/b/ -Burrow

Dos ah fart stik if they noone thir to smew it?

>>1192

>>1192
What does 42 mean?

>>1194
Yea I think so we just don't perceive it so it might as well not.
>>1196
It's a numerical value used to indicate a specific number of entities, or cocoa nuts.

>>1192
>From a vegans point of view, would stealing already shelved meat and eating it be unethical?
Vegans believe eating meat is unethical, and stealing in itself is already unethical for anybody. Therefore, a vegan stealing meat AND eating it is doubly unethical, for they have stolen something and eaten meat.

>Is hedonism bad even when bringing no harm to others other than those who created you?
Harming others ceases to be hedonism, that just appears to be taking pleasure at other people's expense, a.k.a. malice. Whether or not it is "bad" is a different question, but let us first clarify that that is definitely not hedonism if you are taking pleasure at the expense of others ("those who created you"). Basically, if you take pleasure from other's pain, so can those who created you take pleasure in YOUR pain, perpetuating the vicious cycle.

I don't know about you, but that does not sound very good at all if others take pleasure at your pain. The way out of this is to recognize and isolate the cycle, and then abandon it entirely the same way that Buddhists recognize and isolate the futile cycle of life and become ascetics and such.

>Is having children equal to indirect murder?
Yes and no. This is going to be a very gray response to a very gray question, and the reason being is that if two massively unprepared adults have children in extremely shitty circumstances (i.e. they had unprotected sex whilst jobless or in poverty, etc. and can't reasonably support children but got them anyway) then yes, they have "indirectly murdered" their own children when those kids are abused from parental incompetence, neglected, grow up to become criminals or deeply troubled individuals, and then disposed by society when they inevitably get shot by people in self-defense, by the police, or just prosecuted into jail (basically a death sentence of its own).

All because the normie parents didn't think with their brain and not their genitals to use a condom, or abort their child (the question of abortion as murder is a different topic, but in all honesty I don't think any child would delibately choose to be born in shitty conditions). Now this thought process is a bit of stretch for sure, but normies who can't properly support children shouldn't have children at all, and I think we can all agree with that.

However, suppose that the child's parents were prepared, wealthier, well-off, and can in fact properly support a NEET lifestyle for their child to enjoy when they are older. It wouldn't be indirect murder at that point, just suicide by the NEET on their own terms, not at the fault of the parents who technically at least made an attempt and offered goods of value. Needless to say, this is a small minority of potential parents since most normies are pretty shitty people, and consequently make for shitty parents raising more shitty normies who in turn become shitty people and shitty parents themselves, rinse repeat.

I actually like thinking about "weird questions" even if I don't have any myself right now, so please feel free to ask more. Good stuff.

>>1203
>and stealing in itself is already unethical for anybody
Not really, I'm sure a lot of people would not perceive it as unethical if you were to steal something when you are homeless and starving or in a similar situation where you are unable to buy food. Especially since you'd probably steal it from a supermarket and I don't think a large company would have to fire thousands of people because you stole that one piece of meat.

>>1213
Consistent ethics of morality are universal and do not have exceptions like "If X then you are morally justified to Y." The reason being, is that while it may appear that soldiers in war are morally justified in taking the life of other human beings, they still bear the moral guilty of having broken the fundamental principle of "initiating violence and killing people in cold blood is morally wrong" (immediate self-defense is different, because deliberately going to other countries to kill people is hardly self-defense).

So what this means is that in your example, if someone was truly homeless and/or starving then they can just ask normies for assistance instead of robbery. If their case is true and that it wasn't any of their own doing, i.e. they aren't stealing goods to resell for drug money or a pistol to mug people with, then normies tend to be favorable and would voluntarily give foods and things out of mercy. They may even offer to house you temporarily until you get back on your feet, or point you in the right direction.

The problem is that if any random person just starts stealing things left and right, and when confronted by the police he simply says "but I am homeless and/or starving, I am morally justified in stealing!" then you will see a lot of thieves DELIBERATELY act or look homeless/starving in order to freely get away with stealing. Thus, while a large company certainly wouldn't fire thousands of people because you stole that one piece of meat, they certainly don't want to make the "but I am homeless/starving" moral wildcard a thing, since people would undoubtedly begin exploit it intentionally en masse.

To put it in another way, suppose a man breaks into your room and tries to steal your computer along with all your food. You catch him in the act, and you ask him why is he doing all this. He says:

>"But I am homeless and starving!"

Do you just let him leave peacefully with your computer and all your food, because you had made a moral exception? I doubt it, when the right thing for him to do was ask if he could have some food, and then if you were feeling merciful, you would grant him food voluntarily. Then you could also tell him where the local public library is so he can use the internet for free.

In short, making moral loopholes is extremely, extremely dangerous since normies would leap at the chance of exploiting it. Stealing, like rape, murder, and assault, are among the few universally consistent moral evils present in almost all human cultures (and the few cultures that do celebrate such things do not tend to last very long, because nobody likes getting stolen from, raped, and murdered!).

Basically if you think any moral exemption can be justified to other people for any reason, then it can be justified on YOU for any reason.

