Search results

@starch12313 No. Not what I said. But then, you already knew that, didn't you? "If something is objectively evil, then how can evil be subjective?" is not the insightful question you are trying to pretend it is. No. But you are going to proceed with the rest of your argument as if I answered...

@starch12313 Cool bait. You do realise neither of your questions is relevant, right? The original thesis I disagreed with was "you cannot be called evil if society you are part doesn't think you are evil", which is false regardless of whether objective evil exists or not. After all, if evil is...

@Lucrecia Well, you clearly already have an answer to that: dogpile everyone who dares to acknowledge that characters in works of fiction that do bad things did bad things. More putting words in other peoples mouthes. Booooriiiing. Come up with better arguments, please. That is factually...

@Chizan And yet you just advised someone who called out a character in story for bad behaviour to stop reading the story, as if acknowledging characters' faults is the same as not liking the story. Curious, isn't it?

@Chizan Is that how you treat fiction you consume? Only read books that contain good things happening to people you agree with, so that you never had to — the horror! — sympathise with a victim of something you consider unjust? Because that approach would explain a lot about the concerning lack...

@Lucrecia It is also in human nature to do none of the above. Whatever we humans do, it is by our choice. That is the human nature, as is condemning people who harm other people, and as is condemning people for making up shitty excuses for people who harm other people. Good thing nobody does...

@Lucrecia This analogy doesn't make any sense, because the entire point in condemning people for exploiting other people is because they are people. It would make sense for future AI to condemn people-in-our-future for exploiting other conscious AI immediately after its creation, but not for...

Okay, I'm just going to respond to one person who at least seems like they are trying before I go to sleep. @EnderWin After they've been corrected several times, misinterpretation does not sound plausible anymore. Also I can't what you are trying to in that last sentence. Did you accidentally...

@Artemi Right. You said a thing that makes no sense, as we already established. The first part does not follow from the second despite you implying that it does. That's a non sequitur: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non_sequitur In fact, why don't you read more articles there? You clearly need it.

@Artemi "Animals can't be dogs" "no they can" "So by your logic all animals are dogs?" —your argument in a nutshell. Just because one can be evil for doing X, doesn't mean they must be evil for doing X (at least not for every X). It's in the article I linked. It isn't even long. Consider...

@Artemi No, that's not how logic works. What you are doing right now is a fallacy called "denying the antecedent". See more here: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

@Official229 Dude. You were corrected. Repeatedly. You just chose to ignore all the corrections. But sure, I'll humor you again Wrong. Here's the actual clashing assumptions: Yours: "is that, you cannot be evil for doing x, if the society in that time and place does not deem it to be evil."...

@Artemi I'm still not buying the bankruptcy argument, but even if not having slaves means not having business, maybe you should… not have a business and get an honest job instead? Nonsensical argument. You can't just force someone to have a person as a property. Besides, I already mentioned it...

@Artemi Release the slaves. Duh. Like @Broken25 said, it's the only moral choice. Also, like they already mentioned, possibility for releasing slaves was a built-in part of insitute of slavery in almost every society that had an institute of slavery, so your argument is just plain wrong...

@Official229 What you said was repeating and rephrasing what Scrwd said, which is "You cannot be evil when your actions during your time and place were not considered evil". That "being bad" somehow depends on when and where and what and who thinks about "being bad". That's pretty unambiguous...

@Artemi You don't need "modern conscience" to realise that if you wouldn't want to have bad things happen to you, other people aren't likely to want them happen to themselves either. Which is why abolotionism existed back when all the popular kids thought slavery was a-OK.

@Mastertim1 "If someone says that bad things are bad, it's not because they actually think bad things are bad, it's because they want to impress girls on the internet. Also, «appreciating a story» means never thinking about things that happen in story, ever." Truely, your logic is flawless. I am...

Yeah, "some people", wink-wink-nudge-nudge. Not @Scrwd, obviously, because that would mean Scrwd is not a good person and Scrwd knows he's a good person, so he must be, right? Right?

Nah, you were telling me that the things they did weren't bad. That's what the words you said mean when arranged in the order you said them. And now you are trying to gaslight me into thinking that I argued not about them being people who do bad things, but about the reasons they became such...

@Official229 No, just with this I am seeing that some people are capable of some impressive mental gymnastics to delude themselves into thinking that something obviously bad isn't bad. The point I am trying to make that this interpretation of morality is dumb and wrong. You obviously can...