Opinions on stuff?

[Megachangeling12 110]

I believe that potatoes would be a better master race than humans

 

anything would be a better master species then humans .

[Luna the Great of all the Russias 3,219]

anything would be a better master species then humans .

Disagreed. Humans are the rightful master species.

[1Bit 1,531]

anything would be a better master species then humans .

Probably, at least the other species wouldn't have the capability to destroy the world 

[Steel Accord 6,660]

I believe that potatoes would be a better master race than humans 

 

 

anything would be a better master species then humans .

 

I vehemently disagree with both of you. I am a philanthropist, I love humanity. It would perhaps be batter to say I am a Sentophile. Humans, A.G.I., Upilifted Animals. All would be equal in status if not ability. Damn species, and damn misanthropy, it's the individual person that makes existence and civilization great.

Probably, at least the other species wouldn't have the capability to destroy the world 

 

Who's to say they wouldn't? If chimps evolved to replace us, Planet of the Apes style who's to say they couldn't repeat our mistakes? They're mortal and fallible to as well.

[Sugar Pea 2,683]

My opinion on stuff is that stuff is stuff. Speaking of stuff, have you even seen stuff? Like bro, that stuff is for real!

[Luna the Great of all the Russias 3,219]

This response to criticism is invalid:

 

>"This game is terrible; clearly no effort has been put into it and was made just to milk money out of people"

>"I yeah? I'd like to see you make a better game."

 

So you're saying that you shouldn't be able to criticize something because you yourself have no experience in creating the same sort of thing? Following that logic means the vast majority of criticism on everything are invalid. So there's a newly released AAA full priced game that's been released and the vast majority of the content must be purchased as separate DLC? Unless you have made the same sort of game but better, you can't say that the company is being a scumbag.

 

It really is a go-to response to criticism.

[Omar 692]

Black and white are my favorite colors, of course during winter i wear all black and during summer all white.

Black and white are not colors...

I felt like I needed to post this.

[Tom Snyder 4,113]

Black and white are not colors...

I felt like I needed to post this.

I know that, i just can't break saying that.

[Stardust Balance 7,743]

I, in my respectful opinion, don't believe in the existence of good, evil or morality overall.

[Shenron00 366]

Black and white are not colors...

I felt like I needed to post this.

Well, white actually is since it is the combination of all colors (learned that a week ago).

I, in my respectful opinion, don't believe in the existence of good, evil or morality overall.

How does that work out? How can you not believe in morality? If morality isn't real, then I ask you this: are murder, rape, genocide, theivery, and greed okay?

[Blackshirt Brony 415]

Well, I believe GTA is a very distasteful game; and silly  BOOM! controversial opinion....whatcha gunna do? 

 

I would agree that it's "distasteful" and "silly," but for very different reasons. GTA V, specifically, is incredibly overrated and a disgrace to its ancestors, having omitted many of the features that made the series famous to begin with. Really folks, GTA's brother sandbox games like Sleeping Dogs and Red Dead Redemption blow it out of the water...

 

In my opinion anyway

[Twisted Cyclone 🚓 6,293]

Tornadoes are really awesome and cool.

Toyotas are terrible vehicles

Rainbow Dash is best pony

I could careless about politics, it's all lies to me

Golf is a really boring sport

[Ziggy + Angel + Rain 11,307]

How does that work out? How can you not believe in morality? If morality isn't real, then I ask you this: are murder, rape, genocide, theivery, and greed okay?

Morality is entirely subjective, has changed / will likely continue to change throughout human history, and varies from culture to culture and from individual to individual.  Objective morality simply does not exist.  Do I think it's wrong to kill someone?  If I'm limited to a straight "yes" or "no" response: Yes.  Does a serial killer think it's wrong to kill someone?  Then you have about a thousand different shades of gray in between.  "I feared for my life.  I feared for my family.  It was an accident.  They had something I really, really wanted.  I had pledged to avenge the death of my father.  They looked at me funny.  Someone told me to do it, and I'm very susceptible to peer pressure."

[Blackshirt Brony 415]

Morality is entirely subjective, has changed / will likely continue to change throughout human history, and varies from culture to culture and from individual to individual.  Objective morality simply does not exist.  Do I think it's wrong to kill someone?  If I'm limited to a straight "yes" or "no" response: Yes.  Does a serial killer think it's wrong to kill someone?  Then you have about a thousand different shades of gray in between.  "I feared for my life.  I feared for my family.  It was an accident.  They had something I really, really wanted.  I had pledged to avenge the death of my father.  They looked at me funny.  Someone told me to do it, and I'm very susceptible to peer pressure."

