Your post is hard to read. I recommend writing in shorter sentences and summarizing your main points at the end.
Furthermore, you should control the scope of your piece. You say at the beginning that you’re going to make the case against censorship. Unfortunately only paragraphs 3 and 4 do that. Then you rant about tangential topics. You should also control the scope of your sentences and paragraphs. Your sentences jump all over the place. Try to make one sentence say one thing, and have one paragraph contain one small idea.
In paragraphs 3 and 4, you claim that we humans declared certain combinations of words to be inherently evil. Then you go on to argue that that’s wrong because words don’t inherently correspond to their meanings. This seems to be your argument against censorship. But you don’t need to believe that certain combinations of words are inherently evil to be for censoring those words. You just need to believe that people hearing those words can result in things you don’t want. You seem to anticipate this sort of response earlier on (it’s hard to say, your writing isn’t easy to comprehend), but dismiss the response because apparently it’s irrational to feel emotions after seeing words. You think this because words don’t inherently mean anything. Why you feel we should only feel emotions when seeing things that inherently mean something is never explained.
In the rest of the piece, you try to make the point that morality is a human construct. And you go off on tangential rants about some things you consider retarded. Profanity aside, most people here would agree that morality is to some extent arbitrary. What I don’t see is why you believe that has anything to do with censorship.
Finally, I’m downvoting this mostly because it’s very poorly written. It takes way too much effort to figure out what you probably meant and I would like to see less of this on this site. You say you haven’t read a book since 8th grade. I’m sure you haven’t.
Please tell me if I’ve misrepresented what you’ve written.
you go on to argue that that’s wrong because words don’t inherently correspond to their meanings. This seems to be your argument against censorship. But you don’t need to believe that certain combinations of words are inherently evil to be for censoring those words. You just need to believe that people hearing those words can result in things you don’t want.
I don’t understand why your claim here would be true, though. How could a human just “not want” something if they don’t believe that something is inherent evil? They think it is arbitrary evil? Consciously claiming that an opinion is arbitrary then thinking that opinion is worth something seems absolutely ridiculous to me. Is it not impossible to win an argument if your position is entirely arbitrary?
You seem to anticipate this sort of response earlier on (it’s hard to say, your writing isn’t easy to comprehend), but dismiss the response because apparently it’s irrational to feel emotions after seeing words. You think this because words don’t inherently mean anything. Why you feel we should only feel emotions when seeing things that inherently mean something is never explained.
I was trying to argue that seeing things could never inherently mean anything, though. I was trying to affirm that emotion as it exists in the human mind is completely independent of all external constructs, such as words, or nudity.
Profanity aside, most people here would agree that morality is to some extent arbitrary. What I don’t see is why you believe that has anything to do with censorship.
I don’t know what you’re referring to here. If you’re referring to my proposing the breadth of this universe that was just to have done so so the notion of my argument expecting blind conformity out or readers would be killed.
Finally, I’m downvoting this mostly because it’s very poorly written. It takes way too much effort to figure out what you probably meant and I would like to see less of this on this site. You say you haven’t read a book since 8th grade. I’m sure you haven’t.
Passive aggression aside, I still do not understand how what I written was poor at all. I don’t understand what I did wrong. Why should I do any of what you suggest I do?
Passive aggression aside, I still do not understand how what I written was poor at all. I don’t understand what I did wrong. Why should I do any of what you suggest I do?
You might find you don’t get downvoted to oblivion
I hope you realize that you expect sheer, unadulterated blind conformity from me here, and that you have not even remotely attempted to prove my expression in the English language to be inherent evil, and your proposed amended iteration of my expression to be inherent good.
How could a human just “not want” something if they don’t believe that something is inherent evil?
I’m a picky eater. There are a lot of foods that I don’t want. But I don’t consider them inherently evil.