>>1203
But the meat makers have already stolen the life, it'd be a waste to not eat it and a tragedy for them to profit from it. most vegans probably don't think much into it though except meat = bad.
>Harming others ceases to be hedonism
Worded that a bit harshly honestly, it's more like they hurt themselves through labor for me to live while I never particularly wanted too. My hedonism is staying in my room and listening to weeb music and eating frozen pizzas. I've never hurt someone physically but maybe emotionally.
>abortion
I agree it's a lot more ethical than having a kid but still irresponsible.
I kind of agree with the wealthy family thing but they often are messed up too, maybe my ideals trump even those of the rich.
>>1213
Yea with the amount of food we throw away anyway I think it's ridiculous to count every penny made from sustenance, but then soon the populace would take advantage.
>>1215
>suppose a man breaks into your room and tries to steal your computer
I would immediately start the suicide ritual.
> making moral loopholes is extremely, extremely dangerous since normies would leap
Normalfags strike once again.

>>1252
>it'd be a waste to not eat it
This is irrelevant, for if now the principle that justifies stealing is "because it would be a waste," then the same warm-blooded normalfag earlier could justify stealing anything you're not immediately using, such as your computer when you're asleep. Remember, it would be a waste for a computer to be left idle when someone else could be using it at any time. The same could be said of your toothbrush, clothes, and of course your food.

So I hope it is clear why "because it would be a waste" cannot be made a principle to justify stealing – it is just far too easy for normalfag warm-bloods to exploit. (and if you can make an exemption for yourself or certain groups, so can normalfag warm-bloods for themselves and for groups they like.)

>Worded that a bit harshly honestly, it's more like they hurt themselves through labor for me to live while I never particularly wanted too. My hedonism is staying in my room and listening to weeb music and eating frozen pizzas. I've never hurt someone physically but maybe emotionally.
My apologies if I had worded it harshly, for I was under the impression that "hurt" meant in terms of physical violence. In that case, they are the ones hurting themselves if you are just minding your own business doing your own thing. Any emotional pain they claim you are inflicting on them, they are in fact inflicting on themselves as from how I understand it, you do not mean to emotionally hurt them deliberately in any malicious manner for malice's sake.

Think of it this way, suppose one day while you're doing the same routine for yourself as any other day, and they just accept the nature of the situation. Thus, they cease inflicting themselves pain because they are the ones choosing to do it to themselves, not you. Of course it would be different if you intentionally take up the lifestyle to "hurt" them KNOWING that it would do so (which is then malice), but this does not appear to be the case.

Basically, you have chosen your lifestyle without any explicit intention of inflicting pain. Any pain then, would be from people who choose to hurt themselves in their interpretation. One could clarify this relationship with them, but it is highly doubtful that they could ever fully understand. I would actually advise against it, for they may respond negatively.

>I kind of agree with the wealthy family thing but they often are messed up too, maybe my ideals trump even those of the rich.
I don't deny that wealthy families can have flaws, but consider what your life would be like if money was never a concern for you or your parents. There is the risk of becoming spoiled, but better spoiled than starved in a poor household with abusive/alcoholic parents (which I can speak from direct experience that yes, it sucked).

>Normalfags strike once again.
They will always strike. A ship with holes, is a ship that will sink. If morality/ethics was the ship, then any exemption for any reason would be the hole that warm-blooded normalfags seep into to sink it. If no holes can ever be made, stealing is then universally "wrong" for lizards and warm-bloods alike as it should be. If anyone disagrees, then let them be the first to have all their stuff stolen from.

If someone is walking forward is he technically moonwalking backward or do you have to do the weird push thing with your toes to count as backwards moonwalking?

>>1203
>stealing in itself is already unethical for anybody
Not necessarily. It depends entirely on one's worldview. Morals are not something empirical but defined by what you believe and what the society around you believes (in terms of what impacts you as an individual). A great example is Japan in WWII being totally cool with starving POWs and working them to death, then beheading those too weak to work. By any measure of western morality, it's massively fucked up but to them it was easily justifiable as the prisoners letting themselves be captured and deserving their fate.

Getting back to theft, there is the stance of moral nihilism wherein nothing is good and nothing is evil and thus theft in their worldview becomes an act in itself and not a moral act.

The other branch I can think of are Illegalists who either see acts of theft as a positive thing, a morally right action taken against the existing system, or there were Stirnerite Illegalists who instead took a similar view to the moral nihilists but instead of claiming that morality doesn't exist, they were more on the thought train that their theft had no moral basis and was merely an act of the ego upon the principle of 'property through the ability to control it'.

>>3404
No that's what we in the moon walking business call mars walking, and that's strictly for jews and aliens.

Would humanity be better off if we returned to the stone age?

>>3409
I'd say yes but human evilness is innate.
By sheer less population existing to suffer, less needs / damage to the environment I'd say yes. however it'd just be like resetting a time bomb that was near exploding in my eyes.

>Is hedonism bad even when bringing no harm to others other than those who created you?
This seems to be coming from an antinatalist perspective which in itself is a pessimistic form of hedonism. To me, the question reads like "is it alright for me to live by my antinatalist beliefs and not have children even though this decision could be emotionally harmful to my parents?", which you could argue that the harm you're inflicting is a temporary discomfort compared to the continued harm you've chosen to prevent. No further parents will be disappointed by their antinatalist sons because of anything you've done. This is a net good.

>>3409
yes

Is god a pervert for giving man and woman pleasure when they have sex, or just a bit of an asshole?

>>3436
I think gods by proxy a reflection of his creation, good, evil, pure, impure, etc.
I'm pretty sure god and satan as depicted are just one being and seperated into different people so masses feel like a side can eventually win.

Are Touhou the modern day japans equivalent to Roman Mythology?