LimpyLoo

this sentence is an MC Escher-esque recursive nightmare dleeter pls

They made $1 billion hawking that shit to your kids *plays air slap bass*

Jan Svankmajer's Alice - 10/10 now officially my favorite movie

here's a comments-section comment about the snake-bite medical bill: "The bill is probably for an Illegal Immigrant crossing the desert. For which the American taxpayers will get stuck paying. Heres an idea anytime anyone gets sick, tell them your name is San Francisco, you wont have to pay anything. In fact, you probably will end up with money in your pocket because you will be allowed to sue the state for not posting a sign reading beware of snakes in all different languages throughout the desert. America is out of control and we are to blame for putting/keeping the corrupt politicians in office. There has to be an end to this non sense. Until America wakes up, I'm afraid nothing is going to change." (bah i'm stoned...can't tell if that's funny without the dude's profile pic) (p.s. guys i don't think weed is for me lol)

that monologue slayed people are just boring prudes with safe middle-of-the-road taste

great album my favorite is Mwandashi

back in the day... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9Za99O9-kw

how dumb would you feel if you just assumed it was a prank but then the aliens killed everyone? (i mean, you'd be dead so you wouldn't feel anything)

Whenever moral philosophy encroaches on contemporary politics, people seem to go bananas. This is unfortunate, as ideally tools like moral philosophy would be used to help inform our choices in the world. Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote a highly-insightful essay on the matter called Politics is the Mind-Killer.

the whole point of a 'moral dilemma' is that you have to reckon with two extremely-difficult choices just saying "nope, turns out the aliens were just testing us" is just ducking the difficulty of it yes, torture is horrible but are there things that are worse than torture, whereby torture would be preferable? (saying "torture is bad" is not a solution to this)

Aliens: "torture a 4-year old child for 24 hours or we'll destroy earth" Timothy Forward: "IDK guys, I don't really agree with violence and to be honest just the mere thought of torturing a 4 year old child for 24 hours makes me feel physically ill. Even if I were to begin I doubt I'd be able to continue for anywhere near the entire allocated time before literally being sick and passing out. The fact that you've traversed the vast distances of interstellar space, come to my home planet and decided to deliver this gratuitous ultimatum clearly shows you have nothing but contempt for human beings as a species. If I were to comply with your demands I may save the planet but I would be proving to you that we are nothing more than a despicable, barbaric race and are worthless to the wider intergalactic community that you yourselves are a part of. I cannot accept, as in doing so I would have to live the rest of my life dealing with the fact that I have done this terrible deed and inflicted heinous suffering upon an innocent person. If you decide to destroy the planet then that's on you and you were probably going to do it anyway just for the lels." Aliens: "Congratulations! You have passed the test! You have shown that your species is in fact capable of not being 100% cunty all the time. You have a long way to go before your species is truly enlightened but there is hope and we will help you achieve it. In the meantime here is a massive bag of the dankiest interstellar dankey dank that ever danked for being such an awesome dude and a majestic, visionary leader of your species." 1) I'm not in favor of violence either, Tim...implying that I'm in favor of torture is like me implying you're in favor of destroying the earth 2) no-one seems to want to actually propose a solution to the actual thought experiment being discussed... they either a) call it unrealistic, b) alter the premise (as you've done above) or, c) they call me a cunt for proposing that torturing one person is better than letting 7 billion die.

fyi, the concept of a 'dirty bomb' as being something actually dangerous or realistic was debunked years ago, in before JE shows up to call me a "neocon" or a "jingoist" edit: oops too late wow, so your response to a thought experiment is also "that's not realistic"? that's some great intellectual honesty there

