James3's Ideology Thread

[Accountant]

because one is objectively bad and the other is only bad to you

I think racism should be banned. All racists must not be allowed to say racist things. Racism is objectively bad, right?

[Accountant]

yeah, but stupid childhood mantras dont apply to politics

also that was almost always in reference to things that are commonly done like trying to ride a bike

also stop with the dystopian shit its literally just your imagination

Why not? Do you think that people shouldn't be determined in trying to achieve their goals? Do you think that people should be determined when riding a bike but not when establishing utopia and ridding the world of all evil?

Why do you find my description of censorship as a wave of purifying light as dystopic? Dystopias are bleak. This imagery is bright and wholesome.

[Sesq]

because one is objectively bad and the other is only bad to you

I think racism should be banned. All racists must not be allowed to say racist things. Racism is objectively bad, right?

ideas =/= actions

[Sesq]

in response to 76

the point is that censorship just as a historical thing doesnt work and is detrimental to society and you have presented no reason why yours will be any different

[Accountant]

because one is objectively bad and the other is only bad to you

I think racism should be banned. All racists must not be allowed to say racist things. Racism is objectively bad, right?

ideas =/= actions

Let us start simple. Do you agree that it is okay to ban racist actions? Murder is objectively bad; we ban the act of murder. Racism is objectively bad; we ban the act of racism. Agree?

[Sesq]

what are acts of racism exactly

[Accountant]

in response to 76

the point is that censorship just as a historical thing doesnt work and is detrimental to society and you have presented no reason why yours will be any different

Because people have always found ways to get around it. Censorship just forms underground movements. But for me, I have access to technology that renders this impossible. How can you form an underground movement when I have cameras tracking everyone's movements all the time? How can you try to sneakily get around the censorship by making up a code to bypass it when you have been observed making it up, and re-educated into confessing its secrets?

The key is technology. With technology, it is possible to create a next-level version of censorship; stuff that Stalin or poor tech illiterate Kim Jong Un can only dream about. That is why the utopia's censorship will work where no others have worked before.

[Sesq]

in response to 76

the point is that censorship just as a historical thing doesnt work and is detrimental to society and you have presented no reason why yours will be any different

Because people have always found ways to get around it. Censorship just forms underground movements. But for me, I have access to technology that renders this impossible. How can you form an underground movement when I have cameras tracking everyone's movements all the time? How can you try to sneakily get around the censorship by making up a code to bypass it when you have been observed making it up, and re-educated into confessing its secrets?

The key is technology. With technology, it is possible to create a next-level version of censorship; stuff that Stalin or poor tech illiterate Kim Jong Un can only dream about. That is why the utopia's censorship will work where no others have worked before.

lol

[Accountant]

That is not an argument.

[Sesq]

That is not an argument.

This is not an airplane

[Randomnamechange]

You'll need to justify why natural law theory would imply that the pursuit of pleasure is the end of human beings.

No one wants to be miserable.

Junko Enoshima

[Accountant]

That is not an argument.

This is not an airplane

You have presented no response to my arguments. May I assume that it is because you have none to give?

[CooLDoG]

The is/ought problem exists independently of Hume's epistemic system.

You're going to need to justify this assertion.

The point here is that going directly from a descriptive claim to a normative claim is either extremely difficult or impossible. People outside of the empiricists will agree with this. Skeptics most certainly will, coherentists will as well, and contextualize will most certainly have a beef with making wide ranging descriptive to normative claims. Even JT theorists would question why the T of a normative claim has any bearing on the T of normative claim. Also, are we not assuming moral realism with this in anyway? A big assumption.

Even in your system you need to justify that doing something in accordance with the nature of the said being is what we should do. The should is an added feature that is not contained with a simple explanation of the function of a given being. I also think the example of tools, which you brought up, directly contradicts your own functionalist theory. Take, for example, the screw-driver on my desk. It has a very clear function: to tighten or loosen screws, however I have found that it works marvelously to pack down the end of rolled cigarettes and other smoking herbs. The question then becomes, is my use of the screw-driver bad even though it is not in accord with its function? Probably not. Things have a nearly indeterminate number of functions, thus to argue that a singular function is what something should be used for seem quite silly.

Also, you need to give us an account of the telos of humanity, what is the purpose of humans? Your answer to this question is important, and there are many traps along this road.

So you're saying that experiencing pleasure is the natural function or end of human beings?

Sure, even if this includes fornicating or whatever else.

So if a person derives pleasure from, say, molesting kids, that's morally acceptable?

see, I think you may be forced into saying that it is morally acceptable. If the good is what humans do, then molesting kids is something good because humans do it. It is part of the overall functioning of the human species, thus it is part of the good. You need to some how specify what is and is not within the realm of human functioning, to do this I think we need a positive defintion of what the function of humanity is, not merely a negative one.

You'll need to justify why natural law theory would imply that the pursuit of pleasure is the end of human beings.

No one wants to be miserable.

So you're saying that pleasure and happiness are identical?

utilitarians would say so... Depends on your definition of functioning, humans only goal may be to seek their own pleasure (egoism, then you apply your morality and we get ethical egoism)

[CooLDoG]

James is a person who just vomits buzz words without knowing what they mean. Easy pickings.

[Sesq]

That is not an argument.

This is not an airplane

You have presented no response to my arguments. May I assume that it is because you have none to give?

i have

It was a long time ago, when I, Sesq, unleashed an unspeakable debunk

[Accountant]

Quote it.

[T S O]

what are acts of racism exactly

[T S O]

There's definitely some psychological explanation, something akin to sunk cost, that explains why I keep replying to threads like these. It's self-masochistic at best.

[Accountant]

what are acts of racism exactly

It's when you do stuff that discriminates against people based on race


Also, the thing that she failed to debunk was my thoughts on censorship

[Sesq]

Quote it.

literally the entire thread to your philosophy

[Accountant]

That's not a debunk; nowhere in that thread have you managed to debunk any of my ideas.

[Sesq]

i actually did

you're just blind to the correct path

[Accountant]

You are incorrect. I refuted all your arguments.

[Sesq]

no you didnt

its incredibly obvious to everyone but you that your ideas are 100% stupid

fin

[Accountant]

That's because everyone but me is wrong.