The Tavern

[Red]

...Saying we should do certain things as a society IS saying we should base society off those things to an extent.

I'm pretty sure we meant it in different context. I'm saying it should be considered, or at least play a factor. The basis of it is an entirely different thing.

Again, if you're going to say we should let lazy people die, you shouldn't be lazy as you do it.

You can't be that naive to assume that when I say that someone is lazy, I am including how much they read an argument on an internet forum.

You're starting to give me a headache.
I've never claimed they were enemies. I've claimed they can go hand in hand. I've also claimed that in some situations, you have to find which is more important.

It's the same thing. You're saying they're different from each other, and that in this case truth and morality are enemies, because we should value truth over morality.

As brimstone corrected, they're not enemies, rather the lesser of the 2 evils. Just correct that in my wording.

You literally only just said that my points were moot (with no evidence), and that by truth you mean "Not really, more like what needs to be done."

I said they're moot, since you assumed as to what I meant, then based the rest of your answers within that section on that assumption. That's why I said they were moot points.

Which also doesn't make sense, because "what needs to be done" is what's the most moral. Again, it's the same thing; you're making a differentiation where there is none. What is "what needs to be done" if not what is most moral? Why else would something need to be done?

I refer you to the answer I gave earlier.

Not sure what this means.

Just saying if you're too much of a pussy, people can take advantage of you.

Sometimes they don't play a role, because they're not always beneficial in your environment.

But you'll still need them.

Projection much...

I didn't read all of your last post in the discussion because I wasn't sure if you were trolling. I'm still not sure. But all you responded there was with the dismissive statement that I was referring to.

So you're admitting you didn't bother? You're just as lazy as you claim that I am if you didn't bother. Even if I was trolling, you could have still read it.

Instinct is different from intelligence.

I think that intelligence would lead you to believe the sound was wind blowing on the leaves, but that's just one example. The point is that different traits are beneficial in different environments.

Brimstone addressed this.

Not necessarily, since evolving itself isn't necessarily helpful.

Why not?

Again, if you think that 'the weak' dying would lead to more advancements, and that the advancements would help more people than were hurt from the people who died, then that's a discussion.

It's not just advancements, it's more about evolving. If anything, the more advancements, the slower we'll evolve, since we'll rely on our technology to live, from my understanding.

I don't know how else to explain this.^
...If you think 'the weak dying' -> human advancement -> an outcome that is so good that it's more good than 'the weak' dying is bad, then that's a legitimate discussion. But that's not what you seemed to be talking about.

I thought that's what this whole discussion was about.

[Red]

Red: Sometimes the most moral thing is to do the lesser of two evils. That doesn't mean we're choosing something else OVER morality, but that morality is based on consequences, so sometimes doing something harmful in the short term saves more harm in the future or leads to much greater gains in the future.

Ok, thank you for correcting me and my wording.

[Red]

Any ideas for vegan party snacks for omni guests?

Try fruit slices, or maybe vegetables.
I don't eat junk food, but maybe you have have tortilla chips or something.

Eh, it probably varies, why don't you just Google it?

[EquALLity]

I'm pretty sure we meant it in different context. I'm saying it should be considered, or at least play a factor. The basis of it is an entirely different thing.

This is just an issue with what you think basis means. It's irrelevant, though.

Whether or not you think it should be the 'basis', you believe that we should do certain things as a society because of an evolutionary process, which doesn't make sense.

You can't be that naive to assume that when I say that someone is lazy, I am including how much they read an argument on an internet forum.

That's not an assumption.

When you attack a certain thing and don't clarify that you mean only in a specific context, then it seems like you're attacking it as a whole.

I said they're moot, since you assumed as to what I meant, then based the rest of your answers within that section on that assumption. That's why I said they were moot points.

Well, that assumption didn't really make a difference, because the issues with what I assumed you meant were the same issues with what you clarified your position was. The real issue was your wording in regards to the lesser-of-two-evil stuff.