1) 'm not a strict Kantian/deontologist, and so I agree that the harms might outweigh the benefits in the NK tour guide example, and therefor might not be worth doing. But that is a different matter altogether. But, if "the line" is simply a consequentialist cost/benefit analysis, then you'd have to concede that if the benefits outweighed the harms, then the journalist can/should publish his stuff. Again, that is a different question altogether than whether the journalist is morally culpable for what happens to the tour guides. 2) You are right, torture is not a perfectly reliable means of gaining information. However, if you hang your hat on the fact that it's simply not effective, then if it turned out that torture was effective, you'd have to grant that torture in this case would be morally permissible. (Similarly, I'm not a fan of capital punishment. But some people who claim to be "morally opposed" to capital punishment hang their hat on the fact that it's not an effective deterrent. However, if we looked back over the stats and realized that capital punishment was an effective deterrent, those people would either a) have to change their position on capital punishment, or b) admit that they were being disingenuous about their reasons for being anti-capital punishment.) 3) I disagree that, in this particular case, torturing Peter Scully in order to find 3 or 4 child-snuff producers would make us as bad as him. I find torture disgusting, reprehensible, and generally contrary to my lofty humanist ideals. I think that people tend to be so resistant to the Ticking Time Bomb Scenario is because virtually all decent people are disgusted by torture, and in that scenario, torture is clearly the better option. If you think the Ticking Time Bomb Scenario is stupid because the premise is so highly improbable, then again, that's beside the point. Once you entertain the premise (as unrealistic as it is), then the only real conclusion is that torture is not only the superior option, it's the morally superior option. In moral dilemmas (e.g. Ticking Time Bomb), people seem to have a sort-of status quo bias, whereas they will favor the default choice of inaction (e.g. not to torture). However, if you give someone a choice between two buttons (button A will torture one person; button B will kill 100,000 people), their intuition will shift in favor of torture. Again, it doesn't matter how repulsive you find torture: moral dilemmas are by definition situations where there are no good answers. And calling a thought experiment "unrealistic" is merely dodging difficult questions. 1) And that's precisely why this moral philosophy of either/or is not relevant to the real world. 2) But I'm not hanging my hat solely on that fact. There are other methods of intelligence gathering that are not morally wrong that garner better results, so that's a key factor. But the most important thing, and it's virtually the only time I've agreed with John McCain on anything, is that torture is not about gathering information, but what it says about us. And if we permit torture, we are no better than those we are professing to save ourselves from. See the essay I'm attaching. 3) What if, as a result of torturing Peter Scully, he gives out two names. Both of those names are of people he has some grievance against. When we investigate them, we cannot find any evidence of their participation, but these child-porn producers are clever, they are good at hiding their involvement. Well, we could find out more - by torturing them. And say by torturing one of them, he dies of severe stress related factors. He was the sole bread-winner for his family, and now his wife and two children have their quality of life significantly reduced, and the now widowed mother of this innocent man is so overcome with shame at the accusation of her husband being involved with producing child-porn that she commits suicide. So now the two children are without both their parents. They get placed into a foster home, and are adopted by a family who abuses them. So by torturing the "monster", we have become the very thing we sought to protect ourselves from. Since you refuse to accept consequences of action (torture can create more people who wish to do harm to us) as part of your moral stance, see point 1. Please read this essay on torture and its implications. Ignore the highlighted bits, I couldn't remove them from the word file for some reason, and they were related to something else, not this conversation. Of course torture has terrible consequences. You don't need to convince me of that. Torture really is every bit as heinous as its harshest critics say it is. But the whole point of a 'moral dilemma' is that there are no perfectly-satisfactory solutions. Allowing a handful of child-snuff producers to freely walk the earth has terrible consequences. Allowing a dirty bomb to detonate in New York City has terrible consequences. I don't think I need to post links about pedophilia or radiation poisoning to convince you of this. The whole point of 'thought experiments' and 'intuition pumps' is to challenge one's intuitions. If an alen ship lands and says "torture a 4-year old child for 24 hours or we'll destroy earth," then simply saying "no, because torture is wrong" is not really a reasonable position. And those in favor of torture in that situation aren't being flippant about torture: rather, it's just simply the better option.

Oops, my bad

try this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOkTlWY5RAM G sus! where do those nannies get this kind of money from..dr.phil scam? nice glad to know I'm not alone in my grotesque schadenfreude-y pop rubbish obsessions

1) 'm not a strict Kantian/deontologist, and so I agree that the harms might outweigh the benefits in the NK tour guide example, and therefor might not be worth doing. But that is a different matter altogether. But, if "the line" is simply a consequentialist cost/benefit analysis, then you'd have to concede that if the benefits outweighed the harms, then the journalist can/should publish his stuff. Again, that is a different question altogether than whether the journalist is morally culpable for what happens to the tour guides. 2) You are right, torture is not a perfectly reliable means of gaining information. However, if you hang your hat on the fact that it's simply not effective, then if it turned out that torture was effective, you'd have to grant that torture in this case would be morally permissible. (Similarly, I'm not a fan of capital punishment. But some people who claim to be "morally opposed" to capital punishment hang their hat on the fact that it's not an effective deterrent. However, if we looked back over the stats and realized that capital punishment was an effective deterrent, those people would either a) have to change their position on capital punishment, or b) admit that they were being disingenuous about their reasons for being anti-capital punishment.) 3) I disagree that, in this particular case, torturing Peter Scully in order to find 3 or 4 child-snuff producers would make us as bad as him. I find torture disgusting, reprehensible, and generally contrary to my lofty humanist ideals. I think that people tend to be so resistant to the Ticking Time Bomb Scenario is because virtually all decent people are disgusted by torture, and in that scenario, torture is clearly the better option. If you think the Ticking Time Bomb Scenario is stupid because the premise is so highly improbable, then again, that's beside the point. Once you entertain the premise (as unrealistic as it is), then the only real conclusion is that torture is not only the superior option, it's the morally superior option. In moral dilemmas (e.g. Ticking Time Bomb), people seem to have a sort-of status quo bias, whereas they will favor the default choice of inaction (e.g. not to torture). However, if you give someone a choice between two buttons (button A will torture one person; button B will kill 100,000 people), their intuition will shift in favor of torture. Again, it doesn't matter how repulsive you find torture: moral dilemmas are by definition situations where there are no good answers. And calling a thought experiment "unrealistic" is merely dodging difficult questions.

