Jezer's forum posts

#1 Edited by Jezer (3243 posts) - - Show Bio

@cbishop said:
@saren said:

I'm not talking about the issue number, I'm talking about the number at the end of the URL; 1635327 in this thread's case. If you just swapped out the profile/impurestcheese/blog section with forums/off-topic-5/, you would get the link as it is displayed o the forum page.

It is incredibly irritating to see the entire forum swarmed with this stuff, and getting passive-aggressive over the content of other threads doesn't change that.

Ooooo! Not "incredibly irritating!" Please! Anything but that! Again, I have now been done for over 35 minutes. Also... I didn't think my aggression was all that passive. I thought I was pretty outright about my disdain for most of the Off-Topic threads. Quit whining and move on. Another 30 minutes, and most of them will be off of the front page.

Regardless of how much you look down on the other threads, try not to ignore the fact that there was a more intelligent and efficient way for you to go about this. Seriously. Take a second and stop and think about this before your fire off another "ive been done!" "these threads are more important" holier-than-thou reply.

Your personal opinion that the quality of these threads make them more deserving of a spot at the top of the forum, or the quality of the other threads make them unimportant in comparison to your endeavor, is meaningless when you focus that this controversy ultimately stems from you choosing not to use your internet forum common sense to find the easiest way to go about this....lol

@mods: Sorry mods, couldn't resist throwing a jab in....

#2 Posted by Jezer (3243 posts) - - Show Bio

-_______- That feeling when you accidentally delete an attractive girl on Tinder in the midst of making plans to go out dancing.

I feel so salty right now.

#3 Edited by Jezer (3243 posts) - - Show Bio

@pooty said:

@jezer: Doing things for them has no practical, appreciable benefit that can be enjoyed or experienced when the decision is made.

1. Sometimes doing what you feel is best has no benefit to yourself. does not make it any less 'right'

Its not realistic because despite what you conceive of how you would behave, the reality is that in the situation you will feel emotion(as opposed to thinking about it coldly behind your keyboard).

I may change my mind. I may not. it is possible to override emotions

This may be true, or its a lie that you're telling yourself to sleep easy at night

It is true in everyones case. no one person can save everyone

The reality is you are putting them at a single point in time as therefore worthy to continue living, when you have no idea how long their "accomplishment" lasts

2. I can only go by what I see at present. I can't worry about unknowns

Its an arbitrary choice based on a shallow perspective of reality.

Your example is of one person making a single decision. This is billions of people who are giving peace a try and succeeded. That is not a shallow achievement. Being shallow is making a choice based off of selfishness or solely because it benefits you and the ones you love

1. No, but my point is that it has no tangible benefit for you or anyone around you or anyone in this universe,(you have a habit of simplifying what I say to the point that you're responding to not actually what I said) so for that reason, its not a practical exercise of moral choice. E.g. holding an animal's life above the human species. That is the most comparable example. Sure its good, but who enjoys the fruits of it---not you, anyone you know, society, any human beings. This is why people don't give to random charities on the opposite side of the world; people want to see the consequence, impact, and future caused by their good/moral decisions. That's reality.

2. That makes you a little narrow minded in your reasoning. This isn't an insult; you're literally considering a very narrow, arbitrary set of criteria for your choice, as opposed to carefully considering it(like I have done).

The rest of your replies aren't even worthy of my derision.

#4 Edited by Jezer (3243 posts) - - Show Bio

@pooty said:

@jezer: That means you have to focus on the differences that matter.

4. Yes and some are saying that the difference of them actually have succeeded at making peace work matters more then personal connections. I'm not saying i agree but i can definitely understand the sentiment. and i'm actually leaning toward that sentiment.

it means that you should have less concern for them--and that should be the deciding factor for you

3. this is very false. i'm only connected to a few dozen people on this earth. everyone else might as well be from that other earth. But what they have accomplished as a whole is more important then my few personal relationships. That is the deciding factor for me(or could be)

. However, there's a reason that most people hoard their resources for the people they love/their family--you care about them more

2. With my resources i can only help a few so i focus on the people i care about. This situation is totally different. In this situation the few people i care about don't "outweigh" what the other planet has accomplished. The fact that the entire world has accomplished something i can only dream of carries a lot of weight.

