Why did he accuse Taylor of being a "homosexual" for not wanting to rape an underage Vietnamese girl?
>>217808875Insecurity about being confronted on such a heinous action. Rather than admit what you are doing is evil and unjustifiable it's easier to simply attack the person pointing out your wrongdoing.
>>217808892What a piece of shit.
>>217808892What's evil and unjustifiable about rape? It satisfies the rapist, which is the only ontological good, not reliant on silly subjective morality, therefore fullly justfied.
>>217808875>Holy shit! You see that fucking head come apart, man? I never seen brains like that before, man.
>>217809446The pain felt by the victim is greater than the pleasure gained by the rapist, therefore it is a net negative.
>>217808875>you dont want to grease your cock with my leftover spooge?>whatre you a faggot?
>>217809487Why should the rapist care about the pain felt by the victim if his inherent sense of empathy doesn't make said pain cause dissatisfaction? Also, within your reasoning, is it okay to rape if I apply analgesics first? Or is it about psychological pain, would it be okay if the rapist sedated the rapee instead so they have no memory of the rape?
>>217809550There is a universal pool of pain and pleasure, it can't be compartmentalized. Decreasing the physical and psychological pain of the victim goes a long way towards making the action more morally defensible, however you'd have to consider the risk of spreading std's, causing pregnancy, etc. All of which would cause pain in the future.
>>217808875Men are retarded and evil: The Movie.
>>217808892antisemitic post
>>217809705>antisemitic postAnd that is a good thing.
>>217809685>There is a universal pool of pain and pleasureWhich an individual have no obligation to care about.>it can't be compartmentalizedWhy?>Decreasing the physical and psychological pain of the victim goes a long way towards making the action more morally defensibleOnly if you subscribe to a subjective moral framework that assigns value to the suffering of the victim, which isn't obligatory.
>>217810092Right but when you ascribe yourself as being something that THEMSELF should be avoiding pain and suffering, you're basically making the statement that you're the most important living thing in the world. That's not true. If you're argument uses the objective reality as a structure for how to behave in reality, then there is nothing that distinguished you from others. The SAME rules that bind others to physical reality also bind you. To say that these same rules apply differently to you, and that this gives you right right to treat others as you want is essentially poor logic. You aren't actually doing the proper work. It's like if you saw an addition sign and said, "today I am going to subtract"So if you would try to diminish YOUR own sense of suffering or unnecessary destruction, you're an intellectual hypocrite. You're conveniently foregoing certain elements of logic for your own convenience This means you should be lobotomized. If we could start gathering people that have insufficient intelligence, I guarantee we could have unlimited energy
>>217810092>the sanest moral relativist
>>217809446Same can be said about literally every action an individual can take. You are not as smart as you think.
>>217810163>Right but when you ascribe yourself as being something that THEMSELF should be avoiding pain and suffering, you're basically making the statement that you're the most important living thing in the world.>That's not true."I am the most important living thing in the world to me" is true, given it's a subjective evaluation.>If you're argument uses the objective reality as a structure for how to behave in reality, then there is nothing that distinguished you from others. There is, i am only experiencing reality from my perspective. I don't even have concrete, rational proof that anything outside of my conciousness is sure to exist. For all I know you're not even concious, you might as well be a p-zombie or a dream, that you're another conciousness is only an assumption i operate under. Can you offer a hard refutation of solipsism?>The SAME rules that bind others to physical reality also bind you. To say that these same rules apply differently to you, and that this gives you right right to treat others as you want is essentially poor logic. Please point out the logical error in the statement that myself and anything that isn't myself are distinctly different entities. While you're at it, provide proof that all perspectives should, objectively, matter to equally.>>217810167I bet you claim to believe altruism is objectively good while selfishness is objectively bad, yet spend most of your income on satisfying selfish desires, instead of giving almost all to charity and only spending enough to subsist at the lowest level necessary to keep generating value to selflessly give away. Curious. Is the objective morality in the room with us right now?>>217810277>Same can be said about literally every action an individual can take.Correct.>You are not as smart as you think.Not an argument.
>>217810456>Not an argument.Incorrect. I get pleasure from saying that you are wrong so you are objectively wrong.
>>217810469>Incorrect.Correct, it is not an argument. I can sympathize with deriving satisfaction from calling others wrong, but that doesn't make it an argument.>I get pleasure from saying that you are wrong so you are objectively wrong.That doesn't logically follow. I you said you get pleasure from saying I am wrong therefore calling me wrong is subjectively good and moral from your perspective, I'd be inclined to agree.
>>217810517>subjective seethinglol mad, you lostIm getting so much pleasure from objectively saying you are wrong
>>217810517>it is not an argumentWrong. It is because I say so, I don't care about your subjective opinion about what an argument is. I say it is an argument and that satisfies me and that is the only ontological good here.
>>217809446its a good thing you are okay with it because you got raped in the thread
>>217810543I never said you can't derive pleasure from being irrational, it just doesn't make it rational. You seem to have a poor grasp on the concept of objectivity and subjectivity.>>217810560You don't have to care, but language works on the principle of agreed upon terms that have agreed upon meaning in order to accurately exchange information. You're free to redefine terms however you see fit, but it interferes with communication. Which is fine if it satisfies you, but rather pointless for me.