animalistic beast imo ymmv

Chen, how is that a false equivalency? lol walk me through why that dude is responsible for the fate of the tour guides, but we (de-segregationists) are not responsible for the fate of dead church members? It's a false equivalency in consequential terms. Since you don't believe in that matters, and I don't believe your moral philosophy matters in the real world, this conversation will go nowhere in a hurry. But, in your specific example, white supremacists like that are going to kill black people regardless of de-segregation (plenty of historical examples). The North Korean government is not going to kill those tour guides or their families had Sweeney not deceived them. Further, actors promoting de-segregation are creating on balance, a greater moral "good". Sweeney, by doing some hackneyed journalism that furthers the idea of normal North Koreans as "others", provides no moral good, and in fact causes greater moral harm, even if no one gets killed as a result of his actions. So, like...are we morally culpable for the consequences of ignoring tacit ultimatums or not? Where's the line? lol Alright then, let's talk about a real-world example: Peter Scully (child-snuff producer, google at your own risk and read on here at your own risk). A handful of Peter Scully's 'co-producers' are still freely walking the earth. We're not talking about guys that helped him set up Tor or something, we're talking about guys that starred in a video where 5 actual 2-yo babies were raped, tortured, and murdered. (And by "tortured" I mean they had holes drilled in their head, or they were smashed together 'pillow-fight' style.) So, Peter Scully is in police custody in the Philippines. The evidence against him is as air-tight as evidence can get. We will never know who his collaborators are unless he freely tells us, which hasn't happened yet. So, is it morally wrong to torture Peter Scully to (potentially) find out who his collaborators are? (Personally, I think Peter Scully lost his right to comfort and freedom, and the public need to find these monsters outweighs his right not to be coerced into telling us. If the evidence weren't so strong against him, then doubt as to his guilt would probably make me feel differently...)

Haha asexual

(better quality) seriously though fucking lol obv Dr Phil is rubbish daytime tv but oh god fucking lol

oh god i'm obsessed with the Dr Phil episodes about Nigerian love scams (sorry for bad quality but oh god so worth it) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMcSm1VjJ40

I would take pro-confederate flag people more seriously if they were like "yes, it's a pro-slavery symbol, but let's keep it anyway" It's not a pro-slavery symbol to them ffs. That is you thinking that so it must be true. None of this matters anyway, it's just shiny noise to keep us bleeting about things that don't really matter. Poverty and inequality have risen as the US has become a more tolerant liberal place, perhaps then by the same specious logic we should send women back into the home and start locking up homosexuals again. The flag is not an issue, talking about it weakens us. -sie- here's what the designer of the confederate flag, William Thompson, had to say about it: “Our idea is simply to combine the present battle flag with a pure white standard sheet; our southern cross, blue, on a red field, to take the place on the white flag that is occupied by the blue union in the old United States flag or the St George’s cross in the British flag. As a people, we are fighting to maintain the heavenly ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race . . .” so like, there's that....(and don't start spouting any Derrida...if the creator has no say about what it means, then nobody else does either)

just don't call me limpdick anymore lol (that was you, right? when i dared suggest that there was insight to be gained from psychadelics...?)

I would take pro-confederate flag people more seriously if they were like "yes, it's a pro-slavery symbol, but let's keep it anyway" instead there's all this doubletalk about "state's rights" and "heritage" the south didn't care about state's rights until the north was trying to take their slaves away then all of a sudden state's rights are worth fighting a war about lol

- what is defined as racism is getting looser all the time it seems, don't like obama's policies, racist; having a long dead confederate general lying in a grave, racist dig him up pronto; liking a flag that your ancestors fought and died under and means something to your community or just having it on your truck cause it looks cool and feels rebellious, racist; any symbols of the south, racist tear them down; saying you have black friends or that you believe everyone is equal, racist. Looser and looser, and pointlessly divisive when we were coming together and getting along fine for the most part. All the problems in society, like the main one of increasing poverty and social inequality is being driven not by your fellow americans but by a super rich cabal that have no interest even in the concept of the united states of america. This current predilection with race is a fiction to distract the population and drive a wedge between everyone that isn't the 0.001%. Unfortunately the pointless clone people are taking up their marching orders, the plan is working, well until everyone realises that they're being manipulated and who the real evil is, what we should truly be complaining about on our facebooks and twitter accounts. hi chunky Yes, it's great to hate on political correctness until it's your closely held sacred cow and the cows have been mulitplying, people are now walking around with an whole herd glommed together like bubbles onto their exterior, and whoa betide the man who accidentally bursts one as they brush past, the full force of the PC police state will come down upon them. if you hadn't noticed by my political posts, i am not swayed by PC-ness if I disagree with my fellow leftist comrades, I will say so (even if it gets me called a "neocon") it's not that i am responding to the un-PC-ness of what you're saying i just think that you're mistaken