Random Forumite Info

[Strife ❤️]

Spent some time at Manchester gallery today.

Came home with this:



There was police, media and protestors swarming everywhere outside. Turns out it was the Labour Party Annual Conference this weekend.

[Five_X]

Pictured: Strife's living room.

[Strife ❤️]

This is the best painting in my actual living room. It's this: http://www.mutualart.com/Artwork/Spr...695139B7C95BED

[Thedoctor]

This is the best painting in my actual living room.

Strife is a noblewoman.

[Gaia]

Strife went to museum to take pics of nekkid women. D:

[Strife ❤️]

They are priceless treasures of antiquity, Gaia!

[Gaia]

Yeah yeah. That's you real reason for sure.

[Walnut Sparks]

using individual enjoyment as the means of correctness is falsifiable, so i prefer to stay away. after all, some people enjoy raping more than vanilla sex. if individual enjoyment was an appropriate means of conveying correctness, rape would be morally justifiable for them. so no, well done is still evil and disrespectful to the world.

I could argue that this doesn't add up, but I've embarrassed myself too much in the past by taking arguments like this seriously.

[04satsujinki40]

Rain finds mac and cheese potato chips good~

[MZeroX]

I could argue that this doesn't add up, but I've embarrassed myself too much in the past by taking arguments like this seriously.

You just have to attack it the right way. There is certainly something off about it, but all I've done is attack your connecting "correctness" and "individual enjoyment".

This being the case, isn't the correct conclusion that each eater should cook meat in the ways that they as individuals enjoy the most?

Taking away the subjects and objects leaves us with the barebones argument you made--the correct conclusion is that A should engage B in ways that maximize A's enjoyment.

In the case of meat, A is the individual, B is the meat. Individuals should engage (prepare, eat, etc) meat in ways that maximize said individual's enjoyment.

Now in the case of the rapist, A is the rapist, and B is the victim. "The correct conclusion is that A, the rapist, should engage B, the victim, in a way that maximizes A's enjoyment". Making it less clunky but conveying the same meaning, "The rapist is correct in raping the victim when the rapist maximizes sexual enjoyment from rape."

Both are valid uses of the same argument core. But clearly, the rape one is bonkers while the meat one seems alright. This simply means that the connection of enjoyment and correctness isn't valid, but the validity of the meat as enjoyed is coming from a different set of implied arguments and conditions. You'd have to approach it by saying something like the enjoyment of something prepared for the express purpose of consumption and enjoyment is different from a case where something isn't being treated as intended (you'd have to then make a case for personal autonomy and the act of sex being an important part of autonomy). The comparison also needs to establish why the value sets are different in the case of meat versus rape. It's a bit of project.

Still, there is absolutely nothing invalid about my attacking your connection of correctness with enjoyment, unless we're living in an environment of hedonism. Since you are implicitly agreeing that it is wrong for the rapist to rape, you've also implicitly agreed that we are not living in a hedonistic environment. So there really isn't a problem with my last attack. There is some moral code that overwrites pleasure, which is likely to do with intrusion on another's autonomy. Of course, if you don't make the autonomy argument tight, I could devils advocate into animals rights just to be a dick.

eh, I'm bored of this now. Fuck it.

[SeiKeo]

lol what the shit

[francobull3]

By badly cooking meat, you rape it!
And rape is bad, so don't do that.
That's what I understood from that...
Surely I am not wrong.
But aaaanyhoooow...
real bad throat problems lately.

[Fingolfin]

You just have to attack it the right way. There is certainly something off about it, but all I've done is attack your connecting "correctness" and "individual enjoyment".
Taking away the subjects and objects leaves us with the barebones argument you made--the correct conclusion is that A should engage B in ways that maximize A's enjoyment.

In the case of meat, A is the individual, B is the meat. Individuals should engage (prepare, eat, etc) meat in ways that maximize said individual's enjoyment.

Now in the case of the rapist, A is the rapist, and B is the victim. "The correct conclusion is that A, the rapist, should engage B, the victim, in a way that maximizes A's enjoyment". Making it less clunky but conveying the same meaning, "The rapist is correct in raping the victim when the rapist maximizes sexual enjoyment from rape."

Both are valid uses of the same argument core. But clearly, the rape one is bonkers while the meat one seems alright. This simply means that the connection of enjoyment and correctness isn't valid, but the validity of the meat as enjoyed is coming from a different set of implied arguments and conditions. You'd have to approach it by saying something like the enjoyment of something prepared for the express purpose of consumption and enjoyment is different from a case where something isn't being treated as intended (you'd have to then make a case for personal autonomy and the act of sex being an important part of autonomy). The comparison also needs to establish why the value sets are different in the case of meat versus rape. It's a bit of project.

Still, there is absolutely nothing invalid about my attacking your connection of correctness with enjoyment, unless we're living in an environment of hedonism. Since you are implicitly agreeing that it is wrong for the rapist to rape, you've also implicitly agreed that we are not living in a hedonistic environment. So there really isn't a problem with my last attack. There is some moral code that overwrites pleasure, which is likely to do with intrusion on another's autonomy. Of course, if you don't make the autonomy argument tight, I could devils advocate into animals rights just to be a dick.

eh, I'm bored of this now. Fuck it.

Oh god, this is amazing.

Can I quote this?

[francobull3]

It's way too big D:

[MZeroX]

Yes, you can quote it. It may be a little out of place without the rest of the posts, but at least for my portions, you have my ok.

[Fingolfin]

Thank you.

[francobull3]

Still, that was a huge analysis man.
I am proud of you!

[MZeroX]

huge? really? you do know that I wrote my philosophy dissertation on quantum mechanics and the possibility of libertarian free will, right? while doing research in an optics lab. because fuck the system, i got two degrees, bitch.

[SeiKeo]

Well besides from being completely ridiculous.

[Fingolfin]

God damn it too many characters.

Anyway, still comedy gold. Thank you Zero.