most likely to be moral' which is masquerade on top of 'most likely to be recognized as moral eventually'. Assuming everybody in the universe does eventually die you end up with an objective answer to 'most likely moral' only nobody is practically going to have access to that information.

I think Stizzel just shoots from the hip but isn't a bad shot when it comes to morality. Grant people as a reflection of the universe in some respect and you quickly get golden rule and all of the other goodies which you can scrape off of that.

The worst IMO is to have your morality derived from possible consequences enforced by an invisible being who actually doesn't exist. That's nuts. BRB this life sucks but that's fine. I get a replay in heaven.

He's awful at defending his position. Besides, I'm pretty sure I agree more with his moral preferences than you do, so this is confusing to me that you would support his position. Since when are you down with initiation of force against a non-agressor being universally/objectively/rationally immoral?

Also, humans have a nature whose final preferences and behaviors is largely conditioned by chaotic environmental factors and socialization. I don't think it is likely that the answer to "what is most likely to be recognized as moral" is going to apply for very long.

I don't think you can quickly or easily get the Golden Rule out of granting people as an aspect of the universe.

[GreatOldOne]

He's awful at defending his position.

Don't make the fallacy fallacy tho (a poorly argued position doesn't indicate the position is incorrect -- thanks myriad).

Besides, I'm pretty sure I agree more with his moral preferences than you do, so this is confusing to me that you would support his position.

His position represents an ideal of well functioning people living in harmony. That's great. That's one of many religious variants which I don't know how or why anybody would call out as being terrible or distasteful. It's not distasteful imo.

Since when are you down with initiation of force against a non-agressor being universally/objectively/rationally immoral?

I'm ok with being immoral to be effective. I have zero problems with it. If my sense of tastes encourage me to immoral action I will do it, but I won't say it's 'moral' instead. There's no problem calling a spade a spade.

So, when I see riots in the street I'm often thinking we probably need more tanks and smoke. I won't say that's moral, but it is effective at establishing harmony. Like Godzilla. His job is to wake up and go chase the other giant evil monster wrecking everything. That's sort of how I see a well functioning government. It's not ideal, but it still works anyway.

Also, humans have a nature whose final preferences and behaviors is largely conditioned by chaotic environmental factors and socialization.

It's not largely. Almost entirely. What's not is biologically driven. So we have got order out of chaos...People seem to hate thinking that's true but it appears that way to me.

I don't think it is likely that the answer to "what is most likely to be recognized as moral" is going to apply for very long.

I don't think you can quickly or easily get the Golden Rule out of granting people as an aspect of the universe.

It doesn't matter if it lasts long or doesn't. Remember the cosmic survey idea accounts for conditioning and bias...given an unobstructed view can you see the mountain or not?

[DizzySmalls]

His position represents an ideal of well functioning people living in harmony. That's great. That's one of many religious variants which I don't know how or why anybody would call out as being terrible or distasteful. It's not distasteful imo.

Taken to an extreme, it's really not great. Besides, if you know human nature, there is always going to be someone with a will to create disharmony and enact change. Someone will always disagree, and there will always be people who struggle to enact their preferences onto reality. I'll go full Nietzsche and claim that suffering, struggle between values and ideas, and changes in the order/priority of the natural impulses over time are necessary aspects of existence.

I'm ok with being immoral to be effective. I have zero problems with it. If my sense of tastes encourage me to immoral action I will do it, but I won't say it's 'moral' instead. There's no problem calling a spade a spade.

I think instead of moral you might just say unpopular? And you won't pretend it is popular?

So, when I see riots in the street I'm often thinking we probably need more tanks and smoke. I won't say that's moral, but it is effective at establishing harmony. Like Godzilla. His job is to wake up and go chase the other giant evil monster wrecking everything. That's sort of how I see a well functioning government. It's not ideal, but it still works anyway.

No disagreement here. Ideals are largely irrelevant to reality, no?

It's not largely. Almost entirely. What's not is biologically driven. So we have got order out of chaos...People seem to hate thinking that's true but it appears that way to me.

Yes, we have some degree of order, but there is still constant change

It doesn't matter if it lasts long or doesn't. Remember the cosmic survey idea accounts for conditioning and bias...given an unobstructed view can you see the mountain or not?

An unobstructed view of what the popular opinion of people is at one spot in time is just that. A look into the emergent preferences of chaos at one snapshot of all configurations. You don't get to look at the timeless mountain of truth even if the cosmic survey was possible

[moondoggey]

OP, there is no need for a new thread. Polls already showed you, flairon and Nutsy to be the worst, and lasher and that sexy kusok guy to be the best.

did you just call a lasher who is 7 feet 9 inch a bad poster

[moondoggey]

worst: Flairon

best is moondoggey

fixed

[Posthardcore]

Communist education like in Sweden when your poor boy will not know what sex he is, or like in New York where your poor boy will not know how to read upon graduation..

Or in Quebec where you can be ready for the market at 19. Feminism has nothing to do with education. And I doubt NYers cant read upon graduation.

[Th3K1NgSlaY3R]

Oh lawd....

More "you only say im worst cuz I handed you your ass so bad" talk

And you guys accuse others of working from a preconceived bias...

[OopsWrongThread]

I like Lasher, Ringdips, ZenBowman, kusok, metroins, and Lakersbake.
I don't always agree with them, but you can tell they're smart people so I like them.
IDBLOL, Tekkendo, brighamw, and bushmaster as well. they bring the most character to R/P. Always stirring the chit, but intelligent people. Spartan too, i see his lulzy posts on regular misc.
Of course, I can't forget ICrapBig, dude knows his stuff. I love his thoughtcrimes, he says the taboo, which is required for a democratic society.

[Lakersbake]

I thought we were playing the 'i get to decide what you are' game. The flaw in anarchism is that it requires a population of moral people for a reasonable chance of success...which unfortunately we don't have.

The majority of the current population is moral. In either the current system or a voluntary society, people who arent moral will be dealt with, Im not sure why you think anarchism requires everyone to be moral at all times or it just simply wont work.

[Th3K1NgSlaY3R]

The majority of the current population is moral. In either the current system or a voluntary society, people who arent moral will be dealt with, Im not sure why you think anarchism requires everyone to be moral at all times or it just simply wont work.

You're asking the wrong questions. The real question regarding anarchy is given that it was mans natural state, why did it fail?

[Rockchalk0420]

What's the topic at hand?

I'm just saying, you need to live in reality! On paper you can imagine government taking from evil let's call him Rockefeller and giving his money to a poor boy for his education. In reality Rockefeller owns government, and the poor boy will never see that money nor any education, the money will be stolen by the government to fund government officials' golf vacations. Some peanuts will indeed trickle down to that poor boy's education in form of Communist education like in Sweden when your poor boy will not know what sex he is, or like in New York where your poor boy will not know how to read upon graduation. This is the reality. You gotta take human factor into account, not just make up communist utopia on paper. If you give something to someone for free where they don't earn it, they will abuse it. Obvious stuff.

this guy used to be a good poster...then he went down the nutter alex jones rabbit hole and everything went to sh*t. RIP kusok.

[kusok]

You're asking the wrong questions. The real question regarding anarchy is given that it was mans natural state, why did it fail?

The nut job sociopaths and psychopaths got to us.

I don't think there is such a thing as natural state. Natural state changes with environment and circumstances. What's natural for one may not be natural for another.

A free society (aka anarchy) is actually the goal as we continue to shake off the chains of slavery, taxation, serfdom, government and other BS relics of the stone age.