What you're advocating is neither practical, realistic, or even honorable

1. In this scenario saving another world is practical and realistic. Couldn't care less whether it's honorable. My choice will be made by values i feel are most important. Not what others consider honorable or 'right'

I'm gonna go opposite order, since I saw your final thing first

1. Its not practical because you don't get to experience it(unless you choose to). You're saving people that exist in theory, but the reality is they don't actually exist for you because they are not in your current existence. Its like sacrificing this planet to save one billions of light years away--you may have knowledge of their existence, but they don't exist in a tangible way for you. Doing things for them has no practical, appreciable benefit that can be enjoyed or experienced when the decision is made.

Its not realistic because despite what you conceive of how you would behave, the reality is that in the situation you will feel emotion(as opposed to thinking about it coldly behind your keyboard). There's a much greater chance in the moment that your emotion will cause you to make the choice based on personal attachment and emotions connected with actual people you know and love.

2. This may be true, or its a lie that you're telling yourself to sleep easy at night. You see all those commercials about how far donations can go in other countries, like Africa and those starving children. Unless you are truly broke, you can spare a dollar that goes so far for a village in Africa. Then you can spare a dollar for another. Then you can spare all your funds to save as many villages as possible. Regardless of your personal situation though, I was speaking in general and what I said is true of most middle class and even most poor in America.

3 and 4. They've accomplished something now, but you don't know if the next ten years brings war or famine. Likewise, we may not be at that point, but you don't know if the next 1000 years brings a better utopia here. The reality is you are putting them at a single point in time as therefore worthy to continue living, when you have no idea how long their "accomplishment" lasts. But you do know that likely in the past, they were at the same point that your current universe is at today. So, its an illusory difference that only exists in time/the present.

It'd be like if you saw someone stealing, and deemed them worthy of dying more than someone who is volunteering. Not realizing that the volunteer is going to go home and kill his wife one day while the thief would grow up to lead a movement that ends homelessness. Its an arbitrary choice based on a shallow perspective of reality.

#5 Posted by Jezer (3243 posts) - - Show Bio

I literally came in here because I thought you were talking about the Season finale of the Flash.

#6 Posted by Jezer (3243 posts) - - Show Bio

@pooty said:
@jezer said:

Would you really choose to switch the train to your own family because some random family has their shit together better than yours? No.

Incorrect. YES. Hell yes. My dad's brother's family is just like that dysfunctional family. drug addicts, abusive, lazy bums. But they're my cousins. I grew up with them. Still talk to them on a weekly basis. But i would EASILY sacrifice them to save a "good" family. No question about it. and if it was my immediate family i would do the same. we don't need families like that....anywhere

Welp...that's interesting. I'm sure most people would say no though.

Additionally, my analogy wasn't actually completely the same, because your family does not represent society. It would be like if your family was imperfect, but had the good with the bad. You had drug addicts and lazy bums, but you had volunteer workers and people trying to fix the environment as well. Versus a random perfect family that had no negative members.

The reality is that if the negative actions and behavior of some allows you to justify condemning the good others to death simply because they are a unit, then you have definitely wronged the goods members of your family and society--they might as well all be bad for how it matters to you.

Also, the moral math of "Well this universe is perfect, so it has more good people, so they deserve to live more" , which is the same as "this family has more good people, so they deserve to live more" is honestly just fallacious reasoning. We talked about this in my Moral Psychology class; people don't fully understand morality, so they use moral heuristics/shortcuts to make their decisions based on things they do understand. But these shortcuts don't actual make any actual moral sense and simply reflect a lazy way of thinking. 2 good people =/= deserve more to live than 1 good person. 3 =/= deserve more to live than two. A whole world of good people =/= more deserviing to live than say 50% of our current world. Math is math, morality is morality. Don't mix the two up.

#7 Edited by Jezer (3243 posts) - - Show Bio

@pooty said:
@jezer said:
@pooty said:

@yourneighborhoodcomicgeek: @jezer: Him saving a planet of peaceful humans is nothing like saving sloths. It's like saving humans. Maybes he's sick of the crap this world offers and finds contentment knowing another earth made it work. And maybe he doesn't want to live without his real family and friends but thinks the other world deserves to live. Nothing silly about his decision.

@guardiandevil83: Putting people like us in a utopia could be disastrous for both parties involved.

No... you're as connected to the people of the other Earth as you are to sloths. There may be a difference in how evolved/intelligent/etc the two are, but assuming hypothetically they are a relatively peaceful species, there's no real difference in terms of the only aspect that makes them different---"utopia".

In fact, I'd say that caring more about another species at the expense of your own is less extreme than caring more about another universe. Lol

If you're so empathetic and non-selfish that you care more about another universe than your own, then you should have enough empathy to care about animals rights at the expense of human's freedom to do what they want with them. Otherwise, you're doing this whole pseudo-altruism thing wrong/inconsistently.