Just saying if you're too much of a pussy, people can take advantage of you.

Protecting yourself is understandable. It's like how it's ok to kill animals if you're stranded on a deserted island. But that doesn't mean that the most moral choice isn't best (I think you agree with this, and that is was just a problem with your wording).

But you'll still need them.

To evolve? Not necessarily.

So you're admitting you didn't bother? You're just as lazy as you claim that I am if you didn't bother. Even if I was trolling, you could have still read it.

It's not the same at all.
I stopped reading because I suspected you were trolling. Why would I bother reading if I thought you were BSing? You responded to my legitimate arguments without reading.

Brimstone addressed this.

Yeah, that example has some problems. The point that intelligence/strength aren't necessarily beneficial in evolving is still true, though.

Why not?

Evolving can be good or bad. It's just change to adapt to your environment.

It's not just advancements, it's more about evolving. If anything, the more advancements, the slower we'll evolve,

What? Do you want more advancements or not?
Before that was one of your reasons.

Well, more smart people will lead to more advancements. If you don't want more advancements, you should want more unintelligent people.

since we'll rely on our technology to live, from my understanding.

I don't understand your logic here.

I thought that's what this whole discussion was about.

Yeah, I think we had a few misunderstandings.

[Red]

This is just an issue with what you think basis means. It's irrelevant, though.

Whether or not you think it should be the 'basis', you believe that we should do certain things as a society because of an evolutionary process, which doesn't make sense.

Ok. Then why is survival of the fittest immoral.

That's not an assumption.

Yes it is. You assumed that I meant all lazy people, even though it should be obvious from the context that I only mean lazy people in our society.

When you attack a certain thing and don't clarify that you mean only in a specific context, then it seems like you're attacking it as a whole.

Are you serious?

Well, that assumption didn't really make a difference, because the issues with what I assumed you meant were the same issues with what you clarified your position was. The real issue was your wording in regards to the lesser-of-two-evil stuff.

But it's not what I meant.

Protecting yourself is understandable. It's like how it's ok to kill animals if you're stranded on a deserted island. But that doesn't mean that the most moral choice isn't best (I think you agree with this, and that is was just a problem with your wording).

Maybe.

To evolve? Not necessarily.

In reference to survival of the fittest.

It's not the same at all.
I stopped reading because I suspected you were trolling. Why would I bother reading if I thought you were BSing? You responded to my legitimate arguments without reading.

Firstly I wasn't BSing, secondly, you could've at least bothered reading it to find arguments that you would think were real. but you were too lazy to do so.

The point that intelligence/strength aren't necessarily beneficial in evolving is still true, though.

I refer you to the answer I gave earlier.

Evolving can be good or bad. It's just change to adapt to your environment.

You have to read the boom to get at what I'm saying.

What? Do you want more advancements or not?
Before that was one of your reasons.

Then it was a miscalculation. I wasn't against advanements, I just made the observation. Having things in moderation. Too much advancements can be detrimental, you know that right?

Well, more smart people will lead to more advancements. If you don't want more advancements, you should want more unintelligent people.

I refer you to the answer I gave earlier.

I don't understand your logic here.

What?

Yeah, I think we had a few misunderstandings.

Like that when time ol' Leo dropped the soap.

[EquALLity]

Ok. Then why not have survival of the fittest be immoral?

?

Yes it is. You assumed that I meant all lazy people, even though it should be obvious from the context that I only mean lazy people in our society.

Not sure what this means. Everyone is in a society.

Unless you mean only lazy people who are lazy in regards to helping society, but you didn't clarify that until later.

The point I was making by pointing out you were being lazy is that everyone is lazy sometimes. And how do you decide when someone is too lazy in regards to helping society? Everyone is lazy in regards to that sometimes as well. Where do you draw the line with this stuff?

Are you serious?

Yes.

It's like if you say, "Vegetables are terrible", but you really only meant carrots are terrible.

But it's not what I meant.

I know you meant lesser of two evils, but I couldn't before because that's not what you actually said.