>>217810736>more subjective screechinglol who cares, I'm objectively in the right here because I get pleasure from itkeep the seethe puring
>>217810456>you spend your paycheck on yourself, that means morals dont exist - vis a vi concordantly rape isn't evil!
>>217810736>agreed uponI didn't agree to anything. I don't care about subjective rules like that I thought you didn't either. It is an argument because I say so and that is the only thing that matters here.
Bunny represents wilder animal instincts untethered due to Barnes' ruthless pragmatism
>the moral relativist retard spins out of control the moment he gets a little push of the exact thing he is professing
>>217810785>you spend your paycheck on yourself, that means morals dont existIt means that you inherently subscribe to the idea of selfish actions being morally good. Or that you act in morally bad ways, but that would bes the question of why would one act in ways they consider to be undesirable? Can you come up with a rational justification? >rape isn't evilIs there anything about rape that inherently makes it distinct from other selfish actions that conflict with the interest of others? Or is it just a matter of subjective severity of the act? Would it be more evil to rape, or to refuse sharing your paycheck with a man who will surely starve without the contribution? Why?>>217810825>I didn't agree to anything.Then further communication is not possible, since you, by choice, cannot derive meaning from my writing.>I don't care about subjective rules like that I thought you didn't either.Why would i not care about subjective rules I subjectively recognize in order to satisfy my desire to communicate?
>>217810925Moral relativism isn't factual relativism, Anon. Objective morality having no rational basis doesn't make 2+2 equal 5, no matter how much you want it to be. But by all means, derive satsifaction from claiming 2+2 does equal 5, don't let me stop you.
>>217810926The starving man has put himself into his situation, you are not obliged to help him unless you want to. By raping, you are actively bringing harm upon an innocent who can't refuse.
>>217810926>Why would i not care about subjective rules>I subjectively recognizeSo your objective moralism is based around subjective rulings which makes it subjective by definition.Your subjective worldview based on subjective language and subjective objectivism is irrelevant to me, an objectively impartial super being.And for something that wasn't an argument you sure have spend a lot of time argumenting against it, anyways.
>>217810953>Objective morality having no rational basis doesn't make 2+2 equal 5wrong, I get pleasure from 2+2 being 5, therefor 2+2 is five as that is the only ontological good here
>>217809446how quickly and easily you'd shut your pretentious mouth up if you found yourself in the middle of kolkata wearing nothing but your underwear
>>217810989>The starving man has put himself into his situationNot necessarily. Do you ascribe sufficent agency to a starving ethiopian child to argue it was in a position to avoid starvation?Would you say rape is justfied if a woman put herself into the situation, like walking into a building with a big bright>YOU WILL GET RAPED HEREneon sign? We can also have a very lnog argument on what exactly constiutes putting oneself in a situation. I mean, you can always leave society to prevent rape for example, does that mean participating in society is asking for it? I think most would disagree.>By raping, you are actively bringing harm upon an innocent who can't refuse.Correct, and I assume you are arguing this puts an obligation on another not do it, even if it is in their interest. The question is, why? What is the objective basis for creating an obligation to abstain from creating harm, but no such obligation existing for preventing harm?
i opened this thread expecting movie discussion not some creep saying rape is not an evil actbrother try not typing like youre a 17 year old redditor and talk to some people irl
>>217810517>i will reduce your arbitrary rules on morality into nihilistic nothing>you have to respect my arbitrary rules on what constitutes an argument and fair debatemy rule involves having you flip a coin, having you call it, and if it lands a certain side i will put a hole in your head with a bolt gun. you better hope you don't come in contact with me
>>217811100I wouldn't call it evil if i was raped, or robbed, etc. Against my interest, for sure, that is enough to ascribe negative value to it and do everything in my power to prevent it. I may even attempt a plea toward the rapist using classic morality, if all else fails, but that would be a manipulation tactic.
>>217811181>>you have to respect my arbitrary rules on what constitutes an argument and fair debateNo, you don't. You can disregard them entirely, up to you. It just makes communication close to impossible, which makes it not so engaging to me. >my rule involves having you flip a coin, having you call it, and if it lands a certain side i will put a hole in your head with a bolt gun. you better hope you don't come in contact with meI know your type, all i have to do is to become an assertive fat woman and you wouldn't do a thing.
>>217811184It's obvious you are a ragebaiting autist so all this nonsense you are spewing is worthless drivel "for the lulz xD" but despite that I genuinely hope something happens to you or someone close to you and when you are bawling about it like a bitch, for a very brief moment, this thread crosses your mind.
something tells me if I mention the holocaust this guy is gonna start finding exceptions to his morality real fast
>>217810736>language works on the principle of agreed upon termsHmmm...evil/ˈiːvl/adjectiveadjective: evilprofoundly immoral and wickedimmoral/Jˈmɒr(ə)l/adjectiveadjective: immoralnot conforming to accepted standards of moralitySo you agree that rape is evil after all. Curious.