Swearing decreases my status, which means that I will make less money, which means that I won’t be able to afford to buy as many mosquito nets for poor africans, which means that more of them will die of malaria. If I swear, evil things will happen, but it’s not the swearing itself that’s evil.
In your first scenario, I just cannot understand… perhaps it is my simply lacking certain mental faculties here that would render my mind normal, but I cannot sympathize with just not wanting certain food while not actually claiming that your consuming that certain food will be inherent evil, or that the certain food is in itself inherent evil. If the evil is not inherent then the argument is arbitrary, as the evil you claim is not a fundamental property of that construct as it exists naturally in this universe. If I don’t want to eat something you could bet your ass that I would argue against my consuming that thing to the death...
In the second scenario that is one where one must compromise on what I believe to be the objective most rational method for the sake of accomplishing a side goal, which is different to simply forcing the world to tend to its most rational end. One might have to do that to simply continue living. That is a very cheap scenario to propose… the human’s irrational world makes it so you cannot be rational(as I perceive it) without possibly throwing your life away. Composing this paragraph was difficult, and the first paragraph here was a second draft but I’d like to be clear that I am of the opinion that it is impossible to think something is arbitrary evil, rather than inherent evil… arbitrary evil does not make sense to me…
Yes, it does, and it fits with my philosophy that thinking one’s own opinion is “arbitrary evil” is impossible...
I may have been subconsciously refraining from all-out proposing fundamental arguments that expound why I believe my opinions must be correct and all conceivable dissenting opinions must be wrong. I haven’t argued in a very long time… I’m surprised I can even express myself as well(in my opinion) as I can right now. One year ago I just wasn’t able to express my philosophy from so long of not doing so or considering it in English and I had to just apologize and leave the conversation. Wasn’t fun. Btdubs, this entire paragraph is just myself stalling because I can’t submit this post yet… system claims I am trying to submit too fast… had to wait 10 minutes I believe,
So anyway, from correlating what I perceive to be objective good to all parts of itself and from giving my perception of objective evil the same treatment I believe the food you like should turn you on, which is really great. I highly recommend it. Unfortunately, after I assimilated scat and vore fetishism and such to myself just to have the sympathy I had to change some stuff.
It sucks that humans can’t actually bite into bone and the like as easily as other animals… Would be cool.
Maybe I committed the Like Mind Fallacy and you really are like you said? If so, I think there’s something seriously wrong with you. Being that extreme about everything can’t be healthy. Being turned on is fun and all, but I don’t think it’s supposed to happen as often as you suggest.
Mate, I assure you that I worship reason and only ask for reason to think and do, and only wish to give others reason to think and do. I don’t lie… I do not believe lying to be inherent good. The only times I lie would be in the scenarios where telling the truth and inherently totally adhering to my philosophy would compromise my existence in this world, for instance. Living unaffected by the human is at the moment more important to be than being the best in all aspects...
Fucking… I have to wait six more minutes to post this. But yeah, I am turned on by everything I think is good. I think it’s really great. I may as well say the following since I am at −16 karma and talking about random shit to occupy time but I am a gigantic furry. Do you know what a furry is? I define a furry as one who believes that the human is not good enough, so they replace aspects of them with something feral. I think it’s absolutely amazing… There is an entire fuckhuge community- ancient, too. This shit was happening before the internet- of users out there who believe they either sympathize with a feral creature more than the human, or they find the human something less than ideal so they replace parts of them with something feral. It is an extremely convenient correlation to force, too, as feral creatures universally have no perception of right or wrong as far as the human knows. They simply are. By correlating your understanding of good to the feral creature- which you are by being a furry- you basically try to rid yourself of your inferior, human traits, which is kind of endearing in a way, but the majority of furries don’t view it from that radical of a viewpoint. They worship feral creatures, yes, at least in their own way, but to them they’re just indulging in emotion… I treat it as a science that has to be conquered.
I forgot why I started on this thing about furries. Never mind, I scrolled up and saw. I’m turned on by my laptop too.
