Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[quinnr]

Oof, I suddenly have a really bad splitting headache and it gets hard at times to focus on my computer screen. I also have a thing I need to do, though, so I am going to just weather threw it (I only noticed this horrible spelling mistake after I read through this post a few minutes later. I'm leaving it). But the pain in my brain is no fun at all. Maybe I'll go take some ibuprofen, or something. Sitting at a computer for...the vast majority of a day is not a good thing.

[TD1]

We aren't talking about philosophy, we're talking about at what line we could conceivably stop removing someone's desires and still have them function automatically.

I was making a joke.
Granted, a five in the morning joke.

[UXLZ]

It went way over my head then, whatever it was. :v

[i2amroy]

We aren't talking about philosophy, we're talking about at what line we could conceivably stop removing someone's desires and still have them function automatically.

You'd still need a desire for food, a desire for water, a desire for air, a desire for sleep, and a desire to avoid pain. Assuming that you still maintained a person's higher logical abilities (and thus their ability to say "by doing X I can get food", and so forth) then that's really all you would need to have something that still functioned.

Desire for working, moving, and talking could all then be broken down into "desire to do X in order to get Y" type scenarios for the first ones, and clothing/shelter becomes a deliberate outreach of the desire to avoid pain. A desire to procreate isn't directly tied in most ways to any of the things you actually have to do to survive, and thus would be something that could be totally eliminated and still be functional.

Of course without any higher desires such a person would be little more then an automaton. They would never create anything unless as a way to establish one of those basic goals, and in situations with limited resources they might suffer a form of "deadlock", much similar to the way that people with brain problems that stop their emotions do.

[Neonivek]

It is hard to explain EXACTLY how the Buddhist state of no desire works... but the best way to explain is

Someone who is good
versus
Someone who is trying to be good

someone who is just inherently and inoquivicovly good just does good things without really try.

[Flying Dice]

Oof, I suddenly have a really bad splitting headache and it gets hard at times to focus on my computer screen. I also have a thing I need to do, though, so I am going to just weather threw it (I only noticed this horrible spelling mistake after I read through this post a few minutes later. I'm leaving it). But the pain in my brain is no fun at all. Maybe I'll go take some ibuprofen, or something. Sitting at a computer for...the vast majority of a day is not a good thing.

Then for goodness' sake don't read the last few pages, babby's furst filosofy will just make it worse.

[quinnr]

Oof, I suddenly have a really bad splitting headache and it gets hard at times to focus on my computer screen. I also have a thing I need to do, though, so I am going to just weather threw it (I only noticed this horrible spelling mistake after I read through this post a few minutes later. I'm leaving it). But the pain in my brain is no fun at all. Maybe I'll go take some ibuprofen, or something. Sitting at a computer for...the vast majority of a day is not a good thing.

Then for goodness' sake don't read the last few pages, babby's furst filosofy will just make it worse.

I honestly probably couldn't read the last few pages if I tried. I can focus on like one line at a time before I need to take a break. Most of the stuff I'm typing right now I'm doing without looking at the screen.

And I will avoid that. I just had a large debate with someone (who was drunk) last night on the internet over whether possibility exists, and why we should have laws against driving drunk.

[Flying Dice]

Oof, I suddenly have a really bad splitting headache and it gets hard at times to focus on my computer screen. I also have a thing I need to do, though, so I am going to just weather threw it (I only noticed this horrible spelling mistake after I read through this post a few minutes later. I'm leaving it). But the pain in my brain is no fun at all. Maybe I'll go take some ibuprofen, or something. Sitting at a computer for...the vast majority of a day is not a good thing.

Then for goodness' sake don't read the last few pages, babby's furst filosofy will just make it worse.

I honestly probably couldn't read the last few pages if I tried. I can focus on like one line at a time before I need to take a break. Most of the stuff I'm typing right now I'm doing without looking at the screen.

And I will avoid that. I just had a large debate with someone (who was drunk) last night on the internet over whether possibility exists, and why we should have laws against driving drunk.

Okay, now I'm curious, were those both elements of the same argument?

[flabort]

I just want to chip in and say that I agree with the sentiment that yes, not having desire to perform the crude reproductive actions of "sex" with someone (I'd rather just splice my genes into a clone using a hair or something...) does not mean I don't desire money or fellowship or a bigger better computer, or games or spicy spicy food or an all you can eat buffet or fast food or an education or the ability to fly independently of other people (such as a jetpack or hoverboard).

I certainly desire things, but just not "curves" or the insertion of flesh into other flesh, or the fluids that come out of either flesh. Or imagery that brings to mind anything related to those acts or portions of anatomy (like most advertisements that objectify girls/women/females to get men to buy their products).

And I will avoid that. I just had a large debate with someone (who was drunk) last night on the internet over whether possibility exists, and why we should have laws against driving drunk.