 

The brain being an organ, morality is just medicine of the mind. Your hypothetical serial killer may not believe in physical pain, just as he denies moral sense, but that will change when he is beaten with a police baton.

[Ziggy + Angel + Rain 11,307]

The brain being an organ, morality is just medicine of the mind. Your hypothetical serial killer may not believe in physical pain, just as he denies moral sense, but that will change when he is beaten with a police baton.

One: My hypothetical serial killer stubbed his toe this one time.  He believes in physical pain.  I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that most people - regardless of how many people they've killed - believe in / have experienced physical pain.  Morality =/= physical pain.  It may well lead to emotional pain, but emotional responses - should they occur at all - can vary tremendously.  Two: Will beating him with a police baton necessarily change his moral perspective? xD  Will beating him with a police baton change morality itself?  Will it make what he did objectively right or wrong?  Is what the policeman is doing objectively right or wrong?

[Blackshirt Brony 415]

One: My hypothetical serial killer stubbed his toe this one time.  He believes in physical pain.  I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that most people - regardless of how many people they've killed - believe in / have experienced physical pain.  Morality =/= physical pain.  It may well lead to emotional pain, but emotional responses - should they occur at all - can vary tremendously.  Two: Will beating him with a police baton necessarily change his moral perspective? xD  Will beating him with a police baton change morality itself?  Will it make what he did objectively right or wrong?  Is what the policeman is doing objectively right or wrong?

 

You're adding too many assumptions to your theory. The serial killer stubs his toe, and experiences physical pain. He attacks a victim, and they experience a chemical response. Just like viruses, police batons, and toe-stubbing, immoral acts are harmful to the physical being. Things only become confused when you throw in "but what if the killer believes differently?" because it presupposes that these chemical responses are somehow independent of human well-being, which they are not.

[Shenron00 366]

Morality is entirely subjective, has changed / will likely continue to change throughout human history, and varies from culture to culture and from individual to individual.  Objective morality simply does not exist.  Do I think it's wrong to kill someone?  If I'm limited to a straight "yes" or "no" response: Yes.  Does a serial killer think it's wrong to kill someone?  Then you have about a thousand different shades of gray in between.  "I feared for my life.  I feared for my family.  It was an accident.  They had something I really, really wanted.  I had pledged to avenge the death of my father.  They looked at me funny.  Someone told me to do it, and I'm very susceptible to peer pressure."

Sure, there are some things that can be debated about, but there are other things that are simply immoral whether someone believes it or not. Objective morality can exist, it's just that we don't all agree on what those moral laws are. There are some things that are just inexcusable to do.

[Ziggy + Angel + Rain 11,307]

You're adding too many assumptions to your theory. The serial killer stubs his toe, and experiences physical pain. He attacks a victim, and they experience a chemical response. Just like viruses, police batons, and toe-stubbing, immoral acts are harmful to the physical being. Things only become confused when you throw in "but what if the killer believes differently?" because it presupposes that these chemical responses are somehow independent of human well-being, which they are not.

Fundamentally, mine is not a theory; it is fact.  Morality is a human invention.  The concept of morality, on this planet, did not appear before we did.  And it is digested and regurgitated and questioned and reinvented in every time period in every culture in every human brain.  While it is a survival mechanism of sorts and would generally help one avoid a policeman's baton (seriously, though, don't policeman have guns?  is the baton even the nonlethal go-to for the modern day policeman?), there are still people who will not subscribe to a specific moral perspective.  However popular said perspective might be.

 

I don't think you're talking about morality at all; you're talking about consequences.  Consequences don't shape morality; consequences shape behavior.  Fear shapes behavior.  A person can still (by this or that person's arbitrary standards) be an immoral individual that simply refrains from committing an immoral act because they fear the consequences of their actions.  Even if they would gladly commit said immoral act were the consequences removed from the equation.  On the other hand, there are people who wouldn't commit an immoral act even if there were no foreseeable consequences.  But whether or not the act is immoral is still decided on an individual basis - and by no means universally agreed upon.  Also, legality and morality aren't the same thing; there have been many laws that I would personally consider immoral.

[ThatOneComrade 1,092]

I think celery is the worst vegetable to plague this beautiful earth.

[marshmallowminish 183]

I believe that Big Hero 6 is the best Disney movie of all time. It didn't need a romantic subplot to be good- which I really appreciated. 

[Ziggy + Angel + Rain 11,307]

Sure, there are some things that can be debated about, but there are other things that are simply immoral whether someone believes it or not. Objective morality can exist, it's just that we don't all agree on what those moral laws are. There are some things that are just inexcusable to do.