I have 30 more seconds to waste but, one of the inherent upsides to being a furry is that, if you are an otherkin, meaning you view yourself as an animal of some sort when your eyes are closed, so to speak but in the extreme circumstances even when they are open, you actively saturate all perceived negative aspects of your form you grasp at the moment with your understanding of pleasure, which is the furry creature you identify as. I highly recommend it… it sounds fucked but since the distinctions are so clear it is likely much more safe than doing the same with human worship.
Your post is hard to read. I recommend writing in shorter sentences and summarizing your main points at the end.
Furthermore, you should control the scope of your piece. You say at the beginning that you’re going to make the case against censorship. Unfortunately only paragraphs 3 and 4 do that. Then you rant about tangential topics. You should also control the scope of your sentences and paragraphs. Your sentences jump all over the place. Try to make one sentence say one thing, and have one paragraph contain one small idea.
In paragraphs 3 and 4, you claim that we humans declared certain combinations of words to be inherently evil. Then you go on to argue that that’s wrong because words don’t inherently correspond to their meanings. This seems to be your argument against censorship. But you don’t need to believe that certain combinations of words are inherently evil to be for censoring those words. You just need to believe that people hearing those words can result in things you don’t want. You seem to anticipate this sort of response earlier on (it’s hard to say, your writing isn’t easy to comprehend), but dismiss the response because apparently it’s irrational to feel emotions after seeing words. You think this because words don’t inherently mean anything. Why you feel we should only feel emotions when seeing things that inherently mean something is never explained.
In the rest of the piece, you try to make the point that morality is a human construct. And you go off on tangential rants about some things you consider retarded. Profanity aside, most people here would agree that morality is to some extent arbitrary. What I don’t see is why you believe that has anything to do with censorship.
Finally, I’m downvoting this mostly because it’s very poorly written. It takes way too much effort to figure out what you probably meant and I would like to see less of this on this site. You say you haven’t read a book since 8th grade. I’m sure you haven’t.
Please tell me if I’ve misrepresented what you’ve written.
I don’t understand why your claim here would be true, though. How could a human just “not want” something if they don’t believe that something is inherent evil? They think it is arbitrary evil? Consciously claiming that an opinion is arbitrary then thinking that opinion is worth something seems absolutely ridiculous to me. Is it not impossible to win an argument if your position is entirely arbitrary?
I was trying to argue that seeing things could never inherently mean anything, though. I was trying to affirm that emotion as it exists in the human mind is completely independent of all external constructs, such as words, or nudity.
I don’t know what you’re referring to here. If you’re referring to my proposing the breadth of this universe that was just to have done so so the notion of my argument expecting blind conformity out or readers would be killed.
Passive aggression aside, I still do not understand how what I written was poor at all. I don’t understand what I did wrong. Why should I do any of what you suggest I do?
You might find you don’t get downvoted to oblivion
I hope you realize that you expect sheer, unadulterated blind conformity from me here, and that you have not even remotely attempted to prove my expression in the English language to be inherent evil, and your proposed amended iteration of my expression to be inherent good.
I’m a picky eater. There are a lot of foods that I don’t want. But I don’t consider them inherently evil.
Swearing decreases my status, which means that I will make less money, which means that I won’t be able to afford to buy as many mosquito nets for poor africans, which means that more of them will die of malaria. If I swear, evil things will happen, but it’s not the swearing itself that’s evil.
In your first scenario, I just cannot understand… perhaps it is my simply lacking certain mental faculties here that would render my mind normal, but I cannot sympathize with just not wanting certain food while not actually claiming that your consuming that certain food will be inherent evil, or that the certain food is in itself inherent evil. If the evil is not inherent then the argument is arbitrary, as the evil you claim is not a fundamental property of that construct as it exists naturally in this universe. If I don’t want to eat something you could bet your ass that I would argue against my consuming that thing to the death...