Maybe.

Do you agree or disagree that the most moral option is the best?

In reference to survival of the fittest.

The fittest isn't necessarily the smartest/strongest. It's just the organisms that can produce the most offspring.

Firstly I wasn't BSing

I thought there was a good chance you were, so why would I continue reading your arguments?

you could've at least bothered reading it to find arguments that you would think were real.

I thought you were likely BSing, as in pretending to make real arguments like a troll. I didn't think you were making fake and real arguments together. That's not what trolls do.

but you were too lazy to do so.

No, I didn't see the point, because I didn't think you were being serious. That's not the same as you not bothering to go back and read to understand my arguments that you thought were real.

You have to read the boom to get at what I'm saying.

This is why I can't tell when you're trolling. You can't just throw in BS with actual arguments and expect me not to confuse the BS and the arguments.

Then it was a miscalculation. I wasn't against advanements, I just made the observation. Having things in moderation. Too much advancements can be detrimental, you know that right?

It depends on the advancements. But there's no general rule that a certain number of advancements is too much.

What?

I don't understand the logic behind people depending on technology halting evolution.

[Red]

?

I fucked that one up

Not sure what this means. Everyone is in a society.

This is on the internet.

Unless you mean only lazy people who are lazy in regards to helping society, but you didn't clarify that until later.

I did in the post you didn't read.

It's like if you say, "Vegetables are terrible", but you really only meant carrots are terrible.

I refer you to the answer I gave earlier.

I know you meant lesser of two evils, but I couldn't before because that's not what you actually said.

Then what did I say?

Do you agree or disagree that the most moral option is the best?

Disagree, but it can play a role, as I've already stated.

The fittest isn't necessarily the smartest/strongest. It's just the organisms that can produce the most offspring.

You know what, screw it, I'm not saying it again.

I thought there was a good chance you were, so why would I continue reading your arguments?

Lazy.

you could've at least bothered reading it to find arguments that you would think were real.

I thought you were likely BSing, as in pretending to make real arguments like a troll. I didn't think you were making fake and real arguments together. That's not what trolls do.

No, I didn't see the point, because I didn't think you were being serious. That's not the same as you not bothering to go back and read to understand my arguments that you thought were real.

but I did read them.

This is why I can't tell when you're trolling. You can't just throw in BS with actual arguments and expect me not to confuse the BS and the arguments.

Well too bad, you have to read them to make sure you don't miss anything.

It depends on the advancements. But there's no general rule that a certain number of advancements is too much.

But there are times when it should be obvious. Hopefully it doesn't happen, but Murka can produce a nuclear weapon that makes what everyone else have useless.

I don't understand the logic behind people depending on technology halting evolution.

It doesn't halt it, it slows it down. Evolution is something that happens when a species needs to adapt right? Well, if we see an issue, we can just invent something to take care of it for us.

[brimstoneSalad]

Any ideas for vegan party snacks for omni guests?

Baked, breaded mock-meats are good. Maybe with some kind of BBQ dipping sauce.
You can also make some kind of nut-cheese dip with sliced carrots, celery, etc.
As Red said, sliced fruit is a good option too.

[EquALLity]

This is on the internet.

Everyone on the Internet is apart of human society.

I did in the post you didn't read.

That's why I said "until later".

Then what did I say?

You made an argument about how 'truth is more important than morality', when you (I think) really meant that we should follow the lesser of two evils. How was I supposed to know you meant lesser of two evils?

Disagree, but it can play a role, as I've already stated.

You're sending mixed messages, and I'm really confused.

When you said we should value truth over morality, did you not really mean we should follow the lesser of two evils?
If not, and you don't think morality determines the best decision, what other factors are you using to determine the best decision?

Also, when I said this about how I understood the lesser of two evils point:

...If you think 'the weak dying' -> human advancement -> an outcome that is so good that it's more good than 'the weak' dying is bad, then that's a legitimate discussion. But that's not what you seemed to be talking about.