My connection to the people of my earth in no way makes them more important or deserving of life then the people from other earth.

Both earths are equal. Only my bias and selfishness make me think there's a difference

Comparing humans to animals isn't a valid argument here because both earths contain humans.

Uh yes it does, because that is the only difference between the Earths(since the whole "utopia" thing is a non-factor). You just said that both Earths are equal. That means you have to focus on the differences that matter. Them being a utopia does not mean they are more deserving of life. Them being an entirely different universe doesn't mean they are "less deserving of life", it means that you should have less concern for them--and that should be the deciding factor for you.

The reality is that there are people in this world who need your help right this very second. People in third world countries. Poorer people. Etc. However, there's a reason that most people hoard their resources for the people they love/their family--you care about them more. A random person starving is not as important to you as your child starving. This is why people don't give all their money to people in need at the cost of the financial stability and success of their own loved ones, despite the fact no one is "more" or "less" deserving of life or food than another.

Its like a poor man searching for food for his son who stumbles across starving children. In the process of trying to feed every child he comes across, he's not left with food for his own and he starves to death. Either you turn a blind eye to your own "selfish" attachments to people and you try to help everyone in need, or you acknowledge that you care more about your starving son than others and you let other people starve.

What you're advocating is neither practical, realistic, or even honorable. Its a slippery slope that ignores psychology, emotion, and biology. Even philosophy: If I remember correctly, even Utilitarianism argues that it should be achieved by directing the propositions of the philosophy at your surrounding social group instead of society at large.

#8 Posted by Jezer (3243 posts) - - Show Bio

Btw- This entire scenario can be analogized to the Trolley Problem in philosophy. (Google it)

Except, instead of you having to choose between killing different amount of strangers-- you have your family and friend on one track(and the microcosm of issues they represent--let's say they're a broken family, they fight and steal from each other, they're selfish, etc., they scam people) and on the main track you have a family of people who you personally know are perfect; they volunteer, they donate, one of them is a doctor, others do public service, one of them is trying to cure cancer, etc.

Would you really choose to switch the train to your own family because some random family has their shit together better than yours? No.

#9 Edited by Jezer (3243 posts) - - Show Bio

@pooty said:

@yourneighborhoodcomicgeek: @jezer: Him saving a planet of peaceful humans is nothing like saving sloths. It's like saving humans. Maybes he's sick of the crap this world offers and finds contentment knowing another earth made it work. And maybe he doesn't want to live without his real family and friends but thinks the other world deserves to live. Nothing silly about his decision.

@guardiandevil83: Putting people like us in a utopia could be disastrous for both parties involved.

No... you're as connected to the people of the other Earth as you are to sloths. There may be a difference in how evolved/intelligent/etc the two are, but assuming hypothetically they are a relatively peaceful species, there's no real difference in terms of the only aspect that makes them different---"utopia".

In fact, I'd say that caring more about another species at the expense of your own is less extreme than caring more about another universe. Lol

If you're so empathetic and non-selfish that you care more about another universe than your own, then you should have enough empathy to care about animals rights at the expense of human's freedom to do what they want with them. Otherwise, you're doing this whole pseudo-altruism thing wrong/inconsistently.

#10 Edited by Jezer (3243 posts) - - Show Bio

@yourneighborhoodcomicgeek said:
@jezer said:
@yourneighborhoodcomicgeek said:

I'd let the other planet live. Don't know if I'd leave my planet though. May just die with my friends and family.

Lol why?

It doesn't matter if they're a utopia, especially since things like that could end. For all you know, the future of this present Earth is headed towards a utopia and a multi-versal dynasty that brings peace to multiple universes. The fact that that Earth is a "utopia" is really a non-factor, compared to the fact that you don't owe them anything and have no real connection with them.

Honestly put, this seems like the pseudo-noble choice, but its really just a silly choice. Its like sacrificing my species to save another because they are more peaceful....Sacrificing the human race to save Sloths.

I think you're looking into a hypothetical situation a bit too much mate. But honestly, an Earth that has already achieved world peace is miles ahead of where we're at or ever will be.

Because you know where life is headed in a thousand years. Not only is that pessimistic, but I don't see how that even matters.

How would that be any different from sacrificing the human species to save Sloths or *insert peaceful animal*? Lol.

EDIT: Also, I dont think theres a such thing as looking into a hypothetical scenario too much. In fact,that misses the point of the entire thing.