In the second scenario that is one where one must compromise on what I believe to be the objective most rational method for the sake of accomplishing a side goal, which is different to simply forcing the world to tend to its most rational end. One might have to do that to simply continue living. That is a very cheap scenario to propose… the human’s irrational world makes it so you cannot be rational(as I perceive it) without possibly throwing your life away. Composing this paragraph was difficult, and the first paragraph here was a second draft but I’d like to be clear that I am of the opinion that it is impossible to think something is arbitrary evil, rather than inherent evil… arbitrary evil does not make sense to me…
I consider the discomfort that will result if I attempt to eat the food to be inherently evil. Does that count?
Yes, it does, and it fits with my philosophy that thinking one’s own opinion is “arbitrary evil” is impossible...
I may have been subconsciously refraining from all-out proposing fundamental arguments that expound why I believe my opinions must be correct and all conceivable dissenting opinions must be wrong. I haven’t argued in a very long time… I’m surprised I can even express myself as well(in my opinion) as I can right now. One year ago I just wasn’t able to express my philosophy from so long of not doing so or considering it in English and I had to just apologize and leave the conversation. Wasn’t fun. Btdubs, this entire paragraph is just myself stalling because I can’t submit this post yet… system claims I am trying to submit too fast… had to wait 10 minutes I believe,
So anyway, from correlating what I perceive to be objective good to all parts of itself and from giving my perception of objective evil the same treatment I believe the food you like should turn you on, which is really great. I highly recommend it. Unfortunately, after I assimilated scat and vore fetishism and such to myself just to have the sympathy I had to change some stuff.
It sucks that humans can’t actually bite into bone and the like as easily as other animals… Would be cool.
Maybe I committed the Like Mind Fallacy and you really are like you said? If so, I think there’s something seriously wrong with you. Being that extreme about everything can’t be healthy. Being turned on is fun and all, but I don’t think it’s supposed to happen as often as you suggest.
Mate, I assure you that I worship reason and only ask for reason to think and do, and only wish to give others reason to think and do. I don’t lie… I do not believe lying to be inherent good. The only times I lie would be in the scenarios where telling the truth and inherently totally adhering to my philosophy would compromise my existence in this world, for instance. Living unaffected by the human is at the moment more important to be than being the best in all aspects...
Fucking… I have to wait six more minutes to post this. But yeah, I am turned on by everything I think is good. I think it’s really great. I may as well say the following since I am at −16 karma and talking about random shit to occupy time but I am a gigantic furry. Do you know what a furry is? I define a furry as one who believes that the human is not good enough, so they replace aspects of them with something feral. I think it’s absolutely amazing… There is an entire fuckhuge community- ancient, too. This shit was happening before the internet- of users out there who believe they either sympathize with a feral creature more than the human, or they find the human something less than ideal so they replace parts of them with something feral. It is an extremely convenient correlation to force, too, as feral creatures universally have no perception of right or wrong as far as the human knows. They simply are. By correlating your understanding of good to the feral creature- which you are by being a furry- you basically try to rid yourself of your inferior, human traits, which is kind of endearing in a way, but the majority of furries don’t view it from that radical of a viewpoint. They worship feral creatures, yes, at least in their own way, but to them they’re just indulging in emotion… I treat it as a science that has to be conquered.
I forgot why I started on this thing about furries. Never mind, I scrolled up and saw. I’m turned on by my laptop too.
I have 30 more seconds to waste but, one of the inherent upsides to being a furry is that, if you are an otherkin, meaning you view yourself as an animal of some sort when your eyes are closed, so to speak but in the extreme circumstances even when they are open, you actively saturate all perceived negative aspects of your form you grasp at the moment with your understanding of pleasure, which is the furry creature you identify as. I highly recommend it… it sounds fucked but since the distinctions are so clear it is likely much more safe than doing the same with human worship.
They could think it leads indirectly to undesirable consequences.