I would argue FOR having laws against drunk driving. It's got a different name from driving for a reason. Most people would, I imagine (except people who drink and people who think that people who drink are harmless or faking it, plus maybe a few other exceptions).

However, this is where it gets strange, I would argue against possibility. And free will. Due to how I understand particle physics. Other people are allowed to think I am wrong, since I believe (notice I didn't say "choose to believe") that belief in free will is necessary for most people. I'm not going to say it's necessary to maintain their sanity, I'm perfectly sane despite a stressful job and a learning disability (though I like to say that the disability makes me "certified mildly insane", it's legally not true and I'm sane), and I don't believe in free will, but I believe that the people who do believe in it believe in it because the particles that they are made of are going to move in the patterns and have moved in the patterns that will make them believe in free will.

Simply put, I believe Newton's First Law applies even to particles of the tiniest immeasurable sizes, even when they cause particles that we can measure "spontaneously" appear in a seeming vacuum, and that they will always move in the way that they are going to move, and when they collide or exert forces on each other and act as outside forces, that's because they were always going to meet in that way at that time, and always will have.

[Orange Wizard]

inoquivicovly

[quinnr]

Oof, I suddenly have a really bad splitting headache and it gets hard at times to focus on my computer screen. I also have a thing I need to do, though, so I am going to just weather threw it (I only noticed this horrible spelling mistake after I read through this post a few minutes later. I'm leaving it). But the pain in my brain is no fun at all. Maybe I'll go take some ibuprofen, or something. Sitting at a computer for...the vast majority of a day is not a good thing.

Then for goodness' sake don't read the last few pages, babby's furst filosofy will just make it worse.

I honestly probably couldn't read the last few pages if I tried. I can focus on like one line at a time before I need to take a break. Most of the stuff I'm typing right now I'm doing without looking at the screen.

And I will avoid that. I just had a large debate with someone (who was drunk) last night on the internet over whether possibility exists, and why we should have laws against driving drunk.

Okay, now I'm curious, were those both elements of the same argument?

~snip~

And I will avoid that. I just had a large debate with someone (who was drunk) last night on the internet over whether possibility exists, and why we should have laws against driving drunk.

I would argue FOR having laws against drunk driving. It's got a different name from driving for a reason. Most people would, I imagine (except people who drink and people who think that people who drink are harmless or faking it, plus maybe a few other exceptions).

However, this is where it gets strange, I would argue against possibility. And free will. Due to how I understand particle physics. Other people are allowed to think I am wrong, since I believe (notice I didn't say "choose to believe") that belief in free will is necessary for most people. I'm not going to say it's necessary to maintain their sanity, I'm perfectly sane despite a stressful job and a learning disability (though I like to say that the disability makes me "certified mildly insane", it's legally not true and I'm sane), and I don't believe in free will, but I believe that the people who do believe in it believe in it because the particles that they are made of are going to move in the patterns and have moved in the patterns that will make them believe in free will.

Simply put, I believe Newton's First Law applies even to particles of the tiniest immeasurable sizes, even when they cause particles that we can measure "spontaneously" appear in a seeming vacuum, and that they will always move in the way that they are going to move, and when they collide or exert forces on each other and act as outside forces, that's because they were always going to meet in that way at that time, and always will have.

His argument was basically that because he didn't hurt anyone while he was driving drunk, that he should not have gotten a ticket, and that the law makes no sense. Which I guess makes sense if you have a completely nihilistic view of the world? If there weren't any kind of free will, we wouldn't need laws anyways, since life would be inherently pointless. You can't really argue against that kind of view, I guess.

[Neonivek]

inoquivicovly

Well you try spelling that!

[Yoink]

Asexual folk are pretty fucking weird (pun intended), but at least they aren't straigtedge nerds.

[Neonivek]

There is something that rubs me the wrong way about characters who are kind of... well

They become comfortable that the person they are attracted to will never really look for someone else and thus they feel free to reject their advances and essentially string them along only making moves IF they move on.

--

Also I think... I am just going to ignore the bad air around the term "Friend Zone"... because in spite of the controversy (which was 100% created because dumb people were using the term and equally dumb people noticed)

Everyone else who isn't online... using it appropriately which refers to being "Just a friend" towards someone you care about... and not this weird sexist term used by perverts.

Since at this point I have yet to hear it ONCE refer to anything but my definition... It makes the whole controversy dumb.

[Putnam]

His argument was basically that because he didn't hurt anyone while he was driving drunk, that he should not have gotten a ticket, and that the law makes no sense. Which I guess makes sense if you have a completely nihilistic view of the world? If there weren't any kind of free will, we wouldn't need laws anyways, since life would be inherently pointless. You can't really argue against that kind of view, I guess.

that point of view is dumb, since the inherent pointlessness of everything is not a reason to consider everything pointless

rainbows are inherently pointless, but seeing them is nice

iron is inherently pointless, but it's still useful

something being inherently pointless does not make it useless or worthless