You then said that you thought that's what the argument was about, indicating you are basing this off of morality.

You know what, screw it, I'm not saying it again.

You haven't said anything to counter that point. All you've done is say that brimstone addressed it, when he didn't actually seem to disagree with the general point (just the particular example), and you've said that you think it matters in regards to survival of the fittest, but you haven't actually given a legitimate explanation as to why.

Lazy.

Ok, read this huge essay on why creationism is true: http://www.teenink.com/opinion/spiritua ... Evolution/

Oh, you won't, because you think it's BS? Too bad!!!11!1 You should read it anyway to see what arguments might be true!!!!!111 LAZYYYY!!!!!11111

but I did read them.

You didn't go back and read earlier posts to understand my arguments based on the context. Sometimes it seemed like you didn't even go back and read to find out what I was even responding to, but you replied anyway.

Well too bad, you have to read them to make sure you don't miss anything.

Ok, so read that essay on creationism, so you don't miss anyway potential good points.

But there are times when it should be obvious.

When what should be obvious? That a certain advancement is bad? That's irrelevant.

It doesn't halt it, it slows it down. Evolution is something that happens when a species needs to adapt right?

Well the species doesn't 'need' to adapt from my understanding, it just happens because certain individuals are better suited to the environment, so they reproduce more until their offspring dominate the gene-pool.

What does this have to do with technology?

Well, if we see an issue, we can just invent something to take care of it for us.

?

[Red]

Everyone on the Internet is apart of human society.

I'm pretty sure you could've figured out by yourself that it involved actual real life society, not reading something on the internet.

That's why I said "until later".

later what?

You made an argument about how 'truth is more important than morality', when you (I think) really meant that we should follow the lesser of two evils. How was I supposed to know you meant lesser of two evils?

I guess you're too lazy to figure that out.

You're sending mixed messages, and I'm really confused.

When you said we should value truth over morality, did you not really mean we should follow the lesser of two evils?
If not, and you don't think morality determines the best decision, what other factors are you using to determine the best decision?

It just depends on the situation.

You then said that you thought that's what the argument was about, indicating you are basing this off of morality.

sure whatever you say

You haven't said anything to counter that point. All you've done is say that brimstone addressed it, when he didn't actually seem to disagree with the general point (just the particular example), and you've said that you think it matters in regards to survival of the fittest, but you haven't actually given a legitimate explanation as to why.

I have addressed it somewhere. Go back and find it.

Ok, read this huge essay on why creationism is true: http://www.teenink.com/opinion/spiritua ... Evolution/

Oh, you won't, because you think it's BS? Too bad!!!11!1 You should read it anyway to see what arguments might be true!!!!!111 LAZYYYY!!!!!11111

No, because it's irrelevant to this discussion at hand, and isn't really worth my time, child (which is how you're acting right now). My arguments were relevant. Don't just throw red herrings out there.

You're acting as bad as Chris was in the suicide thread.

You didn't go back and read earlier posts to understand my arguments based on the context. Sometimes it seemed like you didn't even go back and read to find out what I was even responding to, but you replied anyway.

I was just about the tell you the same thing.

Ok, so read that essay on creationism, so you don't miss anyway potential good points.

I refer you to the answer I gave earlier.

You couldn't come up with a good comeback, so you came up with that, which we both know is a moot point.
I'm fairly certain there are some arguments that can be taken in to consideration, but that's not what we're talking about.
Stop being a jackass.

When what should be obvious? That a certain advancement is bad? That's irrelevant.

Why did you delete the part where I mentioned the nuclear war head?

Well the species doesn't 'need' to adapt from my understanding, it just happens because certain individuals are better suited to the environment, so they reproduce more until their offspring dominate the gene-pool.

Again, you'd have to read Thus Spoke Zarathustra to know what the Friedrich was talking about.

What does this have to do with technology?

Can you seriously not figure it out?

?

I've having trouble understanding what is so difficult to grasp.