Nothing is objectively moral or objectively immoral.  Nothing.  These things you mentioned are inexcusable because we feel they are inexcusable.  We have an emotional response that influences our individual moral perspectives.  Morality is changeable and reliant upon subjectivity.  Morality is even capable of being manipulated to serve someone's arguably immoral purposes.  Morality is 100% belief.  In the mind of an individual: If you do not believe it is wrong to kill...  It isn't wrong to kill.  Or someone who disagrees with killing one person might agree with killing another.  Selective morality.  Situation-specific morality.  You can bend it.  You can warp it.  You can alter and customize it to meet your specific needs and circumstances.

 

Life is not a board game (despite the Game of Life being a board game).  There is not - nor will there ever be - a universally agreed upon set of rules.  And even if there were, some people would still cheat; even going so far as to justify their own actions.  Therefore transforming the immoral into the...  Acceptable.

 

Now here's the part I most want everyone quoting me to understand: It's good that morality is subjective.  It's good that we possess minds of our own and can decide right and wrong for ourselves; on an individual basis.  If right and wrong were fixed, inarguable, conclusively decided things...  Would being moral even matter?

 

No.

 

Because when you choose to do what you feel is right - or choose not to do what you feel is wrong - you've made a conscious decision.  Your actions were not decided by some ridiculous and rigid set of rules.  You said: "This feels wrong.  So I won't do it."  So arguing in favor of objective morality is, in my own personal, entirely dependent upon subjectivity-type opinion...

 

Immoral.

 

Because you'd take choice away from everyone.  And, in depriving us of choice and free thinking, you've deprived us of consciously making moral decisions.

I think celery is the worst vegetable to plague this beautiful earth.

I like it okay in soup; it's far less offensive that way.

[Shenron00 366]

Nothing is objectively moral or objectively immoral.  Nothing.  These things you mentioned are inexcusable because we feel they are inexcusable.  We have an emotional response that influences our individual moral perspectives.  Morality is changeable and reliant upon subjectivity.  Morality is even capable of being manipulated to serve someone's arguably immoral purposes.  Morality is 100% belief.  In the mind of an individual: If you do not believe it is wrong to kill...  It isn't wrong to kill.  Or someone who disagrees with killing one person might agree with killing another.  Selective morality.  Situation-specific morality.  You can bend it.  You can warp it.  You can alter and customize it to meet your specific needs and circumstances.

 

Life is not a board game (despite the Game of Life being a board game).  There is not - nor will there ever be - a universally agreed upon set of rules.  And even if there were, some people would still cheat; even going so far as to justify their own actions.  Therefore transforming the immoral into the...  Acceptable.

 

Now here's the part I most want everyone quoting me to understand: It's good that morality is subjective.  It's good that we possess minds of our own and can decide right and wrong for ourselves; on an individual basis.  If right and wrong were fixed, inarguable, conclusively decided things...  Would being moral even matter?

 

No.

 

Because when you choose to do what you feel is right - or choose not to do what you feel is wrong - you've made a conscious decision.  Your actions were not decided by some ridiculous and rigid set of rules.  You said: "This feels wrong.  So I won't do it."  So arguing in favor of objective morality is, in my own personal, entirely dependent upon subjectivity-type opinion...

 

Immoral.

 

Because you'd take choice away from everyone.  And, in depriving us of choice and free thinking, you've deprived us of consciously making moral decisions.

 

I like it okay in soup; it's far less offensive that way.

It seems you and I have a slight miscommunication. True, not all moral laws are objective but some (albeit very few) are. Take rape for instance. There is literally NO excuse to force sex onto somebody. Sure, a rapist may not find it wrong, but that doesn't mean it's not an evil act to commit.

[Ziggy + Angel + Rain 11,307]

@@Shenron00

I feel, passionately, that that act is more reprehensible and unforgivable than perhaps any other.  I wish everyone thought and felt that way.  But they don't.  Otherwise, no one would do it.  Objective morality is not necessary in order to prevent anyone from committing that act.  Personal morality is.  Which is what I think morality is in general: Personal.  Dependent upon feeling.  A capacity for empathy.  That's what makes morality something of worth.

Edited April 4, 2015 by Ziggy and Angelbaby

[Shenron00 366]

@@Shenron00

I feel, passionately, that that act is more reprehensible and unforgivable than perhaps any other.  I wish everyone thought and felt that way.  But they don't.  Otherwise, no one would do it.  Objective morality is not necessary in order to prevent anyone from committing that act.  Personal morality is.  Which is what I think morality is in general: Personal.  Dependent upon feeling.  A capacity for empathy.  That's what makes morality something of worth.

Hmm....yeah, I suppose you may be right....

[ThatOneComrade 1,092]

I like it okay in soup; it's far less offensive that way.

Yeah, gotta agree with you on that.